RD19-3 NERC Petition with All Exhibits

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

North American Electric Reliability
Corporation

)
)

Docket No. _______

PETITION OF THE
NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION
FOR APPROVAL OF
PROPOSED RELIABILITY STANDARD CIP-008-6
Lauren Perotti
Senior Counsel
Marisa Hecht
Counsel
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-400-3000
lauren.perotti@nerc.net
marisa.hecht@nerc.net
Counsel for the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation

March 7, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2

II.

NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................ 5

III. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 5
A.

Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................... 6

B.

NERC Reliability Standards Development Procedure ..................................................... 7

C.

Order No. 848 ................................................................................................................... 7

D.

Development of the Proposed Reliability Standard ......................................................... 9

IV. JUSTIFICATION FOR APPROVAL................................................................................... 10

V.

A.

Overview of Proposed Modifications............................................................................. 10

B.

Proposed Modifications to NERC Glossary Definitions ................................................ 13

C.

Proposed Modifications to Reliability Standard CIP-008-5........................................... 15

D.

Enforceability of Proposed Reliability Standard ............................................................ 27
EFFECTIVE DATE .............................................................................................................. 27

VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 30

Exhibit A

Proposed Reliability Standard

Exhibit B

Implementation Plan

Exhibit C

Order No. 672 Criteria

Exhibit D

Consideration of Directives

Exhibit E

Implementation Guidance

Exhibit F

Technical Rationale

Exhibit G

Analysis of Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels

Exhibit H

Summary of Development History and Complete Record of Development

Exhibit I

Standard Drafting Team Roster

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation

)
)

Docket No. _______

PETITION OF THE
NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION
FOR APPROVAL OF
PROPOSED RELIABILITY STANDARD CIP-008-6
Pursuant to Section 215(d)(1) of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 1 Section 39.5 of the
regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”), 2 the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) 3 hereby submits for Commission approval
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response
Planning. The proposed Reliability Standard addresses the Commission’s directive from Order
No. 848 4 to develop modifications to require reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a Responsible Entity’s 5 Electronic Security Perimeter
(“ESP”) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (“EACMS”) to the
Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (“E-ISAC”) and the Department of Homeland
Security Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (“ICS-CERT”). 6 In

1

16 U.S.C. § 824o (2018).

2

18 C.F.R. § 39.5 (2018).

3

The Commission certified NERC as the electric reliability organization (“ERO”) in accordance with
Section 215 of the FPA. N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2006) (“ERO Certification Order”).
4

Cyber Security Incident Reporting Reliability Standards, Order No. 848, 164 FERC ¶ 61,033 (2018)
(“Order No. 848”).
5

As used in the Critical Infrastructure Protection (“CIP”) Reliability Standards, a Responsible Entity refers
to the registered entities subject to the CIP Reliability Standards.
6
Unless otherwise designated, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards, http://www.nerc.com/files/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf (“NERC Glossary”).

1

addition, the proposed modifications require specific information in Cyber Security Incident
reports and include deadlines for submitting the reports as directed by the Commission.
NERC requests that the Commission approve the proposed Reliability Standard, provided
in Exhibit A hereto, as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public
interest. NERC also requests approval of:
•

the associated Implementation Plan (Exhibit B);

•

the proposed revised definitions of Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber
Security Incident to be incorporated into the NERC Glossary (Exhibit A);

•

the associated Violation Risk Factors (“VRFs”) and Violation Severity Levels
(“VSLs”) (Exhibits A and G); and

•

the retirement of Commission-approved Reliability Standard CIP-008-5.

As required by Section 39.5(a) of the Commission’s regulations, 7 this Petition presents the
technical basis and purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard, a summary of the development
history (Exhibit H), and a demonstration that the proposed Reliability Standard meets the criteria
identified by the Commission in Order No. 672 8 (Exhibit C). The NERC Board of Trustees
(“Board”) adopted the proposed Reliability Standard on February 7, 2019.
I.

SUMMARY
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 requires Responsible Entities to develop and

implement Cyber Security Incident response plans. These plans provide a course of action for
Responsible Entities to detect incidents that affect BES Cyber Systems, 9 minimize loss and
destruction, mitigate weaknesses that were exploited, and help to restore capabilities. The

7

18 C.F.R. § 39.5(a).

8

Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶
31,204 (“Order No. 672”), order on reh’g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
9

The NERC Glossary defines a BES Cyber System as “[o]ne or more BES Cyber Assets logically grouped
by a responsible entity to perform one or more reliability tasks for a functional entity.” The acronym BES refers to
the Bulk Electric System.

2

requirements in proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 specify processes and procedures to be
included in Cyber Security Incident response plans, implementation and testing of these plans,
maintenance of these plans, and mandatory reporting on certain Cyber Security Incidents to
facilitate information sharing on threats among relevant entities.
Consistent with Order No. 848, the modifications in proposed Reliability Standard CIP008-6 broaden the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents to include compromises or
attempts to compromise BES Cyber Systems or their associated ESPs or EACMS. These
modifications address the Commission’s concern that the current reporting requirement under CIP008-5 “may understate the true scope of cyber-related threats facing the Bulk-Power System”
insofar as CIP-008-5 only requires reporting of incidents that have actually compromised or
disrupted one or more reliability tasks. 10 Consistent with the Commission’s directive, the proposed
standard also: (1) requires certain minimum information be included in the incident reports; (2)
includes deadlines for submitting the incident reports; and (3) requires the incident reports to be
sent to ICS-CERT, or its successor, in addition to the E-ISAC. 11
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the Commission’s directive in Order
No. 848 by incorporating each of the above elements within the requirements and relevant
definitions in the NERC Glossary, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security
Incident, as follows:
•

Revisions to Requirement R1 to require:
o implementing a process that includes criteria to evaluate and define attempts
to compromise high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and their
associated ESPs and EACMS; and

10

Order No. 848 at P 2.

11

Id. at PP 2-3.

3

o applying the aforementioned criteria to determine if there was an attempt to
compromise applicable systems.
•

Revisions to Requirement R2 require:
o Responsible Entities use their Cyber Security Incident response plans to
respond to Cyber Security Incidents that involve attempts to compromise
applicable systems; and
o Responsible Entities retain records related to Cyber Security Incidents that
involve attempts to compromise applicable systems.

•

Revisions to the Applicable Systems column and NERC Glossary definitions serve
to broaden the scope of reporting to include ESPs and EACMS.

Proposed new Requirement R4 requires Responsible Entities to report the following to the
E-ISAC and the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (“NCCIC”), the
successor to ICS-CERT 12: (1) Reportable Cyber Security Incidents, which are proposed to include
Cyber Security Incidents that have compromised or disrupted ESPs, EACMS, or a BES Cyber
System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; and (2) attempts to
compromise a BES Cyber System, an ESP, or an EACMS, as defined by the Responsible Entity’s
criteria. These initial reports must occur within the following timelines: (1) one hour of the
Responsible Entity’s determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and (2) by the end of
the next calendar day after determination of an attempt to compromise a BES Cyber System, an
ESP, or an EACMS. If known at the time of initial notification, Responsible Entities must report
on the following three attributes: (1) the functional impact, (2) the attack vector used, and (3) the
level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted. If not reported during initial notification,
Responsible Entities must report on the each of the three attributes within seven days of the
determination of each attribute.

12

Since Order No. 848 was issued, ICS-CERT functions have been taken over by NCCIC. As such, the
standard drafting team used NCCIC, the successor of ICS-CERT, in its proposed revisions. In addition, the standard
drafting team included “or their successors” after the E-ISAC and NCCIC to help ensure the standard stays relevant
if either organization changes its name or its duties fall to another organization in the future.

4

By broadening the reporting requirements, the proposed modifications are expected to
enhance awareness of existing and future cyber security threats and potential vulnerabilities. The
proposed standard provides Responsible Entities the flexibility to assess the unique characteristics
of their operating environment and identify and report suspicious activities accordingly. By
allowing Responsible Entities the flexibility to refine their reporting, the E-ISAC and the NCCIC
can expect to receive more accurate information on actual threats. The resulting information
sharing from enhanced reporting to the E-ISAC and the NCCIC will help to better prepare the
electric industry to protect critical infrastructure against compromise.
II.

NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS
Notices and communications with respect to this filing may be addressed to the

following: 13
Lauren Perotti*
Senior Counsel
Marisa Hecht*
Counsel
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
1325 G Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-400-3000
lauren.perotti@nerc.net
marisa.hecht@nerc.net

III.

Howard Gugel*
Senior Director of Engineering and
Standards
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
3353 Peachtree Road, N.E.
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560
howard.gugel@nerc.net

BACKGROUND
The following background information is provided below: (a) an explanation of the

regulatory framework for NERC; (b) a description of the NERC Reliability Standards

13

Persons to be included on the Commission’s service list are identified by an asterisk. NERC respectfully
requests a waiver of Rule 203 of the Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 385.203, to allow the inclusion of more
than two persons on the service list in this proceeding.

5

Development Procedure; (c) an overview of the Order No. 848 directive addressed in this Petition;
and (d) the history of the Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting.
A.

Regulatory Framework

By enacting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 14 Congress entrusted the Commission with the
duties of approving and enforcing rules to ensure the reliability of the Bulk-Power System, and
with the duty of certifying an ERO that would be charged with developing and enforcing
mandatory Reliability Standards, subject to Commission approval. Section 215(b)(1) of the FPA
states that all users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System in the United States will be
subject to Commission-approved Reliability Standards. 15 Section 215(d)(5) of the FPA authorizes
the Commission to order the ERO to submit a new or modified Reliability Standard. 16 Section
39.5(a) of the Commission’s regulations requires the ERO to file for Commission approval each
Reliability Standard that the ERO proposes should become mandatory and enforceable in the
United States, and each modification to a Reliability Standard that the ERO proposes to make
effective. 17
The Commission has the regulatory responsibility to approve Reliability Standards that
protect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System and to ensure that such Reliability Standards are
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Pursuant to
Section 215(d)(2) of the FPA and Section 39.5(c) of the Commission’s regulations, the

14

16 U.S.C. § 824o.

15

Id. § 824o(b)(1).

16

Id. § 824o(d)(5).

17

18 C.F.R. § 39.5(a).

6

Commission will give due weight to the technical expertise of the ERO with respect to the content
of a Reliability Standard. 18
B.

NERC Reliability Standards Development Procedure

The proposed Reliability Standard was developed in an open and fair manner and in
accordance with the Commission-approved Reliability Standard development process. 19 NERC
develops Reliability Standards in accordance with Section 300 (Reliability Standards
Development) of its Rules of Procedure and the NERC Standard Processes Manual. 20 In its ERO
Certification Order, the Commission found that NERC’s proposed rules provide for reasonable
notice and opportunity for public comment, due process, openness, and a balance of interests in
developing Reliability Standards and thus satisfy certain criteria for approving Reliability
Standards. 21 The development process is open to any person or entity with a legitimate interest in
the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. NERC considers the comments of all stakeholders.
Further, a vote of stakeholders and adoption by the Board is required before NERC submits the
Reliability Standard to the Commission for approval.
C.

Order No. 848

Order No. 848 adopts the proposals included in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued
on December 21, 2017. 22 In Order No. 848, the Commission directed NERC to develop and submit

18

16 U.S.C. § 824o(d)(2); 18 C.F.R. § 39.5(c)(1).

19

Order No. 672 at P 334.

20
The NERC Rules of Procedure are available at: http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Pages/Rules-ofProcedure.aspx. The NERC Standard Processes Manual is available at:
http://www.nerc.com/comm/SC/Documents/Appendix_3A_StandardsProcessesManual.pdf.
21

ERO Certification Order at P 250.

22

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Cyber Security Incident Reporting Reliability Standards, 161 FERC ¶
61,291 (2017).

7

modifications to the NERC Reliability Standards to augment mandatory reporting of Cyber
Security Incidents. 23 The Commission directed the modifications to be submitted to FERC within
six months of the effective date of Order No. 848. 24 Specifically, the Commission directed that
NERC modify the standard to:
•

expand mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents to include compromises
of, or attempts to compromise, a Responsible Entity’s ESP and associated EACMS
performing certain functions;

•

require certain attributes in the incident reports;

•

include timelines for submitting the incident reports based on the severity of the
incident; and

•

require incident reports be submitted to the ICS-CERT, or its successor, in addition
to the E-ISAC.

The Commission also directed NERC to submit an annual anonymized, public summary of the
reports to the Commission. 25
As mentioned above, the Commission directed that NERC require that the incident reports
include the following minimum set of attributes: “(1) the functional impact, where possible, that
the Cyber Security Incident achieved or attempted to achieve; (2) the attack vector that was used
to achieve or attempted to achieve the Cyber Security Incident; and (3) the level of intrusion that
was achieved or attempted as a result of the Cyber Security Incident.” 26 The Commission also
directed NERC to develop reporting timelines that consider the severity of the event and the risk
to BES reliability. 27

23

Order No. 848 at P 16.

24

Id. at P 37.

25

Order No. 848 at P 16.

26

Id. at P 91.

27

Id. at P 89.

8

The Commission also provided guidance on certain aspects of how NERC should identify
EACMS for reporting purposes and define “attempts to compromise.” With regard to EACMS,
the Commission stated that NERC’s reporting threshold should encompass the functions that
various EACMS technologies provide, which must include, at a minimum: (1) authentication; (2)
monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; and (5) alerting. 28 With
regard to the definition of “attempted compromise” for reporting purposes, the Commission stated
it “considers attempted compromise to include an unauthorized access attempt or other confirmed
suspicious activity.” 29
D.

Development of the Proposed Reliability Standard

As further described in Exhibit H hereto, NERC initiated Project 2018-02 Modifications to
CIP-008 (“Project 2018-02”) and appointed a standard drafting team (Exhibit I) to address the
Commission’s directive in Order No. 848. On October 3, 2018, NERC posted the initial draft of
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 for a 20-day comment period, which included an initial
ballot during the last 5 days of the comment period. 30 The initial ballot did not receive the requisite
approval from the ballot pool. After considering comments to the initial draft, NERC posted a
second draft of CIP-008-6 for a 15-day comment period and ballot on November 15, 2018, which
included an additional ballot during the last 10 days of the comment period. 31 The second draft of
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 received the requisite approval with affirmative votes of

28

Id. at P 54.

29

Id. at P 55.

30

Pursuant to Standard Processes Manual Section 16, the NERC Standards Committee granted NERC’s
request to waive Standard Processes Manual provisions 4.7-4.9 to post the Reliability Standard for a 45-day initial
comment period and ballot.
31

Pursuant to Standard Processes Manual Section 16, the NERC Standards Committee granted NERC’s
request to waive Standard Processes Manual provisions 4.9 and 4.12 to post the Reliability Standard for a 45-day
additional comment period and ballot.

9

75.54 percent of the ballot pool. On January 15, 2019, NERC conducted an eight-day final ballot
for proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, which received affirmative votes of 77.89 percent of
the ballot pool. 32 The Board adopted the proposed Reliability Standard on February 7, 2019.
IV.

JUSTIFICATION FOR APPROVAL
As discussed below and in Exhibit C, the proposed Reliability Standard addresses the

Commission’s directive in Order No. 848 to broaden mandatory reporting requirements and is just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. This section
provides an explanation of the following:
•

Overview of proposed modifications (Subsection A);

•

Proposed modifications to NERC Glossary definitions (Subsection B);

•

Proposed modifications to the CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard (Subsection C); and

•

The enforceability of the proposed Reliability Standard (Subsection D).
A.

Overview of Proposed Modifications

The purpose of currently effective Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 is to mitigate the risk to
the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident
response requirements. Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 advances this objective by requiring the
following:
•

implementing a Cyber Security Incident response plan that includes:
o processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents;
o processes to determine whether a Cyber Security Incident should be
reported to the E-ISAC as a Reportable Cyber Security Incident within one
hour of determination;
o roles and responsibilities of Cyber Security Incident response groups or
individuals; and
o incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents;

32
Pursuant to Standard Processes Manual Section 16, the NERC Standards Committee granted NERC’s
request to waive Standard Processes Manual provision 4.9 to post the Reliability Standard for a 10-day final ballot.

10

•

testing and using the Cyber Security Incident response plan and retaining records
related to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents; and

•

maintaining the plan based on testing or actual Reportable Cyber Security Incidents
or based on changes to roles, responsibilities, individuals, groups, or technology.

Similar to Reliability Standard CIP-008-5, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
advances the same objective through expanded mandatory reporting requirements. Currently under
CIP-008-5, incidents that meet the definition of Cyber Security Incident are subject to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan. Under Reliability Standard CIP-008-5, only Cyber Security
Incidents that meet the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident are those that are subject
to reporting requirements pursuant to Requirement R1, Part 1.2. As part of this broadening of the
reporting requirements, proposed CIP-008-6 expanded the NERC Glossary definition of
Reportable Cyber Security Incident as well as Cyber Security Incident to capture additional
incidents.
Moreover, there are more Cyber Security Incidents to report under proposed CIP-008-6
than those included as a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Proposed CIP-008-6, Requirement
R4 also requires Responsible Entities to report Cyber Security Incidents that meet the criteria for
attempts to compromise applicable systems as defined under Requirement R1, Part 1.2. Because
attempts to compromise applicable systems will be defined by each Responsible Entity, the
standard drafting team determined that it is appropriate to include that obligation in the
requirement language rather than have a NERC Glossary definition that requires Responsible
Entities to develop a definition. As a result, under the proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6,
Responsible Entities are required to report more Cyber Security Incidents than only those that meet
the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Although proposed Reliability Standard CIP008-6 retains much of the structure of CIP-008-5, this is a change from the current obligation to

11

only report those Cyber Security Incidents that meet the Reportable Cyber Security Incident
definition.
Incident reports for both Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Incidents
that are attempts to compromise applicable systems must contain the following attributes, either
initially or as a follow up: (1) the functional impact; (2) the attack vector used; and (3) the level of
intrusion that was achieved or attempted as required under proposed Requirement R4, Part 4.1.
Proposed CIP-008-6, Requirement R4, Parts 4.2 and 4.3 include timelines for initial reports
as well as follow up reports to the E-ISAC and NCCIC. Initial reports for Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents must occur within one hour of its determination. Once a Responsible Entity has
determined that a Cyber Security Incident meets its criteria for an attempt to compromise an
applicable system, it must report the Cyber Security Incident by the end of the next calendar day.
Finally, if the Responsible Entity did not include one or more of the attributes in its initial report
as it was unknown at the time, it must report the attributes within seven days of determining the
attribute.
As described more fully in Sections B and C, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
addresses the components of the directive throughout proposed Requirements R1, R2, and R4; the
revised Applicable Systems column for all requirements; and the revised definitions as follows:
•

Report to NCCIC: Requirement R4 addresses the component to send reports to
NCCIC in addition to E-ISAC.

•

Attempts to compromise: Revisions to Requirement R1, Part 1.2 and Requirement
R2, Parts 2.2 and 2.3 and new Requirement R4 address the component on defining
attempts to compromise applicable systems and reporting on Cyber Security
Incidents that are attempts to compromise applicable systems.

•

EACMS and ESP: The revised Applicable Systems column and the revisions to the
definitions address the component on adding compromises and attempts to
compromise EACMS and ESP to those Cyber Security Incidents that must be
reported.

12

B.

•

Attributes: Requirement R4, Part 4.1 addresses the component of the directive
requiring certain content, or attributes, to be included in reports.

•

Timelines: Requirement R4, Parts 4.2 and 4.3 address the component in the
directive on timelines for initial and follow up reporting.
Proposed Modifications to NERC Glossary Definitions

The Project 2018-02 standard drafting team revised two definitions in the NERC Glossary
to address the Order No. 848 directive: Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security
Incident. The following sections describe how the revisions to each definition address the directive.
1) Cyber Security Incident
NERC proposes to revise the definition of Cyber Security Incident as follows:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
• For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, Ccompromises, or was an
attempts to compromise, (1) the an Electronic Security Perimeter, or(2) a Physical
Security Perimeter, or, (3) an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System;
or
• Disrupts, or was an attempts to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.
The definition of Cyber Security Incident is foundational for proposed CIP-008-6. Once a
Responsible Entity determines that an event is a Cyber Security Incident, the Responsible Entity
must comply with the requirements of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, including
initiating its response plan and reporting the incident to the E-ISAC and the NCCIC, if applicable.
As discussed above, the Commission directed NERC to require reporting of compromises
and attempts to compromise EACMS, particularly those that perform: (1) authentication; (2)
monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; and (5) alerting. To
address the directive, the standard drafting team revised the definition of Cyber Security Incident
to include compromises or attempts to compromise EACMS. The standard drafting team observed
that nearly all EACMS perform at least one of the functions listed by the Commission. As a result,
the standard drafting team included all EACMS in the Cyber Security Incident definition rather
13

than list the functions. This meets the intent of the Commission’s directive while providing a clear
and concise definition.
The revised definition of Cyber Security Incident also includes revisions that improve
clarity. First, the definition clarifies that compromises or attempts to compromise an ESP, PSP, or
EACMS are for high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems. The current definition of Cyber
Security Incident does not include the phrase “for high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems”
when referring to ESP and PSP. However, under the CIP suite of standards, only high and medium
impact BES Cyber Systems have ESPs and PSPs. Adding the phrase “for high or medium impact
BES Cyber Systems” clarifies the intent of the definition. Second, the standard drafting team
revised the definition for verb agreement. The standard drafting team changed “was an attempt”
to “attempts” so that the verb agrees with the tense of “compromises.” These changes enhance the
Cyber Security Incident definition by providing additional clarity.
2) Reportable Cyber Security Incident
The standard drafting team determined to include only actual compromises or disruptions,
not attempts to compromise, in the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident, while the
proposed requirements require reporting of attempts to compromise applicable systems, as
discussed more fully in Section C. As noted previously, this means the definition of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident does not include all those Cyber Security Incidents that must be reported
under the proposed standard.
NERC proposes to revise the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident as follows:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
•
•

A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional
entity.;
An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cybe r
System; or
14

•

An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or me dium
impact BES Cyber System.

To meet the component of the FERC directive regarding ESP and EACMS, the standard
drafting team added compromises of ESP and EACMS to the Reportable Cyber Security Incident
definition. In doing so, these types of Cyber Security Incidents become Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents, which broadens the reporting requirements consistent with the directive in Order No.
848.
Revisions to the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition further broaden the
reporting requirements to include compromises or disruptions of a BES Cyber System that
performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. Under the current definition, a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident only includes a compromise or disruption of the reliability
tasks. By adding the phrase “[a] BES Cyber System that performs,” Responsible Entities will be
required to report on a compromise of a BES Cyber System even if it has not affected performance
of that BES Cyber System’s tasks. This helps to ensure that Responsible Entities report on, for
example, malware installed on a BES Cyber Asset part of a BES Cyber System that performs one
or more reliability tasks regardless of whether the BES Cyber System still operates.
Finally, similar to clarifications to the Cyber Security Incident definition, the standard
drafting team qualified ESP and EACMS with “of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System”
and changed the tense of the verbs “compromised or disrupted” from past perfect to past tense.
C.

Proposed Modifications to Reliability Standard CIP-008-5

This section discusses the modifications in proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 and
how they address the Commission’s Order No. 848 directive, as follows:
•

Subsection 1 describes revisions to the Applicable Systems column in the table of
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 for Requirements R1, R2, R3, and R4 and how

15

these revisions address the component of the directive to report compromises and
attempts to compromise EACMS.
•

Subsection 2 provides detail on proposed Requirement R1, and how the revisions address
the component of the directive on attempts to compromise applicable systems.

•

Subsection 3 provides detail on proposed Requirement R2, and how the revisions address
the component of the directive on attempts to compromise applicable systems.

•

Subsection 4 describes proposed new Requirement R4 and how it addresses the following
components of the Order No. 848 directive: 1) reporting to NCCIC; 2) reporting on
attempts to compromise applicable systems; 3) attributes to be reported; and 4) timelines
for reporting.

•

Subsection 5 highlights other minor modifications in proposed Reliability Standard CIP008-6.
1) Applicable Systems Column
As noted in the Background section of proposed CIP-008-6, “[e]ach table [in the

requirements in the CIP suite of standards] has an ‘Applicable Systems’ column to further define
the scope of systems to which a specific requirement row applies. The [standard drafting team for
CIP-008-5] adapted this concept from the National Institute of Standards and Technology Risk
Management Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics.” 33
The Applicable Systems column in the tables for Requirements R1, R2, R3, and R4 are
revised to include EACMS associated with high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems to bring
those systems within the scope of the CIP-008-6 requirements. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP008-6 does not distinguish between different types of EACMS with respect to applicability as
nearly all EACMS perform at least one of the five functions identified by the Commission in Order

33

See Exhibit A to this Petition, Background section of proposed CIP-008-6 at 4; information on the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Risk Management Framework is available at
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/risk-management/risk-management-framework-(rmf)-overview.

16

No. 848 (i.e., authentication, monitoring and logging, access control, Interactive Remote Access,
and alerting). 34
As ESPs are not “systems,” they are not specifically listed in the Applicable Systems
column of the tables. However, compromises and attempts to compromise ESPs are within the
scope of the proposed standard and must be reported. Under the proposed standard, a Responsible
Entity must consider whether a Cyber Security Incident involved compromises or attempts to
compromise high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems. Under Reliability Standard CIP-005-5,
those BES Cyber Systems, if connected to a network via a routable protocol, must reside within
ESPs. In attempting to compromise an ESP, an attacker is attempting to compromise a high or
medium impact BES Cyber System. Moreover, the Electronic Access Point35 (“EAP”) on the ESP
can be considered an EACMS. Any attempts on the EAP would be brought into scope based on
the EACMS in the Applicable Systems column. As a result, ESP is automatically brought into
scope of the proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 reporting requirements by virtue of the
inclusion of medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems and EACMS in the Applicable Systems
column without need for a specific reference.
2) Requirement R1
The revisions to proposed Requirement R1 include the following:

34

•

Adding processes that include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
compromise applicable systems;36

•

Adding processes to identify Cyber Security Incidents that are attempts to
compromise applicable systems; and

Order No. 848 at P 54.

35
The NERC Glossary defines the EAP as, “[a] Cyber Asset interface on an Electronic Security Perimeter
that allows routable communication between Cyber Assets outside an Electronic Security Perimeter and Cyber
Assets inside an Electronic Security Perimeter.” Under CIP-005-5, Requirement R1, Part 1.2, all External Routable
Connectivity for applicable systems must be through an identified EAP.
36

Applicable systems refers to high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS.

17

•

Adding that the processes to provide notification are per Requirement R4.

Requirement R1, Part 1.2 is expanded to include the following requirements to be applied
to high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS, as follows:
R1.
Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response
plan(s) that collectively include…
1.2

One or more processes to:
1.2.1 That include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 To determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a:
• A Reportable Cyber Security Incident and notify the Electricity
Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC), unless
prohibited by law.; or
• An attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the
criteria from Part 1.2.1, one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this Part; and
1.2.3 To provide notification per Requirement R4. Initial notification to the
ES-ISAC, which may be only a preliminary notice, shall not exceed one
hour from the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. 37

Proposed Requirement R1, Parts 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 address one component of the directive
from Order No. 848 to broaden reporting on Cyber Security Incidents to include those that “attempt
to compromise” an ESP or EACMS. In proposed Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, each Responsible
Entity must develop a process that includes criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise
applicable systems. Proposed Requirement R1, Part 1.2.2 requires that each Responsible Entity
develop a process that identifies whether a Cyber Security Incident is an “attempt to compromise”
pursuant to the criteria required by Part 1.2.1. Parts 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 work together to help ensure
each Responsible Entity first develops criteria for an attempt to compromise then applies the
criteria during its Cyber Security Incident identification process.

37
This language is an excerpt from Requirement R1 and only includes language relevant to understanding the
proposed revisions.

18

Based on standard drafting team discussion and subject matter expert comments, the
standard drafting team determined that the best approach for promoting meaningful and accurate
reporting would be for each Responsible Entity to develop its own criteria to determine which
Cyber Security Incidents amount to an “attempt to compromise” a BES Cyber System, ESP, or
EACMS. This criteria indicates what types of Cyber Security Incidents must then be reported to
the E-ISAC and NCCIC. Each Responsible Entity has a unique operational environment that
experiences different threats. For example, an entity with an EACMS containing both an EAP and
a corporate facing interface to its business networks is likely to experience significantly more
traffic than an entity with a system architecture involving security zones or network segmentation.
As such, the first entity would likely not view the same level of traffic as suspicious compared to
the second entity. Proposed Parts 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 recognize differences in system architecture and
provide each Responsible Entity with the flexibility to develop criteria that reflect what it considers
“suspicious.” The benefit of such an approach, compared to a one-size-fits-all approach, is that it
would enable Responsible Entities to better capture real attempts to compromise. 38
As noted in previous Petitions on CIP standards, the ERO has the authority to evaluate the
reasonableness of the Responsible Entity’s criteria when assessing compliance to ensure the
criteria meets the reliability objective of CIP-008-6. 39 This is consistent with NERC’s statutory
obligation to engage in meaningful compliance oversight and consistent with its oversight of other
CIP standards where Responsible Entities are afforded discretion. 40

38

As an example of how to develop and apply criteria, the standard drafting team developed a proposed
implementation guidance, included in this Petition as Exhibit E.
39

Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability
Standard CIP-003-7, at 22-24, Docket No. RM17-11-000 (Mar. 3, 2017).
40
There is language in the following CIP standards requirements granting Responsible Entities a degree of
discretion: CIP-003-7, Section 3.1; CIP-004-6, Requirement R4, Parts 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4, Requirement R5, Parts 5.2

19

3) Requirement R2
Proposed Requirement R2, which requires the implementation and testing of Cyber
Security Incident response plans, is revised to add attempts to compromise applicable systems in
the required processes developed under Requirement R1 (Requirement R2, Part 2.2) and the
record retention obligations (Requirement R2, Part 2.3). These revisions are incorporated into
proposed Requirement R2, Parts 2.2 and 2.3, which include the following requirements to be
applied to high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS:
R2.
Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident
response plans to collectively include…
2.2

Use the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1 when
responding to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, responding to a Cyber
Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this Part, or performing an exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Document deviations from the plan(s) taken
during the response to the incident or exercise.

2.3

Retain records related to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this Part as per the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1. 41

Similar to the revisions in Requirement R1, the revisions to Requirement R2 address the
component of the Commission’s directive regarding attempts to compromise. The revisions to
Part 2.2 serve to reinforce that Responsible Entities must use their Cyber Security Incident
response plans when responding to a Cyber Security Incident determined to be an attempt to
compromise applicable systems. The revisions to Part 2.3 require Responsible Entities to retain
records related to these types of Cyber Security Incidents.

and 5.5; CIP-007-6, Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and Requirement R4, Parts 4.2 and 4.4; CIP-008-5, Requirement R3,
Part 3.2; and CIP-009-6, Requirement R3, Part 3.2.
41
This language is an excerpt from Requirement R2 and only includes language relevant to understanding the
proposed revisions.

20

4) Requirement R4
Proposed Requirement R4 is a new requirement, applicable to high and medium impact
BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS. It includes requirements to report certain
Cyber Security Incidents to the E-ISAC and the NCCIC. Proposed Requirement R4 also
specifies the (1) required content, or attributes, in those incident reports; and (2) timeframes for
initially reporting the incident and updating the initial report with additional information, as
follows:
R4

Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), 42 or their
successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that
was an attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Requirement
R1, Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column, unless prohibited
by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table
R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.
4.1

Initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a
minimum, to the extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and
4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.

4.2

After the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented
process(es) in Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification within the
following timelines:
• One hour after the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
• By the end of the next calendar day after determination that a Cyber
Security Incident was an attempt to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this Part.

4.3

Provide updates, if any, within 7 calendar days of determination of new or
changed attribute information required in Part 4.1.

42

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization
of the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its
organizational structure and integrated like functions previously performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the
United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).

21

Proposed Requirement R4 addresses the Commission’s directive to require that each report
and update must be sent to the E-ISAC and NCCIC. Currently, Reliability Standard CIP-008-5,
Requirement R1, Part 1.2 requires Responsible Entities to send notification of Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents within an hour of determination to the E-ISAC. The standard drafting team
retained this requirement, moving it into Requirement R4, and broadened the reporting
requirements to include NCCIC as a receiving entity for notification and any follow-up reports.
These notifications and updates must come directly from the Responsible Entity to each agency.
In Order No. 848, the Commission directed NERC to revise Reliability Standard CIP-0085 to require Responsible Entities to submit reports directly to both the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or
its successor (now NCCIC). Requirement R4 thus achieves the benefits listed in Order No. 848 of
helping to ensure timely analysis and notification to other entities of cyber threats and the
protection of confidential information by requiring Responsible Entities report directly to each
organization. 43
Proposed Requirement R4 also requires that Responsible Entities report Cyber Security
Incidents that are attempts to compromise applicable systems. Proposed Requirement R4 includes
a reference to an attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Part 1.2.1, to
indicate that the Responsible Entity’s criteria defines what should be reported as an attempt to
compromise. In addition, proposed Requirement R4, Part 4.2 references the determination made
pursuant to Part 1.2 to indicate that a Cyber Security Incident identified as an attempt to
compromise based on the Responsible Entity’s identification must be reported by the end of the
next calendar day, as discussed more fully below.

43

Order No. 848 at P 90.

22

Requirement R4, Part 4.1 includes the list of attributes a Responsible Entity must submit
to E-ISAC and NCCIC. The standard drafting team incorporated the attributes directed by the
Commission in Order No. 848 as required to be reported to E-ISAC and NCCIC: (1) the functional
impact; (2) the attack vector used; and (3) the level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
Each Responsible Entity must report all information on the attributes known at the time of
reporting pursuant to proposed Part 4.1. However, a Responsible Entity must still submit an initial
report even if upon initial notification the Responsible Entity does not have information on
attributes. The Responsible Entity must then follow up with E-ISAC and NCCIC within the
timeline prescribed by proposed Part 4.3 once attributes are known. The proposed provision thus
strikes a necessary balance between the need to report compromises and attempts to compromise
in a timely manner with the need to perform thorough, accurate, and complete investigations into
Cyber Security Incidents.
Proposed Requirement R4 also dictates timelines for reporting in response to Order No.
848. Proposed Requirement R4, Part 4.2 requires Responsible Entities to notify the E-ISAC of
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents within one hour, which is currently required in Reliability
Standard CIP-008-5, Requirement R1, Part 1.2. This one hour notification timeline also applies to
reports to NCCIC on Reportable Cyber Security Incidents, consistent with Order No. 848. For
attempts to compromise a BES Cyber System, ESP, or EACMS, proposed Part 4.2 requires
notification to both E-ISAC and NCCIC by the end of the next calendar day after determination
that the Cyber Security Incident was an attempt to compromise.
The proposed notification timelines appropriately reflect the severity of the risk of the
respective incidents. Order No. 848 directed that NERC should, “establish reporting timelines that
are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES that loss, compromise, or misuse of those

23

BES Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.” 44 In an actual compromise
of an applicable system, the potential risk of a BES Cyber System impacting reliability is high. As
such, proposed CIP-008-6 would require an entity to report such an incident within one hour of
determining that the incident was a compromise. Such prompt information sharing allows
Responsible Entities to take action to protect BES reliability from the impacts of the loss or misuse
of that compromised BES Cyber System.
For attempts to compromise an applicable system, the risk of impact to BES reliability is
lower because the attacker did not successfully infiltrate the applicable system. Sharing
information on such attempts to compromise helps broaden entities’ situational awareness, but it
does not require the same type of urgent response required after an applicable system is
compromised. Accordingly, under proposed CIP-008-6 Requirement R4, Part 4.2, the Responsible
Entity would have a longer period to report than that provided for an actual compromise.
Specifically, the Responsible Entity would be required to report such attempted compromises by
the end of the next calendar day. This reporting timeline is appropriate to reflect the severity and
risk of these unsuccessful attacks. Further, this reporting timeline provides clarity and provides for
consistent application of requirement language.
In drafting the proposed requirement, the standard drafting team considered FERC’s
guidance in Order No. 848 that, “[f]or lower risk incidents, such as the detection of attempts at
unauthorized access to the responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS, an initial reporting
timeframe between eight and twenty-four hours would provide an early indication of potential
cyber attacks.” 45 While recognizing the need for prompt reporting of such incidents, the standard

44
45

Id. at P 89.
Id.

24

drafting team determined that such an hours-based approach could result in entities needing to
track arbitrary deadlines. For example, if the Responsible Entity makes its determination at 4:39
p.m. on day one, then the deadline to report would be 24 hours later at 4:39 p.m. on day two. Using
24 hours as a deadline would make the Responsible Entity have to keep track of an arbitrary
deadline every time the Responsible Entity needed to report an attempt to compromise. The benefit
of requiring an entity to report by the end of the next calendar day is that it provides a consistent
deadline, 11:59 p.m. local time on day two, for each Cyber Security Incident that needs to be
reported as an attempt to compromise. Responsible Entities can then focus their efforts on
investigating the details of the Cyber Security Incident and submitting accurate and timely reports.
For clarity, and to maintain consistency with the current standard, both reporting deadlines
are triggered from the determination that a Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident or an attempt to compromise. This determination is based on each Responsible Entity’s
process for identification as required under Requirement R1, Part 1.2 of both Reliability Standard
CIP-008-5 and proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6. Arriving at this determination often takes
some investigation, and triggering the timeline from the result of this determination provides the
most clarity in requirement language and is consistent with language from Reliability Standard
CIP-008-5.
In addition, the standard drafting team added a seven-day timeframe for submitting updated
information on any unreported attributes from Part 4.1. The seven-day timeline to report starts
when the Responsible Entity determines the attribute. The seven-day timeline does not start from
the initial notification of the Cyber Security Incident. Similar to the other notification timeframes
in Part 4.2, the notification timeline in Part 4.3 is triggered by the Responsible Entity’s process.
This allows the Responsible Entity to conduct an appropriate investigation that provides timely

25

notification to the relevant organizations but is not rushed by arbitrary deadlines. Further, it helps
to ensure a thorough investigation and more accurate information sharing so that the true threat, or
extent of intrusion, is reported.
5) Other Modifications
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 also contains a number of minor modifications
to align the standard with revisions to other standards or initiatives in other areas.
First, the Interchange Coordinator or Interchange Authority is removed from the
Applicability section of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6. This revision is consistent with
FERC-approved changes to the NERC Compliance Registry under the risk-based registration
initiative. 46
Second, the term “Special Protection Systems” in Applicability subsections 4.1.2.2 and
4.2.1.2 has been replaced with the term “Remedial Action Schemes,” consistent with similar
revisions made to other NERC Reliability Standards. 47
Finally, while not a mandatory and enforceable part of the standard, the Guidelines and
Technical Basis section has been removed from proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
consistent with changes in how NERC maintains such material. 48

46
Order on Electric Reliability Organization Risk Based Registration Initiative and Requiring Compliance
Filing, 150 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2015) (approving removal of the Purchasing Selling Entity and Interchange
Authority/Coordinator from the NERC Compliance Registry).
47
In Order No. 818, the Commission approved NERC’s revised definition of the term “Remedial Action
Scheme” and approved certain Reliability Standards in which references to the term “Special Protections Systems”
were removed and replaced with the term “Remedial Action Schemes”. Revisions to Emergency Operations
Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition
of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards, Order No. 818, 153 FERC ¶ 61, 228 (2015).
48
Consistent with NERC’s Compliance Guidance Policy, the information formerly in this section is now in
proposed implementation guidance (Exhibit E) and a technical rationale document (Exhibit F). For more
information, please refer to the NERC Compliance Guidance Policy available at:
https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/Resources/ResourcesDL/Compliance_Guidance_Policy_FINAL_Board_Accepted_
Nov_5_2015.pdf.

26

D.

Enforceability of Proposed Reliability Standard

The proposed Reliability Standard also includes Measures that support the requirements
by clearly identifying what is required and how the ERO will enforce the requirements. The
Measures help ensure that the requirements will be enforced in a clear, consistent, and nonpreferential manner and without prejudice to any party. 49 Additionally, the proposed Reliability
Standard includes VRFs and VSLs. The VRFs and VSLs provide guidance on the way that NERC
will enforce the requirement of the proposed Reliability Standard. The VRFs and VSLs for the
proposed Reliability Standard comport with NERC and Commission guidelines related to their
assignment. Exhibit G provides a detailed review of the revised VRF and VSLs, and the analysis
of how the VRF and VSLs were determined using these guidelines.
V.

EFFECTIVE DATE
NERC respectfully requests that the Commission approve the proposed Reliability

Standard to become effective as set forth in the proposed Implementation Plan, provided in Exhibit
B hereto. The proposed Implementation Plan provides that the proposed Reliability Standard and
the modified NERC Glossary definitions of Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber
Security Incident shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18
calendar months after the effective date of the Commission’s order approving the proposed
Reliability Standard. As to the proposed modified definitions, the Implementation Plan provides
that their effective date corresponds to the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard CIP008-6.
The 18-month implementation period is designed to afford Responsible Entities sufficient
time to ensure entities can be fully compliant with the proposed Reliability Standard by the

49

Order No. 672 at P 327.

27

effective date. The proposed implementation period reflects considerations provided by subject
matter experts that eighteen months is needed to provide Responsible Entities time to develop and
implement Cyber Security Incident response plans that incorporate the broadened reporting
requirements. In addition, NERC and E-ISAC may use this time to consider how to appropriately
collect the potential increase in the number of reports.
Eighteen months provides entities the necessary time to develop the criteria for defining
attempts to compromise. As noted above, proposed Requirement R1, Part 1.2 requires entities to
have a process that includes criteria for defining attempts to compromise. Subject matter experts
indicated that development of this criteria will take resources to help ensure that the criteria set the
appropriate thresholds to capture actual attempts to compromise. Without the proper time to
consider this criteria, entities risk either capturing too much or too little of what should be reported.
The former may inundate the entity, E-ISAC, and NCCIC with unnecessary and unhelpful
information, whereas the latter would not alert industry to potential risks. As such, entities need
time to carefully consider appropriate criteria and train on this criteria so that staff can apply it
correctly.
In addition, the proposed 18-month implementation period helps entities maintain their
existing schedule for testing of Cyber Security Incident response plans as currently required under
Requirement R2, Part 2.1 of CIP-008-5. In that requirement, entities must test their Cyber Security
Response Plans at least once every 15 calendar months. Proposed CIP-008-6 retains this
requirement. With an 18-month implementation period, entities can incorporate the updated
requirements into their existing testing schedule rather than reset their schedule solely for
compliance purposes.

28

Finally, subject matter experts commented that obtaining approval for cost increases within
their entities’ annual budget cycle impacts how quickly an entity can implement enhanced
requirements. For smaller entities, enhanced requirements may require extra consulting services
to implement the requirements or to provide cyber security expertise. In addition, entities may
need to hire new staff or install new equipment, such as enhanced logging capabilities, to
implement the requirements. Each of these items needs budget approval, and depending on the
timing of the annual budget cycle, some entities may not get approval until nearly a year after
issuance of the order approving proposed CIP-008-6. As such, these entities would need additional
time after the budget approval to actually implement CIP-008-6. The standard drafting team
determined that 18 months provided time for entities to secure necessary funding within the annual
budget cycle and to implement the requirements prior to the effective date of CIP-008-6. 50

50

The Commission considers how the implementation plan, “balances any urgency in the need to implement
it against the reasonableness of the time allowed for those who must comply to develop the necessary procedures,
software, facilities, staffing or other relevant capability.” Order No. 672 at P 333.

29

VI.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, NERC respectfully requests that the Commission approve:
•

proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, and associated elements included in Exhibit
A and G;

•

the proposed Implementation Plan included in Exhibit B;

•

the revised definitions to be incorporated into the NERC Glossary included in Exhibit
A; and

•

the retirement of Commission-approved Reliability Standard CIP-008-5.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marisa Hecht
Lauren Perotti
Senior Counsel
Marisa Hecht
Counsel
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-400-3000
lauren.perotti@nerc.net
marisa.hecht@nerc.net
Counsel for the North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Date: March 7, 2019

30

Exhibit A
Proposed Reliability Standards

Exhibit A
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 Clean and Redline

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-6

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner
4.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

Page 1 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.6 Transmission Operator
4.1.7 Transmission Owner
4.2.

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-6:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.

Page 2 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.
5.

Effective Dates:
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems. CIP003, CIP-004, CIP-005, CIP-006, CIP-007, CIP-008, CIP-009, CIP-010, and CIP-011
require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural controls to
mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc.] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in its documented processes,
but must address the applicable requirements in the table.
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it is commonly understood. For example, documented processes describing a
response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident response plans and recovery
plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an approach involving multiple
procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a particular subject matter. Examples in
the standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel
training program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could
also be referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply
any additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.

Page 3 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.
•

High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization processes.

•

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.

Page 4 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation
Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process(es) to identify, classify,
and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents.

Page 5 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Requirements
One or more processes:
1.2.1 That include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 To determine if an identified
Cyber Security Incident is:
•

A Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or

•

An attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Part 1.2.1, one or
more systems
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for this Part;
and

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that is determined to be an
attempt to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column including justification for
attempt determination criteria and
documented processes for
notification.

1.2.3 To provide notification per
Requirement R4.

Page 6 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.3

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:
•

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•
1.4

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Page 7 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R2. Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time Operations].
M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing.
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Requirements
Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:
•
•
•

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

Page 8 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, responding to
a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for this Part, or performing an
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken
during the response to the incident or
exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this
Part as per the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined
to be an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column.

Page 9 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3. Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].
M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Page 10 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
• EACMS
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and response:
their associated:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
• EACMS
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
• Emails;
• USPS or other mail service;
• Electronic distribution system;
or
• Training sign-in sheets.

Page 11 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
• EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and that the Responsible Entity determines
their associated:
would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
• EACMS
3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
• Emails;
• USPS or other mail service;
• Electronic distribution
system; or
• Training sign-in sheets.

Page 12 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R4. Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
(NCCIC), 1 or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table
R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations
Assessment].
M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
•

EACMS

Requirements
Initial notifications and updates shall
include the following attributes, at a
minimum, to the extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial
notifications and updates to the EISAC and NCCIC.

4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and integrated like functions previously
performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).
Page 13 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
•

4.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
•

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
•

Requirements

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial
notification within the following
timelines:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and NCCIC.

•

One hour after the
determination of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.

•

By the end of the next calendar
day after determination that a
Cyber Security Incident was an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
this Part.

Provide updates, if any, within 7
calendar days of determination of new
or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of submissions to
the E-ISAC and NCCIC.

EACMS

Page 14 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1. Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the
ERO or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall
serve as the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period
since the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:
•

Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for
three calendar years.

•

If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the
non-compliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified
above, whichever is longer.

•

The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent
audit records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:
•

Compliance Audit

•

Self-Certification

•

Spot Checking

•

Compliance Investigation

•

Self-Reporting

•

Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:
None

Page 15 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1

Time
Horizon
Long Term
Planning

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)

VRF
Lower

Lower VSL
N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)
OR

The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
OR
Security Incident
The Responsible Entity response plan, but the
has developed the
plan does not include
Cyber Security
one or more
Incident response
processes to identify
plan(s), but the plan
Reportable Cyber
does not include
Security Incidents or a
incident handling
Cyber Security
procedures for Cyber
Incident that was an
Security Incidents.
attempt to
(1.4)
compromise, as
determined by
OR
applying the criteria
The Responsible Entity from Part 1.2.1, a
has developed a Cyber system identified in
Page 16 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

Security Incident
the “Applicable
response plan, but the Systems” column for
plan does not include Part 1.2. (1.2)
one or more processes
to provide notification
per Requirement R4.
(1.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
that include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise. (1.2)
R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months
between tests of the
plan(s). (2.1)
OR
Page 17 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

OR

The Responsible Entity
The Responsible Entity did not retain relevant
records related to
did not document
Reportable Cyber
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a Security Incidents or
Cyber Security
test or when a
Incidents that were an
Reportable Cyber
attempt to
Security Incident or a
compromise a system
Cyber Security
identified in the
Incident that was an
“Applicable Systems”
attempt to
compromise a system column for Part 2.3.
(2.3)
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.2
occurs. (2.2)
R3

Operations
Assessment

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan within greater
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber

Page 18 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days

Severe VSL
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 90 calendar
days of any of the
following changes that
the responsible entity
Page 19 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.
R4

Operations
Assessment

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.2
but failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Requirement R1,
Part 1.2.1, a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column. (R4)

Severe VSL

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident but
failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

OR
Page 20 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)

VRF

Lower VSL
timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.3
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes within 7
days after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Part 4.1. (4.3)

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Page 21 of 24

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.1
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes after
determination
pursuant to Part 4.1.
(4.1)
D. Regional Variances

None.

E. Interpretations

None.

F. Associated Documents

None.

Page 22 of 24

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to “control
center.”

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the requirements and to
bring the compliance elements into
conformance with the latest guidelines for
developing compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a Responsible
Entity.
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to Compliance
Enforcement Authority.

2

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the sentence
pertaining to removing component or system
from service in order to perform testing, in
response to FERC order issued September 30,
2009.

3

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for Critical
Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

Update
Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving VRFs and
VSLs revisions to certain CIP standards.

Update

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed

Page 23 of 24

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Version

Date

Action

Change Tracking
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

6

2/7/2019

Adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees.

Modified to
address directives
in FERC Order No.
848

Page 24 of 24

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-56

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Special Protection System or Remedial Action Scheme
where the Special Protection System or Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner

Page 1 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.5 Interchange Coordinator or Interchange Authority
4.1.64.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

4.2.

4.1.74.1.6

Transmission Operator

4.1.84.1.7

Transmission Owner

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Special Protection System or Remedial Action Scheme
where the Special Protection System or Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-56:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.

Page 2 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.
5.
1.

2.

6.
6.

Effective Dates:
24 Months Minimum – CIP-008-5 shall become effective on the later of July 1,
2015, or the first calendar day of the ninth calendar quarter after the effective
date of the order providing applicable regulatory approval.
In those jurisdictions where no regulatory approval is required, CIP-008-5 shall
become effective on the first day of the ninth calendar quarter following Board of
Trustees’ approval, or as otherwise made effective pursuant to the laws
applicable to such ERO governmental authorities.
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008-5 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002-5 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems.
CIP-003-5, CIP-004-5, CIP-005-5, CIP-006-5, CIP-007-5, CIP-008-5, CIP-009-5, CIP-010-1,
and CIP-011-1 require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural
controls to mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems. This suite of CIP Standards is referred
to as the Version 5 CIP Cyber Security Standards.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc].] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in theirits documented
processes, but they must address the applicable requirements in the table.

Page 3 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it makes sense and is commonly understood. For example, documented
processes describing a response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident
response plans and recovery plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an
approach involving multiple procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a particular subject matter. Examples in
the standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel
training program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could
also be referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply
any additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact

Page 4 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.


High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.



Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.

Page 5 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R2.R1.
Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include
each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].
M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Page 6 of 32

EACMS

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process(es) to identify, classify,
and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents.

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
1.2

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

One or more processes to:
1.2.1 That include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 To determine if an identified
Cyber Security Incident is a:


A Reportable Cyber
Security Incident and
notify; or



An attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the Electricity
Sector Information
Sharingcriteria from
Part 1.2.1, one or more
systems identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for
this Part; and Analysis
Center (ES-ISAC),
unless prohibited by
law. Initial

1.2.3 To provide notification to
the ES-ISAC, which may be
only a preliminary notice,
shall not exceed one hour
from the determination of a
Reportable Cyber Security

Page 7 of 32

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents and documentation
of initial notices to the Electricity
Sector Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). or a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined to
be an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column including
justification for attempt
determination criteria and
documented processes for
notification.

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part

1.3

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Incident.per Requirement
R4.
The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:

1.4

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Page 8 of 32

EACMS

Measures

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Page 9 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R2. Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time Operations].
M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing.

CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:





Page 10 of 32

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Page 11 of 32

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, responding to
a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for this Part, or performing an
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken
during the response to the incident or
exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this
Part as per the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents. and a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined
to be an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column.

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3. Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].
M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Page 12 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
 EACMS
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and response:
their associated:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
 EACMS
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Page 13 of 32

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and that the Responsible Entity determines
their associated:
would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
 EACMS
3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Page 14 of 32

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R4. Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
(NCCIC),1 or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table
R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations
Assessment].
M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


1

EACMS

Requirements
Initial notifications and updates shall
include the following attributes, at a
minimum, to the extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial
notifications and updates to the EISAC and NCCIC.

4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and integrated like functions previously
performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).

Page 15 of 32

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


4.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


Page 16 of 32

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial
notification within the following
timelines:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and NCCIC.



One hour after the
determination of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar
day after determination that a
Cyber Security Incident was an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
this Part.

Provide updates, if any, within 7
calendar days of determination of new
or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of submissions to
the E-ISAC and NCCIC.

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1. Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the
ERO or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall
serve as the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period
since the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for
three calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the
non-compliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified
above, whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent
audit records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:
None

Page 17 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. 2. Table of Compliance Elements

R#
R1

Time
Horizon
Long Term
Planning

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL
Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)
OR

OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents. or
a Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Part 1.2.1, a

Page 18 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
to provide notification
per Requirement R4.
(1.2)

system identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for
Part 1.2. (1.2)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months
between tests of the
plan.(s). (2.1)

OR

The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but did
OR
not provide at least
The Responsible Entity preliminary
has developed a Cyber notification to ES-ISAC
Security Incident
within one hour from
response plan, but the identification of a
plan does not include
Reportable Cyber
one or more processes Security Incident. (1.2)
that include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise. (1.2)
R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar

Page 19 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL
months between tests
of the plan.(s). (2.1)

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

months between tests
of the plan.(s). (2.1)

months between tests
of the plan.(s). (2.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident
occurs. (2.2)or a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.2
occurs. (2.2)

R3

Operations
Assessment

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan within greater

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a

OR
The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents.
(2.3) or Cyber Security
Incidents that were an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.3.
(2.3)

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a

Page 20 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 60 and less

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 90 calendar
days of any of the
following changes that
Page 21 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

than 90 calendar days
of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

the responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

Severe VSL

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

Page 22 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R4

Operations
Assessment

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.2
but failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.3
but failed to report on

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Requirement R1,
Part 1.2.1, a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column. (R4)

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident but
failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

Page 23 of 32

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
one or more of the
attributes within 7
days after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Part 4.1. (4.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.1
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes after
determination
pursuant to Part 4.1.
(4.1)
D. Regional Variances

None.

Page 24 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
E. Interpretations

None.
F. Associated Documents

None.

Page 25 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Guidelines and Technical Basis
Section 4 – Scope of Applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Standards
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible Entities to
determine the scope of the applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard applies. If the entity
is registered as one or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1, then the NERC CIP Cyber Security
Standards apply. Note that there is a qualification in Section 4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of
Distribution Providers to only those that own certain types of systems and equipment listed in 4.2.
Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by the Responsible
Entity, as qualified in Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the standard. As specified in the
exemption section 4.2.3.5, this standard does not apply to Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact
or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems under CIP-002-5’s categorization. In addition to the set of BES Facilities,
Control Centers, and other systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and equipment owned
by Distribution Providers. While the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES characteristic,
the additional use of the term BES here is meant to reinforce the scope of applicability of these Facilities
where it is used, especially in this applicability scoping section. This in effect sets the scope of Facilities,
systems, and equipment that is subject to the standards.
Requirement R1:
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a Cyber Security
Incident response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an Industrial Control
Systems Cyber Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at http://www.uscert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, Special
Publication 800-61 revision 1, March 2008, online at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or
disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to distinguish Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents as one resulting in a necessary response action. A response action can fall into one of two
categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing characteristic is whether or not action was taken in
response to an event. Precautionary measures that are not in response to any persistent damage or effects
may be designated as elective. All other response actions to avoid any persistent damage or adverse effects,
which include the activation of redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary notice to the
ES-ISAC within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable (not within one hour of
the Cyber Security Incident, an important distinction). This addition is in response to the directive addressing

Page 26 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily).
This standard does not require a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident
is reportable, but at least preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan. This includes the
requirement in Part 2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The testing requirements are
specifically for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for exercising the
plan annually. Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill, tabletop exercise, or full
operational exercise. For more specific types of exercises, refer to the FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and
Evaluation Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four types of discussion-based exercises: seminar,
workshop, tabletop, and games. In particular, it defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key personnel
discussing simulated scenarios in an informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans,
policies, and procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional exercise, and fullscale exercise. It defines that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional, multi-discipline
exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office, Emergency operation centers, etc.) and ‘boots on the
ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating mock victims).”
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain
relevant records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of
evidence listed in the measure. Entities should refer to their handling procedures to determine the types of
evidence to retain and how to transport and store the evidence. For further information in retaining incident
records, refer to the NIST Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response (SP800-86). The
NIST guideline includes a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing forensics.
Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are two
requirement parts that trigger plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2) organizational or
technology changes from Part 3.2.
The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber Security
Incident and involves the activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to document lessons learned
starts after the completion of the incident in recognition that complex incidents on complex systems can take
a few days or weeks to complete response activities. The process of conducting lessons learned can involve
the response team discussing the incident to determine gaps or areas of improvement within the plan. Any
documented deviations from the plan from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible to
have a Reportable Cyber Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such cases, the entity
must retain documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated with the Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.

Page 27 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)

1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and distributing those
updates. Entities should consider meeting with all of the individuals involved in the incident and documenting
the lessons learned as soon after the incident as possible. This allows more time for making effective updates
to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals, and distributing those updates to the incident response team.
The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology changes referenced in
the plan and involves the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below. Organizational changes include changes to
the roles and responsibilities people have in the plan or changes to the response groups or individuals. This
may include changes to the names or contact information listed in the plan. Technology changes affecting the
plan may include referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing systems.

1/1
Organization and
Technology Changes

3/1
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/1 - 3/1
Update Plan and Distribute Updates

1/1

3/1

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2

Rationale:
During the development of this standard, references to prior versions of the CIP standards and rationale for
the requirements and their parts were embedded within the standard. Upon BOT approval, that information
was moved to this section.
Rationale for R1:

Page 28 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable
operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible
Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. Preventative activities can lower
the number of incidents, but not all incidents can be prevented. A preplanned incident response capability is
therefore necessary for rapidly detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction, mitigating the
weaknesses that were exploited, and restoring computing services. An enterprise or single incident response
plan for all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the Requirement. An organization may have a common
plan for multiple registered entities it owns.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry feedback to
more specifically describe required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed to “respond
to” for clarity.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part only obligates
entities to have a process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. Also addresses the directive in
FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676 to report within one hour (at least preliminarily).
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the interpretation
that roles and responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming change to reference new defined term Cyber Security Incidents.

Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable
operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible
Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. This requirement ensures
implementation of the response plans. Requirement Part 2.3 ensures the retention of incident documentation
for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an incident
occurs or when testing, but does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations from the plan. It ensures

Page 29 of 32

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
the plan represents the actual response and does not exist for documentation only. If a plan is written at a
high enough level, then every action during the response should not be subject to scrutiny. The plan will likely
allow for the appropriate variance in tactical decisions made by incident responders. Deviations from the plan
can be documented during the incident response or afterward as part of the review.
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s
effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber
System.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for review.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in the Compliance
Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s
effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber
System. A separate plan is not required for those requirement parts of the table applicable to High or Medium
Impact BES Cyber Systems. If an entity has a single Cyber Security Incident response plan and High or Medium
Impact BES Cyber Systems, then the additional requirements would apply to the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which includes a directive to
perform after-action review for tests or actual incidents and update the plan based on lessons learned.
Additional changes include specification of what it means to review the plan and specification of changes that
would require an update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to update the plan
in response to any changes. The modifications make clear the changes that would require an update.

Page 30 of 32

Guidelines and Technical BasisCIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning
Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to “control
center.”

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the requirements and to
bring the compliance elements into
conformance with the latest guidelines for
developing compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a Responsible
Entity.
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to Compliance
Enforcement Authority.

2

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the sentence
pertaining to removing component or system
from service in order to perform testing, in
response to FERC order issued September 30,
2009.

3

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for Critical
Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

Update
Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving VRFs and
VSLs revisions to certain CIP standards.

Page 21 of 24

Update

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed

Guidelines and Technical BasisCIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning
Version

Date

Action

Change Tracking
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

6

2/6/2019

Adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees.

Page 21 of 24

Modified to
address directives
in FERC Order No.
848

Definition of Terms Used in Standards

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards

This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, compromises or attempts to compromise
(1) an Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) an Electronic
Access Control or Monitoring System; or

•

Disrupts or attempts to disrupt the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted:
•

A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;

•

An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or

•

An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber
System.

Redlined to Last Approved
Proposed Modified Terms

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, Ccompromises, or was an attempts to
compromise, (1) the an Electronic Security Perimeter, or (2) a Physical Security Perimeter,
or, (3) an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System; or

•

Disrupts, or was an attempts to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
•

A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;

•

An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or

•

An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber
System.

Exhibit B
Implementation Plan

Implementation Plan
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting | Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Applicable Standard and Definitions


CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Cyber Security Incident



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident

Requested Retirements


CIP-008-5 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Cyber Security Incident
(currently effective definition)



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident (currently effective definition)

Prerequisite Standard(s)
These standard(s) or definitions must be approved before the Applicable Standard becomes
effective: None
Applicable Entities


Balancing Authority



Distribution Provider



Generator Operator



Generator Owner



Reliability Coordinator



Transmission Operator



Transmission Owner

Background
The purpose of this project is to address the directives that FERC issued in Order No. 848 to
augment mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempted Cyber Security
Incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the Reliable Operation of the Bulk

Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC to develop and submit modifications that would
“require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a
responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the four elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by
ensuring that each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center (NCCIC)1.
Effective Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the standard, or as otherwise
provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the date the
standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise provided for in that jurisdiction.
Revised Definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the definition shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, or
as otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational
structure and integrated like functions previously performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States
Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6

2

Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the definition shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the
date that Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise
provided for in that jurisdiction.
Retirement Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability
Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming effective.
Currently Effective Definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident
The definitions proposed for retirement shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming
effective.

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6

3

Exhibit C
Order No. 672 Criteria

EXHIBIT C
Order No. 672 Criteria
In Order No. 672, 1 the Commission identified a number of criteria it will use to analyze
Reliability Standards proposed for approval to ensure they are just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The discussion below identifies these
factors and explains how the proposed Reliability Standard meets or exceeds the criteria.
1. Proposed Reliability Standards must be designed to achieve a specified reliability
goal and must contain a technically sound means to achieve that goal. 2
The proposed Reliability Standard improves upon and expands information sharing
required by NERC’s CIP Reliability Standards by requiring Responsible Entities to report on
Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a Responsible Entity’s
Electronic Security Perimeter (“ESP”) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring
Systems (“EACMS”) to the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (“E-ISAC”) and
the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (“NCCIC”), consistent with
the Commission directive in Order No. 848. 3 Specifically, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-0086 improves reliability by requiring Responsible Entities to report Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents to E-ISAC and NCCIC within one hour of the determination of the incident and to report
Cyber Security Incidents by the end of the next calendar day after determination that the Cyber
Security Incident was an attempt to compromise a BES Cyber System, ESP, or EACMS. The
reports must include the following three attributes: (1) the functional impact; (2) the attack vector

1
Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶
31,204, order on reh’g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
2
3

Order No. 672 at PP 321, 324.

Order No. 848, Cyber Security Incident Reporting Reliability Standards, 164 FERC ¶ 61,033 (2018)
(“Order No. 848”).

used; and (3) the level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted. If a Responsible Entity does
not have this information within the initial reporting timeframe, the Responsible Entity must report
the information once it has been determined within seven days of that determination. Exhibit F
includes technical rationale for the proposed Reliability Standard to demonstrate the technical
soundness of the means to achieve the reliability goal.
2. Proposed Reliability Standards must be applicable only to users, owners and
operators of the bulk power system, and must be clear and unambiguous as to what
is required and who is required to comply. 4
The proposed Reliability Standard is clear and unambiguous as to what is required and
who is required to comply, in accordance with Order No. 672. The proposed Reliability Standard
applies to Balancing Authorities, certain Distribution Providers, Generator Operators, Generator
Owners, Reliability Coordinators, Transmission Operators, and Transmission Owners. The
proposed Reliability Standard clearly articulates the actions that such entities must take to
comply with the standard.
3. A proposed Reliability Standard must include clear and understandable
consequences and a range of penalties (monetary and/or non-monetary) for a
violation. 5
The Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels (“VSLs”) for the proposed
Reliability Standard comport with NERC and Commission guidelines related to their assignment,
as discussed further in Exhibit G. The assignment of the severity level for each VSL is consistent
with the corresponding requirement. The VSLs do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby
supporting uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar

4

Order No. 672 at PP 322, 325.

5

Order No. 672 at P 326.

violations. For these reasons, the proposed Reliability Standard includes clear and
understandable consequences in accordance with Order No. 672.
4. A proposed Reliability Standard must identify clear and objective criterion or
measure for compliance, so that it can be enforced in a consistent and nonpreferential manner. 6
The proposed Reliability Standard contains measures that support the requirements by
clearly identifying what is required to demonstrate compliance. These measures help provide
clarity regarding the manner in which the requirements will be enforced and help ensure that the
requirements will be enforced in a clear, consistent, and non-preferential manner and without
prejudice to any party.
5. Proposed Reliability Standards should achieve a reliability goal effectively and
efficiently — but do not necessarily have to reflect “best practices” without regard
to implementation cost or historical regional infrastructure design. 7
The proposed Reliability Standard achieves the reliability goals effectively and efficiently
in accordance with Order No. 672. The proposed Reliability Standard clearly articulates the
security objective that applicable entities must meet and provides entities the flexibility to tailor
their plan(s) required under the standard to best suit the needs of their organization.
6. Proposed Reliability Standards cannot be “lowest common denominator,” i.e.,
cannot reflect a compromise that does not adequately protect Bulk-Power System
reliability. Proposed Reliability Standards can consider costs to implement for
smaller entities, but not at consequences of less than excellence in operating system
reliability. 8

6

Order No. 672 at P 327.

7

Order No. 672 at P 328.

8

Order No. 672 at P 329-30.

The proposed Reliability Standard does not reflect a “lowest common denominator”
approach. The proposed Reliability Standard satisfies the Commission’s directive in Order No.
848.
7. Proposed Reliability Standards must be designed to apply throughout North
America to the maximum extent achievable with a single Reliability Standard while
not favoring one geographic area or regional model. It should take into account
regional variations in the organization and corporate structures of transmission
owners and operators, variations in generation fuel type and ownership patterns,
and regional variations in market design if these affect the proposed Reliability
Standard. 9
The proposed Reliability Standard applies throughout North America and does not favor
one geographic area or regional model.
8. Proposed Reliability Standards should cause no undue negative effect on
competition or restriction of the grid beyond any restriction necessary for
reliability. 10
The proposed Reliability Standard has no undue negative impact on competition. The
proposed Reliability Standard requires the same performance by each of the applicable
Functional Entities. The proposed Reliability Standard does not unreasonably restrict the
available transmission capability or limit use of the Bulk-Power System in a preferential manner.
9. The implementation time for the proposed Reliability Standard is reasonable. 11
The proposed 18-month implementation period for the proposed Reliability Standard is
just and reasonable and appropriately balances the urgency in the need to implement the standard
against the reasonableness of the time allowed for those who must comply to develop and

9

Order No. 672 at P 331.

10

Order No. 672 at P 332.

11

Order No. 672 at P 333.

implement the necessary plans and processes, conduct any training, and continue on their schedule
for testing Cyber Security Plans at least once every 15 calendar months.
10. The Reliability Standard was developed in an open and fair manner and in
accordance with the Commission-approved Reliability Standard development
process. 12
The proposed Reliability Standard was developed in accordance with NERC’s
Commission-approved, ANSI- accredited processes for developing and approving Reliability
Standards. Exhibit H includes a summary of the development proceedings and details the
processes followed to develop the proposed Reliability Standard. These processes included,
among other things, comment and ballot periods. Additionally, all meetings of the drafting team
were properly noticed and open to the public. The initial and additional ballot achieved a
quorum, and the additional ballot and final ballot exceeded the required ballot pool approval
levels.
11. NERC must explain any balancing of vital public interests in the development of
proposed Reliability Standards. 13
NERC has identified no competing public interests regarding the request for approval of
the proposed Reliability Standard. No comments were received that indicated the proposed
Reliability Standard conflicts with other vital public interests.
12. Proposed Reliability Standards must consider any other appropriate factors. 14
No other negative factors relevant to whether the proposed Reliability Standard is just
and reasonable were identified.

12

Order No. 672 at P 334.

13

Order No. 672 at P 335.

14

Order No. 672 at P 323.

Exhibit D
Consideration of Directives

Consideration of Issues and Directives

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive 

Source 

Consideration of Issue or Directive 

Augment reporting to include Cyber Security Incidents 
that compromise or attempt to compromise a 
Responsible Entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter or 
associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring 
Systems  

FERC Order 
No. 848, P 3 

The Project 2018‐02 Standard Drafting Team (SDT) agrees 
that Reliability Standards include mandatory reporting of 
Cyber Security Incidents that compromise or attempt to 
compromise a Responsible Entity’s Electronic Security 
Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Assess Control or 
Monitoring Systems (EACMS) and therefore proposes 
modification of NERC Glossary of Terms definitions for Cyber 
Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident and 
proposes the addition of EACMS associated with High and 
Medium BES Cyber Systems as applicable systems for 
requirements CIP‐008 R1, R2, R3, and R4. 

Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports 
should include certain minimum information to 
improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of 
comparison by ensuring that each report includes 
specified fields of information. Specifically, the 
minimum set of attributes to be reported should 
include: (1) the functional impact, where possible, that 
the Cyber Security Incident achieved or attempted to 
achieve; (2) the attack vector used to achieve or 

FERC Order 
No. 848, P 3 
and P 13 

The SDT agrees that Cyber Security Incident reports should 
include certain minimum information detailed in FERC Order 
No. 848 P 3 and P 13 to improve the quality of reporting and 
allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that each report 
includes specified fields of information.  The SDT drafted CIP‐
008 R4 to address the minimum set of attributes to include: (1) 
the functional impact, where possible, that the Cyber Security 
Incident achieved or attempted to achieve; (2) the attack vector 
used to achieve or attempt to achieve the Cyber Security 

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive 

Source 

attempt to achieve the Cyber Security Incident; and (3) 
the level of intrusion achieved or attempted by the 
Cyber Security Incident. 

Incident; and (3) the level of intrusion achieved or attempted by 
the Cyber Security Incident.   

Filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports 
should be established once a compromise or disruption 
to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise 
or disruption, is identified by a Responsible Entity 

FERC Order 
No. 848, P 3 

The SDT agrees that the filing deadlines for Cyber Security 
Incident Reports should be established as identified in FERC 
Order No. 848, paragraph 3. The SDT proposes the addition of 
CIP‐008 Requirement R4 to establish report filing deadlines for a 
compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an 
attempted compromise or disruption, once it is identified by a 
Responsible Entity pursuant to documented processes required 
in Requirement R1. 

Reports should continue to be sent to the E‐ISAC, but 
the reports should also be sent to the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems 
Cyber Emergency  Response Team (ICS‐CERT) 

FERC Order 
No. 848, P 3 

The SDT agrees that reports should be submitted to the E‐ISAC 
and the United States National Cybersecurity and 
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which is the 
successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems Cyber 
Emergency Response Team (ICS‐CERT), and proposes the 
addition of CIP‐008 Requirement R4 to establish reporting 
obligations. Requirement R4 includes the requirement to notify 
E‐ISAC and NCICC once a compromise or disruption to reliable 
BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption, has 
been identified by the Responsible Entity pursuant to the 
processes under Requirement R1. The SDT did not modify any 
language that would remove or alter the obligation to report to 
DHS through EOP‐004 or OE‐417. 

Consideration of Issues and Directives 
Project 2018‐02 Modifications to CIP‐008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting 

Consideration of Issue or Directive 

2 

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive 

Source 

Consideration of Issue or Directive 

With regard to identifying EACMS for reporting purposes,  FERC Order 
No. 848, P 54 
NERC’s reporting threshold should encompass the 
and P 70 
functions that various electronic access control and 
monitoring technologies provide. Those functions must 
include, at a minimum: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring 
and logging; (3) access control; (4) interactive remote 
access; and (5) alerting. Reporting a malicious act or 
suspicious event that has compromised, or attempted to 
compromise, a responsible entity’s EACMS that perform 
any of these five functions would meet the intended 
scope of the directive by improving awareness of existing 
and future cyber security threats and potential 
vulnerabilities. 

The SDT agrees that for reporting purposes, NERC’s reporting 
threshold should encompass the functions that various 
electronic access control and monitoring technologies provide.  
The proposed new definitions, Cyber Security Incident and 
Reportable Cyber Security Incident, identify Cyber Security 
Incidents that attempt to compromise or disrupt an EACMS of a 
high or medium impact BES Cyber System. The SDT asserts that 
the five functions included in FERC Order No. 848, paragraph 54 
and 70, are the essence of an EACMS by the current definition 
and proposed its inclusion in the modified definitions.    

In a similar vein, the assets (i.e., EACMS) subject to the 
enhanced reporting requirements should be identified 
based on function, as opposed to a specific technology 
that could require a modification in the reporting 
requirements should the underlying technology change. 
With regard to timing, we conclude that NERC should 
FERC Order 
establish reporting timelines for when the responsible 
No. 848, P 89 
entity must submit Cyber Security Incident reports to the 
E‐ISAC and ICS‐CERT based on a risk impact assessment 
and incident prioritization approach to incident reporting. 
This approach would establish reporting timelines that 
Consideration of Issues and Directives 
Project 2018‐02 Modifications to CIP‐008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting 

The SDT agrees that reporting timelines should be established 
for when the Responsible Entity must submit Cyber Security 
Incident reports to the E‐ISAC and NCCIC based on a risk impact 
assessment, as identified in FERC Order No. 848, paragraph 89.  
The SDT proposes the addition of CIP‐008 Requirement R4 to 
establish reporting timelines for when the responsible entity 

3 

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive 
are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES 
that loss, compromise, or misuse of those BES Cyber 
Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES. 

Source 

Consideration of Issue or Directive 
must submit Cyber Security Incident reports to the E‐ISAC and 
NCCIC.  The initial notification timelines are identified in the 
proposed Requirement R4, Part 4.2, and the update timelines 
are identified in the proposed Requirement R4, Part 4.3. The 
proposed reporting timelines establish reporting timelines that 
are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES that loss, 
compromise, or misuse of those BES Cyber Systems could have 
on the reliable operation of the BES. 

(i)  

Consideration of Issues and Directives 
Project 2018‐02 Modifications to CIP‐008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting 

4 

Exhibit E
Implementation Guidance

January 2019 - DRAFT Implementation Guidance
Pending Submittal for ERO Enterprise Endorsement

Cyber Security –
Incident Reporting and
Response Planning
Implementation Guidance for
CIP-008-6

NERC | Report Title | Report Date
I

Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Determination and Classification of Cyber Security Incidents .................................................................................. 7
Example of a Cyber Incident Classification Process ......................................................................................... 10
Sample Classification Schema ........................................................................................................................ 11
Examples of the use of the Sample Classification Schema .............................................................................. 13
Attempts to Compromise and Cyber Security Incidents......................................................................................... 20
Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Example of Sample Criteria to Evaluate and Define Attempts to Compromise ................................................ 23
Other Considerations ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Protected Cyber Assets .................................................................................................................................. 25
Requirement R1.................................................................................................................................................... 26
General Considerations for R1 ....................................................................................................................... 26
Implementation Guidance for R1 ................................................................................................................... 27
Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2) ........................................ 27
Supporting Narrative Description of Sample Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security
Incidents (R1.1, R1.2) ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Roles and Responsibilities (R1.3) .................................................................................................................... 31
Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents (R1.4) ................................................................... 33
Requirement R2.................................................................................................................................................... 35
General Considerations for R2 ....................................................................................................................... 35
Implementation Guidance for R2 ................................................................................................................... 36
Acceptable Testing Methods .......................................................................................................................... 36
Requirement R3.................................................................................................................................................... 38
General Considerations for R3 ....................................................................................................................... 38
Implementation Guidance for R3 ................................................................................................................... 39
Requirement R4.................................................................................................................................................... 40
General Considerations for R4 ....................................................................................................................... 40
Implementation Guidance for R4 ................................................................................................................... 41
NCCIC Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Example of a Reporting Form ......................................................................................................................... 42
Instructions for Example of a Reporting Form ................................................................................................ 44
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
2

List of Figures
Figure 1 Relationship of Cyber Security Incidents ....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Potential Approach Tool ............................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 Flow Diagram for Cyber Security Incidents ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 Typical Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5 Example of Classification Schema .............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 6 Examples of the Use of the Classification Schema ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 7 Examples of Non-Reportable Cyber Incidents ............................................................................................. 18
Figure 8 Examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempt to compromise one or more applicable
systems ................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9 Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 10 Sample Process to Identify, Classify and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents .......................................... 28
Figure 11 NCCIC Reporting Attributes ..................................................................................................................... 41

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
3

Introduction
The Standards Project 2018-02 – Modifications to CIP-008 Standard Drafting Team (SDT) prepared this
Implementation Guidance to provide example approaches for compliance with the modifications to CIP008-6. Implementation Guidance does not prescribe the only approach but highlights one or more
approaches that would be effective in achieving compliance with the standard. Because Implementation
Guidance only provides examples, entities may choose alternative approaches that better fit their
individual situations. 1
Responsible entities may find it useful to consider this Implementation Guidance document along with
the additional context and background provided in the SDT-developed Technical Rationale and
Justification for the modifications to CIP- 008-6.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) issued Order No. 848 on July 19, 2018,
calling for modifications to the NERC Reliability Standards to augment the mandatory reporting of Cyber
Security Incidents, including incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the reliable
operation of the BES.2 The Commission directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber
Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security
Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).3
The Commission’s directive consisted of four elements intended to augment the current Cyber Security
Incident reporting requirement: (1) responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS; (2) required
information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum information to improve
the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that each report includes specified
fields of information; (3) filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be established once a
compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption, is
identified by a responsible entity; and (4) Cyber Security Incident reports should continue to be sent to
the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), rather than the Commission, but the
reports should also be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) now known as NCCIC4. Further, NERC must file an annual,
public, and anonymized summary of the reports with the Commission.
The minimum attributes to be reported should include: (1) the functional impact, where possible to
determine, that the Cyber Security Incident achieved or attempted to achieve; (2) the attack vector that
was used to achieve or attempted to achieve the Cyber Security Incident; and (3) the level of intrusion
that was achieved or attempted as a result of the Cyber Security Incident.
The Project 2018-02 SDT drafted Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to require responsible entities to meet the
directives set forth in the Commission’s Order No. 848.
1

NERC’s Compliance Guidance Policy
16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5). The NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (June 12, 2018) (NERC Glossary) defines a Cyber
Security Incident as “A malicious act or suspicious event that: Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, the Electronic Security
Perimeter or Physical Security Perimeter or, Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.”
3 The NERC Glossary defines “ESP” as “[t]he logical border surrounding a network to which BES Cyber Systems are connected using a routable
protocol.” The NERC Glossary defines “EACMS” as “Cyber Assets that perform electronic access control or electronic access monitoring of the
Electronic Security Perimeter(s) or BES Cyber Systems. This includes Intermediate Systems.”
4 The DHS ICS-CERT underwent a reorganization and rebranding effort and is now known as the National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center (NCCIC).
2

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
4

Definitions
CIP-008-6 has two related definitions, as well as language for “attempts to compromise” that is specific to
CIP-008-6 within Requirement R1 Part 1.2.2. Cyber Security Incidents are not reportable until the
Responsible Entity determines one rises to the level of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or meets the
Responsible Entity’s established criteria for attempts to compromise pursuant to Requirement R1 Part
1.2.1 and 1.2.2. When these thresholds are reached reporting to both E-ISAC and NCCIC (Formerly DHS’s
ICS-CERT) is required. These definitions and requirement language are cited below for reference when
reading the implementation guidance that follows.
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 For high or medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, compromises, or attempts to compromise (1) an
Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, (3) an Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring System; or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or
 An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System.

CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable
Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES
One or more processes:
Cyber Systems and
1.2.1 That include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
their associated:
compromise;
 EACMS
1.2.2 To determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
Medium Impact
BES Cyber Systems
and their
associated:


EACMS



A Reportable Cyber Security Incident, or



An attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the
criteria from Part 1.2.1, one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this Part; and

1.2.3 To provide notification per Requirement R4.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
5

The determination of reportability for compromises or disruptions (by definition), or for attempts to
compromise (pursuant to the requirement language), becomes a function of applying criteria that builds
upon the parent definition of Cyber Security Incident.
A color code that progresses from no reportability to greatest reportability is used in Figure 1.

The below Venn diagram illustrates the relationships between the elements of each definition, and the
Requirement R1 Part 1.2.2 requirement language. In this example, one potential option could be to
leverage the EACMS function descriptors noted in FERC Order 848 Paragraph 54 as criteria. This could
serve as an approach to assess operational impact and/or functionality of cybersecurity controls that
cause a Cyber Security Incident to rise to either level of reportability:

Figure 1 Relationship of Cyber Security Incidents

As shown in the above diagram, there is a progression from identification through assessment and
response before a detected event or condition elevates to a reportable level.
First, the Registered Entity must determine the condition meets the criteria for a Cyber Security Incident.
Once the response and assessment has led to a Registered Entity’s determination that events or
conditions meet the definition of Cyber Security Incident, additional evaluation occurs to determine if
established criteria or thresholds have been met for the Registered Entity to determine the Cyber Security
Incident qualifies for one of the two reportable conditions:
1. Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
2. An attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column
for Requirement R4 Part 4.2 (pursuant to Responsible Entity processes and established attempt
criteria documented in accordance with Requirement R1 Part 1.2)
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
6

Once the response and investigation has led to a Registered Entity’s determination that the Cyber Security
Incident has targeted or impacted the BCS performing reliability tasks and/or cybersecurity functions of
the Applicable Systems, associated Cyber Assets, and/or perimeters, the notification and reporting
timeframes and obligations begin. Note: Initial (or preliminary) notification is needed within the specified
timeframe after this determination, even if required attributes (functional impact, level or intrusion,
attack vector) are not yet known.
Once this initial notification is made, if all attributes were known, they should have been included in the
initial notification and the reporting obligation ends.
If all attributes were not known by the time the initial notification had to be made, the update timeframes
trigger from the time the next attribute(s) is determined to be learned/known.
A Registered Entity’s reporting obligations are met once known information for the three required
attributes is reported to E-ISAC and NCCIC, either during the initial notification or subsequently through
one or more updates made commensurate with the reporting timeframes.

Determination and Classification of Cyber Security Incidents
Registered Entities may want to consider developing tools illustrating established process criteria that
must be met, by definition, as well as the impacted/targeted operational task/cybersecurity functions
considered to reach each incident classification and reporting threshold. The below decision tree is one
potential approach Registered Entities could employ as a tool to assess events and make the Registered
Entity determinations according to process(es) and established criteria documented pursuant to
Requirement R1 Parts 1.1 and 1.2. Note: Where the term “criteria” is used in the optional tool examples, it
is intended to serve as a section the entity may tailor to match the criteria they have included in their
process(es). What is included in this guidance is not prescriptive and only one potential approach.
A similar color code to the diagram depicting the relationships between definitions and requirement
language has been used to illustrate a progression from no reportability to greatest reportability inclusive
of the respective reporting obligations and timeframes for initial notifications and updates for Figure 2 and
Figure 3.

The blue shading in Figure 2 simply represents the distinction between phases in the incident response
process as analysis and investigative actions occur and information unfolds.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
7

Figure 2 Potential Approach Tool

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
8

A second potential approach could be a flow diagram illustrating an entity’s criteria and determination
process as depicted in the example below:

Figure 3: Flow Diagram for Cyber Security Incidents
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
9

Example of a Cyber Incident Classification Process

Entities may use a risk analysis-based method for the classification of cyber incidents and determination of
Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or, Cyber Security Incidents that attempted
to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. The risk analysisbased approach allows entities the flexibility to customize the appropriate response actions for their
situation without being administratively burdened by a one size fits all solution. Entities also have the
flexibility to incorporate their existing incident management processes which may already define how they
classify and determine cyber incidents.
A risk-based approach considers the number of cyber security related event occurrences, the probability
that the events will have an impact on their facilities, and severity of the impact of the event. This allows
the entity to decide when cyber events should be investigated as cyber incidents, the classification of
cyber incidents and the determination of when a cyber incident should be reported; either as part of a
voluntary action, as part of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.
Entities should also consider that appropriate reporting of cyber incidents helps other entities in similar
situations. The reporting of the details of an incident serves to alert other entities so they may increase
their vigilance and take timely preventive or mitigating actions. All entities stand to benefit from such
shared information in the long run.
As an example, a typical infrastructure installation is depicted in Figure below.

Internet

Corporate
Firewall

Corporate
Zone

EACMS
Corporate
Assets

EACMS
IRA
Corporate
Assets

ESP
BCS

SCADA
Zone

Figure 4 Typical Infrastructure
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
10



A SCADA security zone consists of BES Cyber System (BCS), behind an Electronic Security
Perimeter (ESP). The Electronic Access Point (EAP) is an interface of the SCADA firewall which is
an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS).



A Corporate security zone consists of regular corporate assets and other EACMS such as
Intermediate Systems with Interactive Remote Access (IRA). A corporate firewall protects the
corporate assets against intrusions from the Internet. The SCADA security zone is nested inside
the corporate security zone.

Sample Classification Schema

A risk analysis could produce the incident categories below:


Regular cyber events that represent a normal level of events where no further investigation is
required such as random port-scans.



Low risk incidents may be cyber events that become cyber incidents because they are beyond the
normal level of events and require some type of investigation. Cyber incidents that are blocked at
a firewall and found not to be malicious or suspicious could fall into this category.



Medium risk incidents may be those cyber incidents that the entity has determined were
malicious or suspicious and required mitigation activities.
Note that while these cyber incidents were malicious or suspicious, they might not meet the
definition of a Cyber Security Incident because the entity investigated and determined that the
target was not a BCS, ESP, PSP or EACMS.
For example, a corporate asset infected with well-known corporate malware and, as a result, is
scanning the network to find other corporate assets. Although this activity is also being seen at
the SCADA firewall (EACMS), the entity investigated and determined that this activity was not a
Cyber Security Incident.



High risk incidents may be those cyber incidents that the entity has determined were malicious or
suspicious and did meet the definition of Cyber Security Incidents. For example, malicious
malware on a corporate asset that repeatedly attempts to log into a SCADA IRA Intermediate
System but is unsuccessful. This would be a Cyber Security Incident and should also fall into the
entity’s definition of a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part with the target being an EACMS (SCADA IRA
Intermediate System).



Severe risk incidents may be those Cyber Security Incidents that involves successful compromise
of an ESP or EACMS and hence meet the criteria for Reportable Cyber Security Incident. These
may also escalate into Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part such as the BCS.



Emergency risk incidents may be those Cyber Security Incidents that compromised or disrupted a
BCS that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. These incidents may
represent an immediate threat to BES reliability and may require emergency actions such as
external assistance.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
11

These incident categories can be mapped into a standard incident classification and reporting schema like
the NCCIC Cyber Incident Scoring System5. This is a common schema used by the United States Federal
Cybersecurity Centers for describing the severity of cyber incidents and is available to industry to leverage.
Utilizing the NCCIC schema as a basis for identification and classification of Cyber Security Incidents could
be adapted to produce the schema below for application to CIP-008-6:

Level 5
Emergency
Black

Level 4
Severe
Red

Level 3
High
Orange

Level 2
Medium
Yellow

Level 1
Low
Green
Level 0
Baseline
White

General Definition

Consequences

A cyber incident that investigation
found was a Cyber Security Incident
that has compromised or disrupted
a BCS that performs one or more
reliability tasks of a functional entity.
A cyber incident that investigation
found was a Cyber Security Incident
involving a compromise or
disruption of an ESP or EACMS;
OR
A cyber incident that investigation
found was a Cyber Security Incident
that attempted to compromise a
BCS.
A cyber incident that investigation
found met the entity’s defined
criteria for a Cyber Security Incident
that attempted to compromise or
disrupt an EACMS or ESP
A cyber incident that investigation
found was malicious or suspicious
but was not a Cyber Security
Incident because it did not target an
Applicable System or perimeter.
A cyber incident that investigation
found was not malicious or
suspicious.
Inconsequential cyber events.

Incidents that result in imminent threat to public
safety and BES reliability.
A Reportable Cyber Security Incident involving a
compromise or disruption of a BCS that performs
one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.
Cyber Security Incidents that have the potential to
result in a threat to public safety and BES reliability
if malicious or suspicious activity continues or
escalates. Immediate mitigation is required.
A Reportable Cyber Security Incident involving a
compromise or disruption of a EACMS or ESP
OR
A Cyber Security Incident that must be reported as
an attempt to compromise or disrupt a BCS
An attempt to compromise an EACMS does not
result in a threat to public safety or BES reliability,
but still requires mitigation.
A Cyber Security Incident that must be reported as
an attempt to compromise or disrupt an EACMS
A cyber incident that does not represent a threat
to public safety or BES reliability, even though it is
malicious or suspicious and required mitigation.

A cyber incident that does not represent a threat
to public safety.
Cyber events that require no investigation and are
not cyber incidents. These do not represent a
threat to public safety.

Figure 5 Example of Classification Schema

Reliability tasks may be those tasks that a Responsible Entity determines are associated with the BES
Reliability Operating Services (BROS) listed in the NERC Functional Model.

5

https://www.us-cert.gov/NCCIC-Cyber-Incident-Scoring-System
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
12

Examples of the use of the Sample Classification Schema

Some examples of the use of the classification schema are listed below. The event number corresponds to the events depicted in the
subsequent figures. The color code defined in the sample schema in Figure 5 is carried through Figures 6- 8.
Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Mitigation

External
firewall scan
(N1 – no
color)

External IPS log

External IPS

Review of F/W
log

Corporate
F/W rules

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone internal
scan by nonmalicious
source
(existing
network
monitoring
Tool) (N2 - no
color)

Review of
EACMS – IRA
host F/W Log
(CIP-007 R4)

Corporate
IPS

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Comments

No

No

No

Determined by entity as
regular background
activity

No

No

No

Determined by entity as
regular background
activity – previously
investigated and
determined to be known
source

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part

EACMS IRA
Host F/W

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
13

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Mitigation

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Corporate
IPS

Yes

No

No

Investigation found new
network monitoring tool.
Added to regular
background activity.

Corporate
IPS

Yes

No

No

Investigation by entity
determined malware in
Corporate zone was
targeting other
corporate assets and not
specifically the
Applicable Systems. (via
the entity’s criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise)

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone internal
scan by
unknown
source (N3 green)

Review of
EACMS IRA host IRA EACMS
F/W Log
Host F/W

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source (N4 yellow)

Corporate
Antivirus

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part

IRA EACMS
Host F/W

Review of
EACMS IRA host Corporate
F/W Log
Anti-virus
Review of
EACMS SCADA
F/W Log

Comments

SCADA F/W
EACMS

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
14

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Mitigation

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source
followed by
EACMS IRA
login
attempts (N5
- orange)

Review of
EACMS IRA host EACMS host
F/W Log
F/W
Review of
EACMS IRA
failed Logins
(CIP-007 R4)

Corporate
IPS

EACMS
login 2
factor

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

EACMS –
IRA
targeted

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
Investigation found
malware in Corporate
Cyber Security Incidents that
zone was an attempt to
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable compromise one or more
Applicable Systems - IRA
Systems” column for the Part
Intermediate System EACMS (via the entity’s
criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to
compromise)

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
15

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Corporate

Detection
method

SCADA IPS log

Mitigation

SCADA IPS
(CIP-005
Review of
EACMS IRA host R1.5)
Logins (CIP-007 BCS user/
R4)
password
login
Review of BCS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source
followed by
successful
failed Logins
EACMS IRA
(CIP-007 R4)
login and
attempted
BCS logins (N6
- red)

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
EACMS – IRA host compromised or
disrupted

Investigation found
malware compromised
or disrupted EACMS IRA.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident
BCS host failed logins
Cyber Security Incidents that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part such
as BCS

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
16

Attempt to compromise
a BCS. (via the entity’s
criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to
compromise)

Type of Event
(Event
number)

BCS – SCADA
system failure
following
Corporate
Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source,
successful
EACMS IRA
login and
successful
BCS login (N7
- black)

Detection
method

SCADA system
log
Review of
EACMS IRA host
Logins (CIP-007
R4)

Mitigation

None

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
Comprise or disruption of a BCS
performing one or more reliability
tasks of a functional entity
Reportable Cyber Security Incident

Review of BCS
Logins (CIP-007
R4)

Figure 6 Examples of the Use of the Classification Schema

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
17

Investigation found
malware compromised a
BCS performing one or
reliability tasks of a
functional entity

Corporate
Firewall

Internet

Corp
Asset

Corporate
Zone

Malware
Corp
Asset

New Network
Monitoring
Tool

EACMS

N2

EACMS
IRA

ESP

Existing Network
Monitoring Tool

BCS

Corporate
Assets

SCADA
Zone

Figure 7 Examples of Non-Reportable Cyber Incidents

The figure above depicts examples of non-reportable cyber incidents using the sample classification
schema and examples in Figure 6.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
18

Corporate
Firewall

Internet

Corp
Asset

Malware
Corp
Asset

Malware
Corp
Asset

Corporate
Zone

Malware
Corp
Asset
EACMS
IRA

EACMS
EACMS
IRA

ESP
Corporate
Assets

EACMS
IRA
BCS

SCADA
Zone

BCS

Figure 8 Examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems

The figure above depicts examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempts to compromise one
or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part using the sample classification
schema and examples in Figure 6.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
19

Attempts to Compromise and Cyber Security Incidents
Registered Entities should evaluate and determine what is normal within their environment to help scope
and define what constitutes ‘an attempt to compromise’ in the context of CIP-008, and should document
established criteria within the entity processes. This can help Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) identify
deviations from normal, and assist a Registered Entity in timely and effective incident determination,
response, and vital information sharing.
Entities are encouraged to explore solutions designed to take the guess work out of the process without
being overly prescriptive as to create undue administrative burden or remove needed discretion and
professional judgment from the SMEs. Entities may want to consider options like a decision tree or a
checklist for SMEs to apply defined criteria used to determine reportability.
As an example, an entity could define an “attempt to compromise” as an act with malicious intent to gain
access or to cause harm to normal operation of a Cyber Asset in the “Applicable Systems” column. Using
this sample definition, some criteria could be:
1. Actions that are not an attempt to compromise an applicable Cyber Asset/System electronically are:
a. An entity’s own equipment scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that
is performed expected on demand or on an approved periodic schedule.
b. Broadcast traffic as part of normal network traffic. A firewall may block and log this traffic, but it
does not have malicious intent.
c. Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by an authorized user that have been determined to fail due to
human error.
2. Actions that are an attempt to compromise an applicable Cyber Asset/System electronically are:
a. Scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that is not approved by the
entity’s management nor process(es). This could be from an entity’s own equipment due to an
upstream compromise or malware.
b. Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by a user that fails due to not being authorized and intending to
gain access where no approval has been given.
c. Attempts to escalate privileges on a Cyber Asset by an authorized user that has been determined
to fail due to not being authorized for that privilege level.
Registered Entities may also want to evaluate system architecture for ways to limit exposure for ‘attempts
to compromise’. Techniques like the implementation of security zones and/or network segmentation can
minimize the level of traffic that can get to applicable Cyber Assets and help minimize the attack surface.
Registered Entities with implementations that involve an EACMS containing both an Electronic Access
Point (EAP) and a public internet facing interface are strongly encouraged to change this configuration in
favor of architectures that offer layers of safeguards and a defense in depth approach.
Similarly, Registered Entities with implementations involving an EACMS containing both an EAP and a
corporate facing interface to their business networks may also want to consider options to re-architect to
reduce cyber events from the corporate environment such as broadcast traffic from causing extra
administrative workload.
A color code that progresses from no reportability to greatest reportability is used in Figure 9.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
20

Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

to detect deviations from baseline is scanning an EACMS or BCS at an unexpected time
and the Registered Entity has determined this as suspicious. (Cyber Security Incident
pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
21

RED

to detect deviations from baseline is repeatedly scanning an EACMS or BCS and the
Registered Entity determines it is targeting specific ports relevant to the BCS.
(determination of an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)
 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans
to detect deviations from baseline is repeatedly scanning an EACMS or BCS and the
Registered Entity determines it gained unauthorized access to the EACMS or BCS.
(Reportable Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)

ORANGE

GREEN

 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans

YELLOW

 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans

RED

gained unauthorized access and disrupted a reliability task. (Reportable Cyber Security
Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)

ORANGE

(determination of an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)

YELLOW

 Registered Entity determines the unauthorized Removable Media contains malware

 Registered Entity determines the malware has harvested the credentials of a BCS,

GREEN

Registered Entity owned monitoring
Port

Scanning tool that runs scheduled periodic
scans to detect deviations from
baseline is scanning an EACMS or BCS
at the expected time.
A Registered Entity performs a port

scan of an EACMS or BCS during a
scheduled Cyber Vulnerability
Assessment activity.

GREEN

 An equipment operator loses control
of a backhoe and crashes into a
control house, breaching the PSP and
the Registered Entity determines it
was accidental; cybersecurity controls
were not targeted and remain in
place.

GREEN

GREEN

The table below contains examples of various degrees of events or conditions at varied levels of determination:
Event
Normal or Benign
Malicious / Confirmed Suspicious
 Unauthorized user breaks into a Substation control house (CIP-006-6 R1.5 activates
PSP
 Unauthorized user compromises the
breach
PSP to steal copper and the Registered
BES Cyber Security Incident response plan within 15 minutes of detection.)
Entity determines cybersecurity
controls were not targeted and
 Unauthorized user breaks into a Substation control house and inserts unauthorized
remain in place.
Removable Media into an EACMS or BCS and the Registered Entity determines no
interaction between the USB and the EACMS or BCS occurred. (Cyber Security Incident
pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)

RED

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
22

ORANGE

Figure 9 Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

YELLOW

and the Registered Entity’s investigation determines that activity is being initiated from
an external IP address and it continues aggressively with additional passwords and
failed login attempts. (Determination of an attempt to compromise one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2).
 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or BCS,
and the Registered Entity’s investigation determines that activity is being initiated from
an external IP address and it continues aggressively with additional passwords and
successfully gains unauthorized access to an EACMS or BCS. (Reportable Cyber
Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination).

RED

 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or BCS,

ORANGE

specific known ICS ports and has attempted to gain unauthorized access to the EACMS
or BCS. (determination of an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for
specific known ICS ports and exploited/compromised specified ICS ports that perform
command and control functions of a BCS. (Reportable Cyber Security Incident
pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)
 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or BCS,
and the Registered Entity investigates that activity as a Cyber Security Incident because
it is deemed suspicious. (Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1
determination).

ORANGE

 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for

GREEN

Registered Entity defined threshold
(CIP-007-6 R5.7) for unsuccessful login
attempts against an EACMS or BCS
and the Registered Entity confirmed
the user incorrectly entered his/her
password after performing annual
password changes.
 A system exceeds the Registered
Entity defined threshold (CIP-007-6
R5.7) for unsuccessful login against an
EACMS or BCS and locks out a system
account and the Registered Entity
confirmed the system account’s
password had changed but the
accessing application/service had not
yet been updated to use the new
password.

specific known ICS ports. (determination of an attempt to compromise one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)

YELLOW

 Authorized user exceeded the

Malicious / Confirmed Suspicious
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for
well-known ports and determined to be a suspicious event by the Registered Entity.
(Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for

GREEN

Login
activity

GREEN

Event
Normal or Benign
Detected  A corporate machine infected by a
malware
known Windows-specific vulnerability
is scanning all local hosts including
non-Windows-based EACMS or BCS
and is determined by the Registered
Entity to be an SMB exploit applicable
to only Windows-based machines.

Example of Sample Criteria to Evaluate and Define Attempts to Compromise

An entity may establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise based on their existing
capabilities and facilities associated with the other CIP Standards.
The sample criteria listed below are examples and are not intended to be exhaustive.
CIP-005 R1.5:
Have one or more methods for detecting known or suspected malicious communications for both
inbound and outbound communications.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:


Detected known malicious or suspected malicious communications for both inbound
and outbound communications.

CIP-005 R2.1:
Require multi-factor authentication for all Interactive Remote Access sessions.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:


Repeated attempts to authenticate using multi-factor authentication

CIP-007 R4.1:
Log events at the BES Cyber System level (per BES Cyber System capability) or at the Cyber Asset
level (per Cyber Asset capability) for identification of, and after-the-fact investigations of, Cyber
Security Incidents that includes, as a minimum, each of the following types of events:
4.1.1. Detected successful login attempts;
4.1.2. Detected failed access attempts and failed login attempts;
4.1.3. Detected malicious code.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:
 Successful login attempts outside of normal business hours
 Successful login attempts from unexpected personnel such as those who are on vacation
or medical leave
 Detected failed access attempts from unexpected network sources
 Detected failed login attempts to default accounts
 Detected failed login attempts from authorized personnel accounts exceeding X per day
 Detected failed login attempts from authorized personnel accounts where the account
owner was not the source
 Detected malicious code on applicable systems
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
23

CIP-007 R5.7:
Where technically feasible, either:
 Limit the number of unsuccessful authentication attempts; or
 Generate alerts after a threshold of unsuccessful authentication attempts.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/ or malicious:
 Account locked due to limit of unsuccessful authentication attempts exceeded more than
X times per day
 Threshold of unsuccessful authentication attempts exceeds more than X every Y minutes
CIP-010 R2.1:
Monitor at least once every 35 calendar days for changes to the baseline configuration (as
described in Requirement R1, Part 1.1). Document and investigate detected unauthorized changes.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/ or malicious:


Detected unauthorized changes to the baseline configuration

An entity may establish additional criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise based on their
infrastructure configuration:
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity determines that the specific activity, while malicious or/and
suspicious:


Attempt to compromise was not intended to target the “Applicable Systems”

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
24

Other Considerations
Protected Cyber Assets

A Protected Cyber Asset (PCA) is defined as:
One or more Cyber Assets connected using a routable protocol within or on an Electronic Security
Perimeter that is not part of the highest impact BES Cyber System within the same Electronic
Security Perimeter. The impact rating of Protected Cyber Assets is equal to the highest rated BES
Cyber System in the same ESP.6
It should be noted that PCAs are not one of the Applicable Systems and as such cyber incidents solely
involving PCAs are not Cyber Security Incidents and are not reportable. Entities are encouraged to
voluntarily report cyber incidents involving PCAs.
PCAs do reside within the ESP and as a result, some cyber incidents may be initiated on PCAs and later
escalate into Cyber Security Incidents involving a BCS, the ESP or an EACMS.
Some examples are as follows:
1 A PCA is compromised or there was an attempt to compromise a PCA locally via removable media.
This is not a Cyber Security Incident and is not reportable.
2 A PCA is compromised or there was an attempt to compromise a PCA from a source external to the
ESP using an existing firewall rule.
The compromise or attempt to compromise the ESP must be evaluated against the entity’s
classification process (R1.2) to determine if this is a Cyber Security Incident, a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or an attempt to compromise.
3 A PCA is compromised or there was an attempt to compromise a PCA via an EACMS that has been
compromised.
The compromise of the EACMS must be evaluated against the entity’s classification process (R1.2)
to determine if this is a Cyber Security Incident or a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
4 A PCA is compromised and is also subsequently used as a pivot point to compromise or attempt to
compromise a BCS.
The compromise or attempt to compromise of the BCS must be evaluated against the entity’s
classification process (R1.2) to determine if this is a Cyber Security Incident, a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or an attempt to compromise.

6

NERC Glossary of Terms https://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
25

Requirement R1
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that
collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber
Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long
Term Planning].
1.1. One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
1.2. One or more processes:
1.2.1.

That include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise;

1.2.2.

To determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
 A Reportable Cyber Security Incident or
 An attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Part

1.2.1, one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for
this Part; and
1.2.3.

Provide notification per Requirement R4.

1.3. The roles and responsibilities of Cyber Security Incident response groups or individuals.
1.4. Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents.

Applicable Systems for the four collective Parts in Requirement R1 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R1

Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis
An enterprise or single incident response plan for all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the
Requirement.
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a Cyber
Security Incident response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at
http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide,
Special Publication 800-61 revision 1, March 2008, online at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61-rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or
disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to distinguish Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents as one resulting in a necessary response action.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
26

A response action can fall into one of two categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing
characteristic is whether or not action was taken in response to an event. Precautionary measures that
are not in response to any persistent damage or effects may be designated as elective. All other
response actions to avoid any persistent damage or adverse effects, which include the activation of
redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.
Implementation Guidance for R1
Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2)

The figure below is an example of a process that is used to identify, classify and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents. This process uses the sample classification schema shown earlier that the entity uses to identify
and classify Cyber Security Incidents as well as the sample criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
compromise, if they are Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. In this example, the
yellow shading is intended to bring emphasis to the steps in this process example where definitions or
entity process criteria are met as well as where reporting timelines are triggered. This color scheme is
independent from the color keys used in other Figures within this document.
This process is adapted from those related to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). ITIL
is a set of detailed practices for IT service management (ITSM) that focuses on aligning IT services with the
needs of business.
Note: There is recognition that the organizational structure and resource composition is unique to each
entity and that roles and responsibilities may vary. The process diagram to follow is not intended to be
prescriptive, and instead constitutes merely one potential approach where the assignments/functions in
the cross functional swim lanes could be tailored to meet the unique needs of any entity.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
27

Incident Management
Service Desk

Issue Date: November 9, 2018

CIP-008 Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Triggers: Cyber Events
 External notifications
 Reports by Security desk
 Internal notifications
Create incident
ticket (SD1)

Close ticket when
incident investigation
completed (SD5)

Escalate due
to BCS, ESP
EACMS or
PSP? (SD3)
Yes

Incident Management
Coordinator

Monitor Ticket Status
Escalate if needed
(SD4)

Assess incident (SD2)

No

Potential
Cyber
Security
Incident ?
(IC2)

Assess if incident is a
potential Cyber
Security Incident
Update Ticket (IC1)

Start Timer
1 Hr Reportable
End Next Day – attempted
7 Days – Updates
Update Ticket (IC4)

Review Information
and forward to
Reporting Coordinator
Update Ticket (IC3)

No

Stop Incident Timer
Update Ticket (IC5)

Yes

E-ISAC / NCCIC
Reporting Coordinator

Reportable or
attempted? (R3)
Yes

Incident Determination
and Classification for
CIP
(R2)

Review preliminary
Information and track
ticket updates (R1)

Report to E-ISAC and
NCCIC (R4)

No

Yellow Tasks = Classification, Determination
and Reporting
Potential
Cyber Security
Incident ? (SME2)

Investigating Subject
Matter Experts

Yes

Yes

Investigate incident
Update Ticket (SME1)
No

Draft of incident
information
including updates
to three
reportable
attributes (SME5)

Draft of incident
information
including three
reportable
attributes (SME3)

Continue to investigate to
determine root cause and
record findings in original
ticket (SME4)

Figure 10 Sample Process to Identify, Classify and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
28

Conclude incident
Complete Lessons Leaned
Update procedures
Inform stakeholders (IC6)

Supporting Narrative Description of Sample Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber
Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2)

1.

The Incident Management Service Desk identifies that a cyber event that requires investigation has
occurred.

2.

Incident Management Service Desk creates an incident ticket to log the suspected cyber incident
(SD1).
Incident Management Service Desk performs initial assessment of the suspected cyber incident and
performs any initial triage or service restoration as needed (SD2).

3.
4.

If the suspected cyber incident involves BES Cyber Systems (BCS), Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring Systems (EACMS), Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or Physical Security Perimeters
(PSP), the Incident Management Service Desk will escalate the incident to an Incident Management
Coordinator whom will act as the coordinator until the incident is closed (SD3)

5.

The Incident Management Coordinator performs a secondary initial assessment to determine if the
incident has the potential to be a Cyber Security Incident, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, or a
Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part.
They update the incident ticket, assigning the appropriate Investigating Subject Matter Experts (IC1).

6.

If the Incident Management Coordinator determines that the incident has the potential to be
reportable, the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator is alerted and copied on the information
contained in the incident ticket. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator continues to monitor the
updates to the incident ticket (IC2).

7.

The Incident Management Service Desk ensures the assigned Investigating SMEs are notified, and the
incident ticket information is updated (SD2, SD4).

8.

The assigned SMEs investigate the incident ticket updating with the Incident Management
Coordinator as appropriate (SME1). The Incident Management Coordinator will monitor the progress
of the investigation and assign additional SMEs or escalate as needed.

9.

If initial investigation by SMEs finds that the incident may be a Cyber Security Incident and has the
potential to be reportable (SME2), the SMEs will inform the Incident Management Coordinator and
forward the known information including the required three attributes (SME3). Attributes which are
unknown at the current time will be reported as “unknown”.

10. The SMEs will continue their investigation to determine the root cause of the incident, performing
triage or service restoration as needed, continue to investigate the three required attributes and
update incident ticket information (SME4).
11. If the incident is found to be potentially reportable, the Incident Management Coordinator reviews
the information, adds any details collected by other investigating SMEs and resolves any missing
information as needed. The information is forwarded to the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator
(IC3).
12. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator reviews the information received, performs classification of
the incident (R2). They determine if the incident is a Cyber Security Incident and determine if it is
either a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
29

a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. The information to be reported
is finalized (R3).
13. Upon determination that the incident is reportable, E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs
the Incident Management Coordinator to begin a clock timer set to the appropriate time frame
(IC4) and performs the required notification including the three required attributes. The incident
ticket is updated with the incident classification and determination time for compliance evidence
purposes:


Within 1 hour for initial notification of Reportable Cyber Security Incident,



By end of the next day for a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part, and



Within 7 calendar days of determination of new or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1, if any.

14. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the Incident Management Coordinator when
notification is completed and time that the notifications occurred at. The Incident Management
Coordinator will stop the appropriate timer and updates the incident ticket with the appropriate
information for compliance evidence purposes (IC5).
15. If Incident Management Coordinator that has not received confirmation of notification, they may
escalate, as needed, prior to expiry of the applicable timer. Upon expiry of the timer, the Incident
Management Coordinator must inform the CIP Senior Manager (IC4).
16. During the continued investigation of the incident (SME4), the SMEs may find that an update of any
of the three required attributes is potentially required. The SMEs will inform the Incident
Management Coordinator and forward a draft of the updated information (SME5)
17. The Incident Management Coordinator reviews the draft update information including adding other
details, and then informs E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator, forwarding the potential update
information (IC3).
18. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator reviews the potential updated information and determine
if the update to any of the three required attributes is reportable (R3).
19. Upon determination that the update is reportable, E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the
Incident Management Coordinator to begin a timer set to the appropriate time frame (i.e. 7 calendar
days). The incident ticket is updated with the determination time for compliance evidence purposes
(IC4).
20. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator updates both E-ISAC and NCCIC with the information
associated with any of the three required attributes (R4).
21. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the Incident Management Coordinator that the
update to E-ISAC and NCCIC is completed and times that the updates occurred at. The Incident
Management Coordinator will stop the appropriate timer and update the incident ticket with the
appropriate information for compliance purposes (IC5).

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
30

22. If the Incident Management Coordinator has not received confirmation that the update is completed,
prior to the expiration of the timer, they may escalate as needed. Upon expiry of the timer, the
Incident Management Coordinator must inform the CIP Senior Manager (IC4).
23. Upon closure of the incident, the Incident Management Coordinator will ensure that the last
reportable update to the three required attributes accurately reflects the closure information. If a
further update of the three required attributes is required, the Incident Management Coordinator
will inform the appropriate Subject Matter Expert to initiate an update (SME5).
24. The Incident Management Coordinator informs the Incident Management Service Desk that the
incident ticket may be closed (SD5).
25. The Incident Management Coordinator will initiate a “Lessons Leaned” session and update to the
Cyber Incident Reporting and Response Plan and any other documentation, procedures, etc. within
90 days (IC6). They will inform all stakeholders of any updates to the Cyber Incident Reporting and
Response Plan and any other applicable documentation.
Roles and Responsibilities (R1.3)

In the example process, the defined Roles and Responsibilities are as follows, but can be tailored by any
entity to align with their unique organization:


Incident Management Service Desk is responsible for initial activities, incident ticketing and
incident logging:
o Initial identification, categorization and prioritization,
o Initial diagnosis and triage/service restoration,
o Initial assignment of incident tickets to Investigating Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
o Initial escalation to an Incident Management Coordinator upon assessment (if needed)
o Monitoring incident ticket status and initiating further escalation (if needed)
o Incident ticket resolution and closure
o General incident status communication with the user community



Incident Management Coordinator is responsible for the over-all coordination of activities related
to an assigned incident:
o Detailed assignment of tasks to Investigating SMEs
o Ensure that all assigned activities are being performed in a timely manner
o Ensuring regulatory reporting time limits are met and initiating escalation if needed
o Communicating incident status with major affected stakeholders
o Coordinating with the Incident Management Service Desk to update incident tickets with
status and the logging of required details and assisting them to perform general incident
status communications with the user community

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
31

o Coordinating with the E-ISAC/NCCIC Reporting Coordinator for cyber incidents with the
potential of being Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part. Assisting the E-ISAC/NCCIC Reporting Coordinator with
information to aid in the classification of the cyber incident.
o Escalation as needed according to the priority and severity of the issue
o Coordination of service restoration and incident closure
o Coordination of incident review following closure of incidents, identification of potential
problems and documenting the “Lessons Learned”
o Initiating update of processes or procedures as needed and communicating the updates
to stakeholders


E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator is responsible for the coordination of regulatory reporting
activities such as those related to E-ISAC and NCCIC:
o Review of completeness incident information for classification and reporting purposes
o Incident classification for reporting purposes
o Determination if this incident is a Cyber Security Incident, Reportable Cyber Security
Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part
o Completeness of the required three attributes to be reported
o Notification to E-ISAC and NCCIC and submission of the three required attributes
o Coordinating with Incident Management Coordinator to ensure timing is in accordance
with regulatory requirements and that incident logging is complete for compliance
evidence purposes



Investigating Subject Matter Experts are responsible for detailed technical tasks related to the
investigation of the incident and performing the needed recovery actions:
o Perform investigation tasks related to the incident as assigned by the Incident
Management Coordinator to determine the root cause of the incident
o Perform service restoration tasks related to the incident as assigned
o Update incident ticket and ensure all required details are logged
o

Obtaining information on the three required attributes for both initial notification and
updates

o

After incident closure, participate in “Lessons Learned” sessions and update procedures as needed

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
32

Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents (R1.4)

Each of the defined roles in the example process may have specific procedures covering various aspects of
their tasks being accomplished within the process. The sample process documents “what” the overall
required steps are whereas the procedures document “how” each step is carried out:


Incident Management Service Desk Procedures:
o Procedures of when to classify cyber events as possible cyber incidents
o Procedures to determine if BCS, PSP, ESP or EACMS are involved and decision criteria of
when to escalate to an Incident Management Coordinator.
o Procedures for initial diagnosis, triage and service restoration
o Procedures for incident ticketing, assignment, escalation and closure



Incident Management Coordinator Procedures:
o Procedures for finding if cyber events or incidents could be possible Cyber Security
Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted
to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. These
potential incidents require notification to the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Coordinator
o Procedures for the assignment and tracking of tasks to Investigating SMEs
o Procedures associated with regulatory reporting time limits
o Procedures for incident review, documentation of lessons learned, tracking of completion
of documentation update status



E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator Procedures:
o Procedures on how to use the Entity’s own classification and reporting schema to classify
cyber incidents and determine Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part
o Procedures on the review of information to be used for reporting the three required
attributes to be included for E-ISAC or NCCIC notification including the handling of any
BES Cyber System Information
o Procedures for the notification of updates to E-ISAC and NCCIC including the submission
of the three required attributes



Investigating Subject Matter Experts Procedures:
o Procedures for the classification of cyber incidents to possible Cyber Security Incidents,
possible Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or possible Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the
Part and the required information needed to be obtained.
o Procedures for troubleshooting tasks to determine root cause of an incident
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
33

o Procedures for service restoration tasks after an incident
o Procedures for triggering the forensic preservation of the incident
o Procedures on when updates are necessary to information on the required attributes
associated with a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the
Part

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
34

Requirement R2
R2. Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response
plans to collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber
Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time
Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time Operations]
2.1.

Test each Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) at least once every 15 calendar months:


By responding to an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident;



With a paper drill or tabletop exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident; or



With an operational exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

2.2.

Use the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1 when responding to
a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, responding to a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this
Part, or performing an exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken during the response to the incident or exercise.

2.3.

Retain records related to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Incidents
that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for
this Part as per the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1.

Applicable Systems for the three collective Parts in Requirement R2 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R2
Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis

If a plan is written at a high enough level, then every action during the response should not be subject to
scrutiny. The plan will likely allow for the appropriate variance in tactical decisions made by incident
responders. Deviations from the plan can be documented during the incident response or afterward as
part of the review.
For more specific types of exercises, refer to the FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation
Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four types of discussion-based exercises: seminar, workshop,
tabletop, and games. In particular, it defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key personnel discussing
simulated scenarios in an informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans,
policies, and procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional exercise, and
full-scale exercise. It defines that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional, multidiscipline exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office, Emergency operation centers, etc.) and
‘boots on the ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating mock victims).”

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
35

In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain
relevant records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of
evidence listed in the measure. Entities should refer to their handling procedures to determine the types
of evidence to retain and how to transport and store the evidence. For further information in retaining
incident records, refer to the NIST Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response
(SP800-86). The NIST guideline includes a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing
forensics.
Implementation Guidance for R2
Acceptable Testing Methods

The SDT made no changes to the testing requirements located in Requirement Parts 2 and 3. The
applicable system expansion to include EACMS was the only change. The SDT purposefully did not expand
the acceptable testing methods to include an actual response to a Cyber Security Incident that attempted
to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. This was based on
incident risk level and benefits of exercising the full response plan(s).
Annual testing of the incident response plan(s) are important because they may reveal weaknesses,
vulnerabilities, and opportunity for improvement. The current test options include: a paper drill
(coordinated tabletop exercise), an operational exercise (a full-scale, multiple entity exercise), and actual
response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is self-explanatory, whereas the other two types
of exercises may carry more subjectivity. To help assure internal organizational alignment, Registered
Entities could consider establishing supporting internal definitions for the various types of planned testing.
Documentation like this can help participants understand the scope and expectations of those exercises
that are not actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and can aid in the audit process as a
supporting evidence for exercise scenarios. It should be noted that definitions in the NERC Glossary of
Terms are authoritative, and entities documenting internal definitions for consistency in their process
should assure they do not contradict nor attempt to supersede and authoritative NERC-defined terms. The
table below includes some potential ideas that could be used:
Incident Response
Exercise – Paper
Drill/Tabletop

Incident Response
Exercise –
Operational

An activity that is facilitated, where personnel are gathered to discuss various
simulated emergency situations including roles, responsibilities, coordination, and
decision making based on the scenario. This typically happens in a conference
room or office environment and not in the personnel’s normal working
environment. No interaction with equipment is expected.
An activity that is facilitated, where personnel are gathered to discuss and respond
to various simulated emergency situations including roles, responsibilities,
coordination, and decision making based on the scenario. This may occur in a test
environment or actual operational area. There may be interaction with
equipment. The exercise may involve test equipment, actual operational
equipment, or training simulators. If operational equipment is used, it will be in a
manner as to not jeopardize operational functionality.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
36

All of these options, especially the latter, involve a complete, step-by-step run-through of the plan
components. Many problems that would occur in a real incident also will be present in the test exercise or
drill7. In fact, it is recommended that drills and exercises go to the extreme and simulate worst-case
scenarios.
Conversely, a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part, may only exercise several components and would likely not result in the
same level of response action. Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise an applicable
system, by their very nature, have less risk than an actual compromise. A Responsible Entity’s actual
response to unauthorized access attempts and suspicious activities does not rise to the same level of
required response that actual disruption of a BCS performing one or more reliability tasks would. For
these reasons, the SDT did not change the acceptable testing methods of a response plan(s), and using
records associated to attempts to compromise are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance
with the 15-month testing requirements.
The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident is
documented using the entity’s incident management system including how each role defined in
Requirement R1.3 updates the incident ticket. The incident ticket is a permanent record of the incident
including any actions undertaken. The Incident Management Coordinator is responsible for documenting
deviations from the Cyber Incident response plan and initiating any corrections required in the process or
documentation for meeting the Requirement. In addition, to assure sufficient evidence, records should be
dated and should include documentation that sufficiently describes the actual or simulated scenario(s),
response actions, event identifications and classifications, the application of Cyber Security Incident and
reportability criteria, reportability determinations, and reporting submissions and timeframes.

7

2009, Department of Homeland Security, Developing an Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity Incident
Response Capability, page 13.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
37

Requirement R3
R3.

3.1.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans
according to each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time
Horizon: Operations Assessment].
No later than 90 calendar days after completion of a Cyber Security Incident response
plan(s) test or actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident response:
3.1.1.

Document any lessons learned or document the absence of any lessons learned;

3.1.2.

Update the Cyber Security Incident response plan based on any documented
lessons learned associated with the plan; and

Notify each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident
response plan of the updates to the Cyber Security Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons learned.
No later than 60 calendar days after a change to the roles or responsibilities, Cyber Security
Incident response groups or individuals, or technology that the Responsible Entity
determines would impact the ability to execute the plan:
3.1.3.

3.2.

3.2.1.

Update the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s); and

3.2.2.

Notify each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident
response plan of the updates.

Applicable Systems for the two collective Parts in Requirement R3 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R3

Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis
The process of conducting lessons learned can involve the response team discussing the incident to
determine gaps or areas of improvement within the plan. Any documented deviations from the plan
from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible to have a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such cases, the entity must retain
documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated with the Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.
Entities should consider meeting with all of the individuals involved in the incident and documenting
the lessons learned as soon after the incident as possible. This allows more time for making effective
updates to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals, and distributing those updates to the incident
response team.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
38

This may include changes to the names or contact information listed in the plan. Technology changes
affecting the plan may include referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing
systems.
Implementation Guidance for R3

The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident results
in an update to Cyber Security Incident response plan, incorporating the “lessons learned”. The role of
Incident Management Coordinator includes the responsibility for meeting Requirement R3. Registered
Entities should assure updated plans are dated in demonstration of the timelines mandated by
Requirement R3. It may help to append these records to the dated Lessons Learned from an actual
response or an exercise to test the plan to further demonstrate plan update timelines were met and
relevant areas of the plan were updated to align with the outcomes and conclusions in the Lessons
Learned.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
39

Requirement R4
R4. Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC)
and, if subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from Requirement R1 Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor:
Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].
4.1.

Initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and
4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.

4.2.

4.3.

After the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification within the following timelines:


One hour after the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar day after determination that a Cyber Security Incident
was an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column
for this Part.

Provide updates, if any, within 7 calendar days of determination of new or changed
attribute information required in Part 4.1

Applicable Systems for the three collective Parts in Requirement R4 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R4

Registered Entities may want to consider designing tools or mechanisms to assure incident responders
have the information needed to efficiently and timely report events or conditions that rise to the level of
reportability. A potential approach is to include the E-ISAC/NCCIC phone numbers in response plans,
calling trees, or even within corporate directories for ease of retrieval. Another potential approach is to
develop a distribution list that includes both entities so one notification can easily be sent at the same
time. Certainly, Registered Entities should consider implementing secure methods for transit if using
email. Another approach could be to incorporate website URLs into processes to have them at hand.
Finally, for Registered Entities that prefer to leverage secure portals for E-ISAC or NCCIC, advance planning
by having individual user portal accounts requested, authorized, configured, and tested is encouraged ad
can be a time saver in emergency situations.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
40

Implementation Guidance for R4

The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how initial notification and updates of the required
attributes is performed within the specified time lines (yellow colored tasks).
For attributes that are not known, these should be reported as “unknown”
NCCIC Reporting
NCCIC reporting guidelines for reporting events related to Industrial Control Systems can be found here:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/Report-Incident
https://www.us-cert.gov/incident-notification-guidelines
NCCIC prefers the reporting of 10 attributes, although they will accept any information that is shared. A
potential mapping between the NCCIC preferred attributes and the attributes required to comply with
CIP-008-6 standard could be represented are as follows:
CIP-008-6 Reporting
Functional Impact

Functional Impact

Functional Impact
Level of Intrusion

Level of Intrusion

Level of Intrusion
Level of Intrusion
Level of Intrusion
Attack Vector
Name and Phone

NCCIC Reporting
Identify the current level of impact on
agency functions or services (Functional
Impact).
Identify the type of information lost,
compromised, or corrupted (Information
Impact).
Identify when the activity was first detected.

Comment

Estimate the scope of time and resources
needed to recover from the incident
(Recoverability).
Provide any indicators of compromise,
including signatures or detection measures
developed in relationship to the incident
Identify the number of systems, records, and
users impacted.
Identify the network location of the
observed activity.
Provide any mitigation activities undertaken
in response to the incident.
Identify the attack vector(s) that led to the
incident.
Identify point of contact information for
additional follow-up.
Figure 11 NCCIC Reporting Attributes

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
41

Example of a Reporting Form

Entities may wish to create an internal standard form to be used to report Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents and Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part. The advantages of using a standard internal form are:


A standard internal format for the communications of cyber incident information between the
various internal roles with respect to obligations of CIP-008-6, Requirement R4



A standard written record of the notification of the minimum 3 attributes having been reported
to E-ISAC and NCCIC in accordance with CIP-008-6, Requirement R4 which can be easily stored,
sorted and retrieved for compliance purposes

An example of an internal standard form is shown. The instructions on how to complete this form are
included after it.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
42

CIP-008-6 Requirement R4
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form
This form may be used to report Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Incidents that were an
attempt to compromise a system listed in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.

Contact Information
Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Phone Number:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Incident Type
☐ Reportable Cyber Security Incident
☐ Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for the Part

Reporting Category
☐ Initial Notification
☐ Update

Required Attribute Information
1. Attack Vector

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

2. Functional Impact

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

3. Level of Intrusion

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
43

Instructions for Example of a Reporting Form

These are instructions on one way to complete the optional form.
CIP-008-6
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Contact
Information

Incident Type

Reporting
Category

Required
Attribute
Information
(Attack Vector
fields)

Field Name

Instructions

Name

Enter the First and Last Name of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident. This field
could also be used to identify the company name of the
Registered Entity.

Phone Number

Enter the Phone Number(s) of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if report includes information for a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.

Cyber Security
Incident that
attempted to
compromise a
system identified
in the
“Applicable
Systems” column
for the Part

Check this box if report includes information for a Cyber
Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.

Initial
Notification

Check this box if report is being submitted to satisfy initial
notification obligations of Requirement R4 Part 4.2.

Update

Check this box if report is being submitted to satisfy
subsequent follow-up or update obligations of Requirement
R4 Part 4.3.

Attack Vector



If known, enter a narrative description of the Attack
Vector for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Note: Do not check this box for incidents related solely to a
PSP(s).

Examples include, but are not limited to, malware, use of
stolen credentials, etc.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
44

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section

Field Name
Attack Vector
Initial Checkbox

Instructions
If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Attack Vector
If report is being used to provide an update report, select the
Update Checkbox ‘Update’ checkbox.
Required
Attribute
Information

Functional
Impact

(Functional
Impact fields)

Required
Attribute
Information



If known, enter a narrative description of the functional
impact for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Examples include, but are not limited to, situational
awareness, dynamic response, ability to perform Real-time
Assessments, or Real-time monitoring etc.
Functional
Impact Initial
Checkbox

If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Functional
Impact Update
Checkbox

If report is being used to provide an update report, select the
‘Update’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion



If known, enter a narrative description of the level of
intrusion for the compromise or attempt to compromise
to satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement
R4 Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Level of
Intrusion fields)

Examples include, but are not limited to, whether the
compromise or attempt to compromise occurred on
Applicable Systems outside the Electronic Security Perimeter
(ESP), at the ESP, or inside the ESP. Additionally, level of
intrusion may include the Applicable System impact level and
Cyber System classification level.
Level of Intrusion
Initial Checkbox

If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion If report is being used to provide an update, select the
Update Checkbox ‘Update’ checkbox.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
45

Exhibit F
Technical Rationale

Cyber Security –
Incident Report
Technical Rationale and Justification for
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6

NERC | Report Title | Report Date
I

Table of Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards ....................................................................................... 2
Proposed Modified Terms: .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Cyber Security Incident ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Reportable Cyber Security Incident ......................................................................................................................... 2
EACMS...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Requirements R1, R2, and R3.......................................................................................................................................... 4
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and Requirement R3 ............................................... 4
Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4................................................................................................. 4
Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts .............................................................. 4
Requirement R4 .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
General Considerations for Requirement R4 .............................................................................................................. 5
Required Reportable Incident Attributes .................................................................................................................... 5
Methods for Submitting Notifications......................................................................................................................... 5
Notification Timing ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Notification Updates ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Technical Rationale for Reliability Standard CIP-008-5................................................................................................... 8

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
ii

Preface
The vision for the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Enterprise, which is comprised of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the seven Regional Entities (REs), is a highly reliable and secure North American
bulk power system (BPS). Our mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and
security of the grid.
The North American BPS is divided into seven RE boundaries as shown in the map and corresponding table below.
The multicolored area denotes overlap as some load-serving entities participate in one Region while associated
Transmission Owners/Operators participate in another.

FRCC

Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

MRO

Midwest Reliability Organization

NPCC

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

RF

ReliabilityFirst

SERC

SERC Reliability Corporation

Texas RE

Texas Reliability Entity

WECC

Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
iii

Introduction
This document explains the technical rationale and justification for the proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6. It
provides stakeholders and the ERO Enterprise with an understanding of the technology and technical requirements
in the Reliability Standard. It also contains information on the Standard Drafting Team’s (SDT’s) intent in drafting the
requirements. This Technical Rationale and Justification for CIP-008-6 is not a Reliability Standard and should not be
considered mandatory and enforceable.
On July 19, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 848. In this
Order FERC directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to “develop and submit modifications
to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access and Control or
Monitoring System (EACMS).” (Order 848, Paragraph 1)
In response to the directive in Order No. 848, the Project 2018-02 SDT drafted Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to
require Responsible Entities to implement methods augmenting the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents
to include: “(1) responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP; (2) required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include
certain minimum information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report included specified fields of information; (3) filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be
established once a compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption,
is identified by a responsible entity; and (4) Cyber Security Incident reports should continue to be sent to the
Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), rather than the Commission, but the reports should also
be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control System Cyber Emergency Response Team
(ICS-CERT).” (Order 848, Paragraph 3) 1

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial
Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and
integrated like functions previously performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT).
NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
1

New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
Proposed Modified Terms:
Cyber Security Incident
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, compromises, or attempts to compromise the, (1) an
Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) an Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring System; or

•

Disrupts, or attempts to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

In response to FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, the SDT modified the Cyber Security Incident definition to include
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS) associated with high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems,
in response to the Order.
The addition of high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems considers the potential unintended consequences with
the use of the existing definition in CIP-003-7. It also provides clarity that only low impact BES Cyber Systems are
included within the definition. ESP or EACMs that may be may be defined by an entity for low impact BES Cyber
Systems are not part of the definition.
An attempt to disrupt the operation of a BES Cyber System is meant to include, among other things, a compromise
of a single BES Cyber Asset within a BES Cyber System. For example, malware discovered on a BES Cyber Asset is an
attempt to disrupt the operation of that BES Cyber System.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
A Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted:
•

A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;

•

An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or

•

An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems.

The Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition was modified to comply with FERC Order 848. In response to
Paragraph 54 of the Order, the SDT modified the definition to include incidents that compromised or disrupted an
ESP or an EACMS. The team also added the qualifying clause for “A BES Cyber System that performs one or more
reliability tasks of a functional entity” to clarify what was compromised or disrupted, thus not extending the scope to
Protected Cyber Assets (PCAs). In response to comments, the SDT left the entire definition of BES Cyber system in
Reportable Cyber Security Incident to provide clarity.
It is also important to understand the relationship between the two definitions, the requirement language, and how
they work in concert to classify events and conditions at varied levels of significance as the Registered Entity executes
its process and applies its defined criteria to determine if reporting is required.

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
2

New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
EACMS
The drafting team spent significant time discussing this topic among its members, through industry outreach, and
with FERC staff. The team believes by not specifically referencing the five functions in Order 848, we have reduced
complexity and made compliance with the Standard achievable. The drafting team asserts that the five functions are
equivalent to the current definition of EACMS in the NERC Glossary of Terms. If entities have questions about
application of the EACMS definition, the drafting team advises entities to discuss those questions directly with NERC.

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
3

Requirements R1, R2, and R3
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and
Requirement R3
FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, directs modifications to Reliability Standards to require reporting of incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS. The intent of the SDT was
to minimize the changes within CIP-008 and address the required modifications. To do this, the SDT added “and their
associated EACMS” to the “Applicable Systems” column for Requirements R1, R2, and R3.
To add clarity to “attempts to compromise,” the drafting team created Part 1.2.1 to require entities to establish and
document their process to include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise. This requirement maps
to Requirement 4 Part 4.2, which requires entities to use that entity-defined process for determining which incidents
entities must report.
The use of the language describing Cyber Security Incident(s) as being “an attempt to compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from Part 1.2.1, one or more systems identified in the ‘Applicable Systems’” column for the Part
is meant to clarify which Cyber Assets are in scope for attempts to compromise reporting by entities. This language
is used throughout the standard.

Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4
To minimize the changes to Requirement R1, the SDT created Requirement R4 and consolidated all the CIP-008-6
reporting requirements. The SDT deleted Requirement R1 Part 1.2 reporting requirements from CIP-008-5, and
moved them to Requirement R4 for this purpose.

Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts
The SDT recognizes that organizations are constantly evolving to meet emerging needs, and may re-organize or
change their names over time. The ICS-CERT has completed its name change to the National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) Industrial Control Systems. The E-ISAC previously re-branded its name
and may again in the future. By following Requirement R4 references to E-ISAC and NCCIC with “or their successors”
the SDT is ensuring that Requirement R4 can be implemented even if the names of E-ISAC and NCCIC change or a
different agency takes over their current roles.

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
4

Requirement R4
General Considerations for Requirement R4
Requirement R4 is a new requirement focused on mandatory reporting of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and
includes attempts to compromise systems in the “Applicable Systems” column. Previously, CIP-008-5 defined
reporting requirements for Reportable Cyber Security Requirements (Requirement R1 Part 1.2) only.

Required Reportable Incident Attributes
Requirement R4.1 specifies that initial notifications and updates must include three attributes: 1) functional impact,
2) attack vector used, and 3) level of intrusion achieved or attempted. These attributes are taken directly from the
Order. (FERC Order No. 848, paragraph 89).
The SDT understands that some or all of these attributes may be unknown at time of initial notification. To account
for this scenario the SDT included “to the extent known” in the requirement language. There is an expectation that
update reporting will be done as new information is determined or unknown attributes become known by the entity.
There could be cases, due to operational need, that all the attributes may never be known, if this case presents itself
that information should be reported.

Methods for Submitting Notifications
Requirement R4 Part 4.2 allows responsible entities to submit notification using any method supported by E-ISAC and
NCCIC. The SDT did not prescribe a particular reporting method or format to allow responsible entities’ personnel to
focus on incident response itself and not the method or format of reporting. It is important to note the report must
contain the three attributes required in Requirement R4 Part 4.1 as they are known, regardless of reporting method
or format.

Notification Timing
Requirement R4 Part 4.2 specifies two timelines for initial notification submission; one hour for Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents; and end of next calendar day for attempts to compromise systems in the “Applicable Systems”
column. Paragraph 3 of FERC Order No 848 directly states that reporting deadlines must be established. Paragraph
89 further states that “timelines that are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES that loss, compromise,
or misuse of those BES Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.”
•

Reportable Cyber Security Incidents – The SDT wrote Requirement R4 Part R4.2 to use a one hour deadline
for reporting of these events because incidents in this category include successful compromise of ESP(s),
EACMS, or BES Cyber System(s). One hour is referenced directly in FERC Order No 848 paragraph 89 and is
also the current reporting requirement in CIP-008-5.

•

Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column - Due to the lower severity of these unsuccessful attempts at compromising ESP(s), EACMS,
or BES Cyber System(s), the SDT proposed a longer reporting timeframe. The intent behind the decision to
add “By the end of the next calendar day” (11:59 pm local time) was to give responsible entities additional
time to gather facts prior to notifications for the less severe attempts to compromise Applicable Systems. It
is important to note that compliance timing begins with the entity’s determination that attempt to
compromise meets the process they defined in Requirement R1 Part 1.2.1.

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
5

Requirement R4
The SDT understands initial notification may not have all the details when first submitted. It is expected, however,
that information that has been determined is reported within the notification deadlines. Additionally, it is important
to note the wording in Requirement R4 Part 4.2. The “compliance clock” for the report timing begins when the
Responsible Entity executes its process from Requirement R1 Part 1.2.1 and a determination has been made that the
type of incident which has occurred qualifies as reportable.
Technical rationale taken from the Guidelines and Technical Basis (GTB) CIP-008-5 Requirement 1 provides additional
justification for the SDT to maintain the one hour timeframe for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
“The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary
notice to the ES-ISAC within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable
(not within one hour of the Cyber Security Incident, an important distinction). This addition is in
response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to
report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not require a complete report
within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable, but at least preliminary
notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based notice. The standard does
not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.”
In 2007, the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) was known as the Electricity Sector
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). Its voluntary procedures required the reporting of a cyber-incident
within one hour of an incident. CIP-008-1 required entities to report to the ES-ISAC.
In FERC Order No. 706 2 (July 18, 2008), the Commission concluded that the one-hour reporting limit was reasonable
[P 663]. The Commission further stated that it was leaving the details to NERC, but it wanted the reporting timeframe
to run from the “discovery” of the incident by the entity, and not the actual “occurrence” of the incident [P 664].
CIP-008-2 and CIP-008-3 were silent regarding the required timeframe for reporting, but it was specifically addressed
in CIP-008-5. In the October 26, 2012, redlined version of CIP-008-5, the proposed language for initial notification
originally specified “one hour from identification” of an incident. This aligned with the Commission’s decision in Order
No. 706, for the clock to start with the discovery of an incident. However, the Standard Drafting Team changed “one
hour from identification” to “one hour from the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident”. This
language was subsequently approved and incorporated into CIP-008-5.
These changes, from “occurrence” to “discovery” to “determination,” provide the additional time needed for the
entity to apply its specifically created process(es) for determining whether a Cyber Security Incident rises to the level
of required reporting. This determination timeframe may include a preliminary investigation of the incident which
will provide useful information to other entities to help defend against similar attacks.

2

2008, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Order No.
706.
NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
6

Requirement R4
Notification Updates
Requirement R4 Part 4.3 requires that Responsible Entities submit updates for the required attributes upon
determination of new or changed attribute information, if any. The SDT added this language to provide entities
sufficient time to determine attribute information, which may be unknown at the time of initial notification, and
which may change as more information is gathered. The intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.3 is to provide a method for
Responsible Entities to report new information over time as their investigations progress. NOTE: The SDT does not
intend updates specified in Requirement R4. Part 4.3 to expose responsible entities to potential violations if, for
example, initial and updated notification on the same attribute have different information. This is expected since
knowledge of attributes may change as investigations proceed. Rather, the intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.3 is to
have a mechanism to report incident information to E-ISAC and NCCIC (and thereby industry) upon determination of
each required attribute.
The intent is that the entity report what is known and document the reason not all attributes could become known
and ultimately be reported in conditions where, e.g. a Cyber Asset was restored completely, removing all forensic
evidence in order to restore operations, which caused the entity to conclude its investigation without having a
complete knowledge of the three required attributes.
The SDT asserts that nothing included in the new reporting Requirement R4, precludes the entity from continuing to
provide any voluntary sharing they may already be conducting today.

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
7

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
This section contains the Guidelines and Technical basis as a “cut and paste” from CIP-008-5 standard to preserve any
historical references.
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible Entities to determine the
scope of the applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard applies. If the entity is
registered as one or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1, then the NERC CIP Cyber Security Standards
apply. Note that there is a qualification in Section 4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of Distribution
Providers to only those that own certain types of systems and equipment listed in 4.2. Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by the Responsible Entity,
as qualified in Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the standard. As specified in the exemption section
4.2.3.5, this standard does not apply to Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact or Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems under CIP-002-5’s categorization. In addition to the set of BES Facilities, Control Centers, and other
systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and equipment owned by Distribution Providers. While
the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES characteristic, the additional use of the term BES here is
meant to reinforce the scope of applicability of these Facilities where it is used, especially in this applicability scoping
section. This in effect sets the scope of Facilities, systems, and equipment that is subject to the standards.
Requirement R1:
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary notice to the ES-ISAC
within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable (not within one hour of the Cyber
Security Incident, an important distinction). This addition is in response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC
Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not
require a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable, but at least
preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based notice. The standard does not
require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan. This includes the
requirement in Part 2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The testing requirements are specifically for
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for exercising the plan
annually. Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill, tabletop exercise, or full operational exercise.
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain relevant
records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of evidence listed in the
measure.

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
8

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are two requirement parts
that trigger plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2) organizational or technology changes from Part
3.2.
The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber Security Incident and
involves the activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to document lessons learned starts after the
completion of the incident in recognition that complex incidents on complex systems can take a few days or weeks
to complete response activities. It is possible to have a Reportable Cyber Security Incident without any documented
lessons learned. In such cases, the entity must retain documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated
with the Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)
1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and distributing those updates.

The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology changes referenced in the
plan and involves the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below. Organizational changes include changes to the roles and
responsibilities people have in the plan or changes to the response groups or individuals.

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2
1/1
Organization and
Technology Changes

3/1
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/1 - 3/1
Update Plan and Distribute Updates

1/1

3/1

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
9

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
Rationale for R1:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation
of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for
improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. Preventative activities can lower the number of
incidents, but not all incidents can be prevented. A preplanned incident response capability is therefore necessary
for rapidly detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction, mitigating the weaknesses that were exploited, and
restoring computing services.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry feedback to more
specifically describe required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed to “respond to” for
clarity.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part only obligates entities
to have a process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. Also addresses the directive in FERC Order No.
706, paragraphs 673 and 676 to report within one hour (at least preliminarily).
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the interpretation that roles
and responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming change to reference new defined term Cyber Security Incidents.
Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation
of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for
improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. This requirement ensures implementation of the
response plans. Requirement Part 2.3 ensures the retention of incident documentation for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an incident occurs or
when testing, but does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations from the plan. It ensures the plan
represents the actual response and does not exist for documentation only.

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
10

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s effectiveness
and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for review.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in the Compliance Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s
effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System.
A separate plan is not required for those requirement parts of the table applicable to High or Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems. If an entity has a single Cyber Security Incident response plan and High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems, then the additional requirements would apply to the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which includes a directive to
perform after-action review for tests or actual incidents and update the plan based on lessons learned. Additional
changes include specification of what it means to review the plan and specification of changes that would require an
update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to update the plan in
response to any changes. The modifications make clear the changes that would require an update

NERC | Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
11

Exhibit G
Analysis of Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels

Violation Risk Factor and Violation Severity Level Justification
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

This document provides the standard drafting team’s (SDT’s) justification for assignment of violation risk factors (VRFs) and violation severity
levels (VSLs) for each requirement in CIP-008-6. Each requirement is assigned a VRF and a VSL. These elements support the determination of
an initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of requirements in FERC-approved Reliability Standards, as defined in
the Electric Reliability Organizations (ERO) Sanction Guidelines. The SDT applied the following NERC criteria and FERC Guidelines when
developing the VRFs and VSLs for the requirements.

NERC Criteria for Violation Risk Factors
High Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of
failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a
planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly
cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System
at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition.
Medium Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively
monitor and control the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is unlikely to lead to Bulk Electric System
instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal,
or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly and adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is
unlikely, under emergency, abnormal, or restoration conditions anticipated by the preparations, to lead to Bulk Electric System instability,
separation, or cascading failures, nor to hinder restoration to a normal condition.

Lower Risk Requirement

A requirement that is administrative in nature and a requirement that, if violated, would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical
state or capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk Electric System; or, a requirement that
is administrative in nature and a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, would not, under the emergency, abnormal, or
restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

FERC Guidelines for Violation Risk Factors
Guideline (1) – Consistency with the Conclusions of the Final Blackout Report

FERC seeks to ensure that VRFs assigned to Requirements of Reliability Standards in these identified areas appropriately reflect their historical
critical impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. In the VSL Order, FERC listed critical areas (from the Final Blackout Report) where
violations could severely affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System:


Emergency operations



Vegetation management



Operator personnel training



Protection systems and their coordination



Operating tools and backup facilities



Reactive power and voltage control



System modeling and data exchange



Communication protocol and facilities



Requirements to determine equipment ratings



Synchronized data recorders



Clearer criteria for operationally critical facilities



Appropriate use of transmission loading relief.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

2

Guideline (2) – Consistency within a Reliability Standard

FERC expects a rational connection between the sub-Requirement VRF assignments and the main Requirement VRF assignment.
Guideline (3) – Consistency among Reliability Standards

FERC expects the assignment of VRFs corresponding to Requirements that address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.
Guideline (4) – Consistency with NERC’s Definition of the Violation Risk Factor Level

Guideline (4) was developed to evaluate whether the assignment of a particular VRF level conforms to NERC’s definition of that risk level.
Guideline (5) – Treatment of Requirements that Co-mingle More Than One Obligation

Where a single Requirement co-mingles a higher risk reliability objective and a lesser risk reliability objective, the VRF assignment for such
Requirements must not be watered down to reflect the lower risk level associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

3

NERC Criteria for Violation Severity Levels
VSLs define the degree to which compliance with a requirement was not achieved. Each requirement must have at least one VSL. While it is
preferable to have four VSLs for each requirement, some requirements do not have multiple “degrees” of noncompliant performance and
may have only one, two, or three VSLs.
VSLs should be based on NERC’s overarching criteria shown in the table below:
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

The performance or product
measured almost meets the full
intent of the requirement.

The performance or product
measured meets the majority of
the intent of the requirement.

High VSL

The performance or product
measured does not meet the
majority of the intent of the
requirement, but does meet
some of the intent.

Severe VSL

The performance or product
measured does not
substantively meet the intent of
the requirement.

FERC Order of Violation Severity Levels
The FERC VSL guidelines are presented below, followed by an analysis of whether the VSLs proposed for each requirement in the standard
meet the FERC Guidelines for assessing VSLs:
Guideline (1) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Not Have the Unintended Consequence of Lowering the Current
Level of Compliance

Compare the VSLs to any prior levels of non-compliance and avoid significant changes that may encourage a lower level of compliance than
was required when levels of non-compliance were used.
Guideline (2) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Ensure Uniformity and Consistency in the Determination of
Penalties

A violation of a “binary” type requirement must be a “Severe” VSL.
Do not use ambiguous terms such as “minor” and “significant” to describe noncompliant performance.
Guideline (3) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Consistent with the Corresponding Requirement

VSLs should not expand on what is required in the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

4

Guideline (4) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Based on A Single Violation, Not on A Cumulative Number of
Violations

Unless otherwise stated in the requirement, each instance of non-compliance with a requirement is a separate violation. Section 4 of the
Sanction Guidelines states that assessing penalties on a per violation per day basis is the “default” for penalty calculations.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

5

VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VSL did not substantively change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard. Only minor revisions were made.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VSL did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

6

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

Lower
N/A

Moderate
N/A

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include the
roles and responsibilities of
Cyber Security Incident response
groups or individuals. (1.3)

The Responsible Entity has not
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan with one
or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include
incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents. (1.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to provide
notification per Requirement
R4. (1.2)
OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to identify
Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from Part
1.2.1, a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 1.2. (1.2)

OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes that include
VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

7

criteria to evaluate and define
attempts to compromise. (1.2)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

8

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The proposed VSLs retain the VSLs from FERC-approved CIP-008-5 and add two VSLs to the High and
Severe categories to reflect new subparts 1.2.1 and 1.2.3. The two new VSLs are similar to currentlyapproved VSLs. As a result, the proposed VSLs do not lower the current level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

9

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

NERC VRF Discussion

A VRF of Lower is being proposed for this requirement.
A VRF of lower is appropriate due to the fact that the requirement is associated with reporting obligations,
not response to Cyber Security Incident(s), Reportable Cyber Security Incident(s), or Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident(s). If violated, is administrative and would not be expected to
adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the bulk electric system.

FERC VRF G1 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 1- Consistency
with Blackout Report
FERC VRF G2 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 2- Consistency
within a Reliability Standard
FERC VRF G3 Discussion

The proposed VRF is consistent among other FERC approved VRF’s within the standard.

Guideline 3- Consistency
among Reliability Standards

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

10

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

FERC VRF G4 Discussion

The team relied on NERC’s definition of lower risk requirement.

Guideline 4- Consistency
with NERC Definitions of
VRFs
FERC VRF G5 Discussion
Guideline 5- Treatment of
Requirements that Comingle More than One
Obligation

Failure to report would not, under Emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the
preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric System,
or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was an attempt to
compromise a system identified
in the “Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.2 but failed to
notify or update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their successors,
within the timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from
Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column.
(R4)

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident but
failed to notify or update E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their successors,
within the timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

OR
The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their

11

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.3 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
within 7 days after
determination of the attribute(s)
not reported pursuant to Part
4.1. (4.3)

High

Severe

successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.1 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
after determination pursuant to
Part 4.1. (4.1)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

12

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The requirement is new. Therefore, the proposed VSLs do not have the unintended consequence of
lowering the level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

13

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

14

Exhibit H
Summary of Development History and Complete Record of Development

Summary of Development History

Summary of Development History
The following is a summary of the development record for proposed Reliability Standard
CIP-008-6.
I.

Overview of the Standard Drafting Team
When evaluating a proposed Reliability Standard, the Commission is expected to give

“due weight” to the technical expertise of the ERO. 1 The technical expertise of the ERO is
derived from the standard drafting team (“SDT”) selected to lead each project in accordance with
Section 4.3 of the NERC Standard Processes Manual. 2 For this project, the SDT consisted of
industry experts, all with a diverse set of experiences. A roster of the Project 2018-02 –
Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting SDT members is included in
Exhibit I.
II.

Standard Development History
A. Standard Authorization Request Development
Project 2018-02 – Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting was

initiated on March 9, 2016 as a Standards Authorization Request (“SAR”) to address the
Commission directive in Order No. 848. 3 On August 10, 2018, the Standards Committee
Executive Committee accepted the SAR and authorized posting the SAR for a 30-day informal
comment period from August 10, 2018 through September 10, 2018.

1

Section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act; 16 U.S.C. § 824(d)(2) (2012).

2

The NERC Standard Processes Manual is available at
http://www.nerc.com/comm/SC/Documents/Appendix_3A_StandardsProcessesManual.pdf.
3
Order No. 848, Cyber Security Incident Reporting Reliability Standards, 164 FERC ¶ 61,033 (2018)
(“Order No. 848”).

1

B. First Posting - Comment Period, Initial Ballot and Non-binding Poll
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, the proposed definitions of Cyber Security
Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident, the associated Implementation Plan, Violation
Risk Factors (“VRFs”), Violation Severity Levels (“VSLs”), and other associated documents
were posted for a 20-day formal comment period from October 3, 2018 through October 22,
2018, with a parallel initial ballot and non-binding poll held during the last 5 days of the
comment period from October 18, 2018 through October 22, 2018. 4 The initial ballot for
proposed CIP-008-6 received 20.02 percent approval, reaching quorum at 81.17 percent of the
ballot pool. The non-binding poll for the associated VRFs and VSLs received 23.2 percent
supportive opinions, reaching quorum at 79 percent of the ballot pool. There were 86 sets of
responses, including comments from approximately 176 different individuals and approximately
116 companies, representing all 10 industry segments. 5
C. Second Posting - Comment Period, Additional Ballot and Non-binding Poll
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, the proposed definitions of Cyber Security
Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident, the associated Implementation Plan, VRFs,
VSLs, and other associated documents were posted for a 15-day formal comment period from
November 15, 2018 through November 29, 2018, with a parallel additional ballot as well as the
non-binding poll held during the last 10 days of the comment period from November 20, 2018

4

Pursuant to Standard Processes Manual Section 16, the NERC Standards Committee granted NERC’s
request to waive Standard Processes Manual provisions 4.7-4.9 to post the Reliability Standard for a 45-day initial
comment period and ballot. The minutes from the Standards Committee meeting on September 13, 2018 are
available at
https://www.nerc.com/comm/SC/Agenda%20Highlights%20and%20Minutes/Standards%20Committee%20Meeting
%20Minutes-Approved%20October%2017,%202018.pdf.
5
NERC, Consideration of Comments, Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting (Nov. 2018),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20201802%20Modifications%20to%20CIP008%20Cyber%20Secur/CIP008-6_Consideration_of_Comments_Draft_11152018.pdf.

2

through November 29, 2018. 6 The additional ballot for CIP-008-6 reached quorum at 94.44
percent of the ballot pool and received 75.54 percent approval. The related non-binding poll for
CIP-008-6 reached quorum at 93 percent of the ballot pool and received 75.81 percent supportive
opinions. There were 72 sets of responses, including comments from approximately 160
different individuals and approximately 110 companies, representing seven of the 10 industry
segments. 7
D. Final Ballot
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 was posted for an 8-day final ballot period from
January 15, 2019 through January 22, 2019. The ballot for proposed Reliability Standard CIP008-6 and associated documents reached quorum at 96.3 percent of the ballot pool, receiving
support from 77.89 percent of the voters.
E. Board of Trustees Adoption
The NERC Board of Trustees adopted proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 on
February 7, 2019. 8

6

Pursuant to Standard Processes Manual Section 16, the NERC Standards Committee granted NERC’s
request to waive Standard Processes Manual provisions 4.9 and 4.12 to post the Reliability Standard for a 45-day
additional comment period and ballot. The minutes from the Standards Committee meeting on September 13, 2018
are available at
https://www.nerc.com/comm/SC/Agenda%20Highlights%20and%20Minutes/Standards%20Committee%20Meeting
%20Minutes-Approved%20October%2017,%202018.pdf.
7
NERC, Consideration of Comments, Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting (Jan. 2019),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20201802%20Modifications%20to%20CIP008%20Cyber%20Secur/CIP008-6_Consideration_of_Comments_Final%20Ballot_01152019.pdf.
8

NERC, Board of Trustees Agenda Package, Agenda Item 6c (CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident
Reporting and Response Planning) available at
https://www.nerc.com/gov/bot/Agenda%20highlights%20and%20Mintues%202013/Board_of_Trustees_Open_Mee
ting_Agenda_Package-February_7_2019.pdf.

3

Complete Record of Development

Home > Program Areas & Departments > Standards > Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber
Security Incident Reporting

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting
Related Files
Status
The 8-day final ballot for CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
concluded 8 p.m. Eastern, Tuesday, January 22, 2019. The voting results can be accessed via the link below.
The standard will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for adoption and then filed with the appropriate regulatory
authorities.
Background
The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 in order to augment
mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempts that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm
the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC to develop and submit modifications
that would “require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a
responsible entity's Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems
(EACMs)."
Standard(s) Affected – CIP-008-5
Project Scope
The Reliability Standard(s) developed or revised will include the 4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a
responsible entity's ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum information to improve
the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that each report includes specified fields of
information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC)
and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICSCERT).

Draft

Actions

Dates

Results

Final Draft
CIP-008-6
Clean (36) | Redline to Last Posted (37)|
Redline to Last Approved (38)
Implementation Plan
Clean (39) | Redline to Last Posted (40)

Final Ballot
Info (46)
Vote

01/15/19 01/22/19

Ballot Results
(47)

Consideration
of Comments

Supporting Materials
VRF/VSL Justification
Clean (41) | Redline to Last Posted (42)
Technical Rationale (43)
Implementation Guidance (44)
Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet (45)
Draft 2
CIP-008-6
Clean (20) | Redline to Last Posted (21)
Implementation Plan
Clean (22) | Redline to Last Posted (23)
Supporting Materials
Unofficial Comment Form (Word) (24)
VRF/VSL Justifications
Clean (25) | Redline to Last Posted (26)
Technical Rationale (27)
Implementation Guidance (28)

Draft 1

Additional Ballot
and Non-binding
Poll
Updated Info
(29)
Info (30)

Comment Period
Info (33)

Comments
Consideration of
Received (34) Comments(35)

Initial Ballot and
Non-binding Poll

Implementation Plan (8)

Info (14)

Supporting Materials

Vote

Unofficial Comment Form (Word) (9)

Comment Period
Info (17)

Technical Rationale (12)

11/15/18 11/29/18

Submit Comments

Updated Info
(13)

Consideration of Issue and Directives (11)

Non-binding
Poll Results
(32)

Vote

CIP-008-6
Clean (6)| Redline to Last Approved (7)

VRF/VSL Justification (10)

11/20/18 11/29/18

Ballot Results
(31)

Submit Comments
Join Ballot Pools

10/18/18 10/22/18

Ballot Results
(15)
Non-binding
Poll Results
(16)

10/03/18 10/22/18
10/03/18 10/17/18

Comments
Received(18)

Consideration of
Comments(19)

Standard Drafting Team Nominations
Supporting Materials
Unofficial Nomination Form (Word) (4)

Standard Authorization Request (3)
Supporting Materials
Unofficial Comment Form (Word) (1)

Nomination Period
Info (5)
Submit
Nominations

08/10/18 08/29/18

Comment Period
Info (2)
Submit Comments

08/10/18 09/10/18

Unofficial Comment Form

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting Standard Authorization Request
Do not use this form for submitting comments. Use the Standards Balloting and Commenting System
(SBS) to submit comments on the Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting Standard Authorization Request (SAR). Comments must be submitted by 8 p.m. Eastern,
Monday, September 10, 2018.
m. Eastern, Thursday, August 20, 2015
Additional information is available on the project page. If you have questions, contact Senior Standards
Developer, Alison Oswald (via email), or at 404-446-9668.
Background Information

The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 in order to
augment mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempts that might facilitate
subsequent efforts to harm the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC
to develop and submit modifications that would “require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or
associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMs).”
The Reliability Standard(s) developed or revised will include the 4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber
Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).

Questions

1. Do you agree with the proposed scope as described in the SAR? If you do not agree, or if you agree
but have comments or suggestions for the project scope please provide your recommendation and
explanation.
Yes
No
Comments:
2. Provide any additional comments for the Standrds Drafting Team to consider, if desired.
Comments:

Unofficial Comment Form | Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008
Standard Authorization Request | August - September, 2018

2

Standards Announcement

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting

Informal Comment Period Open through September 10, 2018
Now Available

An informal comment period for the Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting Standard Authorization Request is open through 8 p.m. Eastern, Monday, September 10,
2018.
Commenting

Use the Standards Balloting and Commenting System (SBS) to submit comments. If you experience issues
using the SBS, contact Wendy Muller. An unofficial Word version of the comment form is posted on the
project page.
•

If you are having difficulty accessing the SBS due to a forgotten password, incorrect credential
error messages, or system lock-out, contact NERC IT support directly at https://support.nerc.net/
(Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern).

•

Passwords expire every 6 months and must be reset.

•

The SBS is not supported for use on mobile devices.

•

Please be mindful of ballot and comment period closing dates. We ask to allow at least 48
hours for NERC support staff to assist with inquiries. Therefore, it is recommended that users try
logging into their SBS accounts prior to the last day.

Next Steps

The drafting team will review all responses received during the comment period and determine
the next steps of the project.
For information on the Standards Development Process, refer to the Standard Processes Manual.
For more information or assistance, contact Senior Standards Developer, Alison Oswald (via email) or at
404-446-9668.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com

Standard Authorization Request (SAR)
Complete and please email this form, with
Complete
and please
email this form, with
attachment(s)
to: sarcomm@nerc.net
attachment(s) to: sarcomm@nerc.net

SAR Title:

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
welcomes suggestions to improve the reliability of the bulk
power system through improved Reliability Standards.

Requested information
Revisions to CIP-008-5 Cyber Security- Incident Reporting and Response
Planning
August 6, 2018

Date Submitted:
SAR Requester
Name:
Soo Jin Kim
Organization: NERC
Telephone:
404.831.4765
Email:
Soo.jin.kim@nerc.net
SAR Type (Check as many as apply)
New Standard
Imminent Action/ Confidential Issue (SPM
Revision to Existing Standard
Section 10)
Add, Modify or Retire a Glossary Term
Variance development or revision
Withdraw/retire an Existing Standard
Other (Please specify)
Justification for this proposed standard development project (Check all that apply to help NERC
prioritize development)
Regulatory Initiation
NERC Standing Committee Identified
Emerging Risk (Reliability Issues Steering
Enhanced Periodic Review Initiated
Committee) Identified
Industry Stakeholder Identified
Reliability Standard Development Plan
Industry Need (What Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability benefit does the proposed project provide?):
On July 19, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Order No. 848 in order to
augment the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents.
Purpose or Goal (How does this proposed project provide the reliability-related benefit described
above?):
This project will address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 in order to augment mandatory
reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempts that might facilitate subsequent efforts to
harm the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC to develop and
submit modifications that would “require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or
attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMs).” NERC was directed to submit the
modifications within 6 months of the effective date of the final order.

Requested information
Project Scope (Define the parameters of the proposed project):
The Standards Drafting Team (SDT) for Project 2018-02 will address FERC’s directives in Order No. 848
that require developing or modifying existing Reliability Standards and associated definitions to
augment the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents. The scope of any new reporting requirement will be
tailored to provide better information on cyber security threats and vulnerabilities without imposing an
undue burden on responsible entities.
Detailed Description (Describe the proposed deliverable(s) with sufficient detail for a drafting team to
execute the project. If you propose a new or substantially revised Reliability Standard or definition,
provide: (1) a technical justification 1which includes a discussion of the reliability-related benefits of
developing a new or revised Reliability Standard or definition, and (2) a technical foundation document
(e.g. research paper) to guide development of the Standard or definition):
The SDT shall address the Order No. 848 directives. The Reliability Standard(s) developed or revised will
include the 4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring
that each report includes specified fields of information;
3. establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).
With regard to identifying EACMS for reporting purposes, the Commission stated that the reporting
threshold should encompass the functions that various electronic access control and monitoring
technologies provide. The Commission specified that, at a minimum, those functions must include:
1. authentication;
2. monitoring and logging;
3. access control;
4. interactive remote access; and
5. alerting.

1

The NERC Rules of Procedure require a technical justification for new or substantially revised Reliability Standards. Please attach pertinent
information to this form before submittal to NERC.

Standard Authorization Request (SAR)

2

Requested information
With regard to the definition of “attempted compromise” for reporting purposes, the Commission
stated that it considers attempted compromise to include unauthorized access attempts or other
confirmed suspicious activity.
With regard to content to be included in each report, the Commission stated that the minimum set of
attributes to be reported must include:
1. The the functional impact, where possible to determine, that the Cyber Security Incident
achieved or attempted to achieve;
2. the attack vector that was used to achieve or attempted to achieve the Cyber Security Incident;
and
3. the level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted as a result of the Cyber Security Incident.

Cost Impact Assessment, if known (Provide a paragraph describing the potential cost impacts associated
with the proposed project):
No additional cost outside of the time and resources needed to serve on the Standard Drafting Team
are expected. However, a question will be asked during the SAR comment period to ensure all aspects
are considered.
Please describe any unique characteristics of the BES facilities that may be impacted by this proposed
standard development project (e.g. Dispersed Generation Resources):
None
To assist the NERC Standards Committee in appointing a drafting team with the appropriate members,
please indicate to which Functional Entities the proposed standard(s) should apply (e.g. Transmission
Operator, Reliability Coordinator, etc. See the most recent version of the NERC Functional Model for
definitions):
Balancing Authority, Distribution Provider, Generator Operator, Generator Owner, Reliability
Coordinator, Transmission Operator, Transmission Owner
Do you know of any consensus building activities 2 in connection with this SAR? If so, please provide any
recommendations or findings resulting from the consensus building activity.
No consensus building has been completed to date.
Are there any related standards or SARs that should be assessed for impact as a result of this proposed
project? If so which standard(s) or project number(s)?
Project 2016-02 is currently working on addressing FERC directives and the V5TAG Transition document
which include potential modifications to the ESP and EACMS definitions.
Are there alternatives (e.g. guidelines, white paper, alerts, etc.) that have been considered or could
meet the objectives? If so, please list the alternatives.
NA

2

Consensus building activities are occasionally conducted by NERC and/or project review teams. They typically are conducted to obtain
industry inputs prior to proposing any standard development project to revise, or develop a standard or definition.

Standard Authorization Request (SAR)

3

Reliability Principles
Does this proposed standard development project support at least one of the following Reliability
Principles (Reliability Interface Principles)? Please check all those that apply.
1. Interconnected bulk power systems shall be planned and operated in a coordinated manner to
perform reliably under normal and abnormal conditions as defined in the NERC Standards.
2. The frequency and voltage of interconnected bulk power systems shall be controlled within
defined limits through the balancing of real and reactive power supply and demand.
3. Information necessary for the planning and operation of interconnected bulk power systems
shall be made available to those entities responsible for planning and operating the systems
reliably.
4. Plans for emergency operation and system restoration of interconnected bulk power systems
shall be developed, coordinated, maintained and implemented.
5. Facilities for communication, monitoring and control shall be provided, used and maintained
for the reliability of interconnected bulk power systems.
6. Personnel responsible for planning and operating interconnected bulk power systems shall be
trained, qualified, and have the responsibility and authority to implement actions.
7. The security of the interconnected bulk power systems shall be assessed, monitored and
maintained on a wide area basis.
8. Bulk power systems shall be protected from malicious physical or cyber attacks.
Market Interface Principles
Does the proposed standard development project comply with all of the following
Market Interface Principles?
1. A reliability standard shall not give any market participant an unfair competitive
advantage.
2. A reliability standard shall neither mandate nor prohibit any specific market
structure.
3. A reliability standard shall not preclude market solutions to achieving compliance
with that standard.
4. A reliability standard shall not require the public disclosure of commercially
sensitive information. All market participants shall have equal opportunity to
access commercially non-sensitive information that is required for compliance
with reliability standards.

Enter
(yes/no)
yes
yes
yes

yes

Identified Existing or Potential Regional or Interconnection Variances
Region(s)/
Explanation
Interconnection
NA

For Use by NERC Only

Standard Authorization Request (SAR)

4

SAR Status Tracking (Check off as appropriate)
Draft SAR reviewed by NERC Staff
Draft SAR presented to SC for acceptance
DRAFT SAR approved for posting by the SC

Final SAR endorsed by the SC
SAR assigned a Standards Project by NERC
SAR denied or proposed as Guidance
document

Version History
Version

Date

Owner

Change Tracking

1

June 3, 2013

1

August 29, 2014

Standards Information Staff

Updated template

2

January 18, 2017

Standards Information Staff

Revised

2

June 28, 2017

Standards Information Staff

Updated template

Standard Authorization Request (SAR)

Revised

5

Unofficial Nomination Form

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting Standard Drafting Team
Do not use this form for submitting nominations. Use the electric form to submit nominations for Project
2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting standard drafting team (SDT)
members by 8 p.m. Eastern, Wednesday, August 29, 2018. This unofficial version is provided to assist
nominees in compiling the information necessary to submit the electronic form.
Additional information is available on the project page. If you have questions, contact Senior Standards
Developer, Alison Oswald (via email), or at 404-446-9668.
By submitting a nomination form, you are indicating your willingness and agreement to actively
participate in face-to-face meetings and conference calls.
Previous drafting or review team experience is beneficial, but not required. A brief description of the
desired qualifications, expected commitment, and other pertinent information is included below.
Cyber Security Incident Reporting

The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 in order to
augment mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempts that might facilitate
subsequent efforts to harm the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC
to develop and submit modifications that would “require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or
associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMs).”
The Reliability Standard(s) developed or revised will include the 4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report includes specified fields of information;
3. establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber
Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).

Standard affected: CIP-008-5

A significant time commitment is expected of SDT members to meet the six-month regulatory
deadline established in Order No. 848. SDT activities include participation in technical conferences,
stakeholder communications and outreach events, periodic drafting team meetings and conference
calls. Approximately three face-to-face meetings between September and December 2018 (on
average three full working days each meeting) with conference calls scheduled as needed to meet the
agreed-upon timeline the review or drafting team sets forth. Due to the expedited timeline on this
project, please be prepared for an initial meeting at the end of September 2018. NERC is seeking
individuals from the United States and Canada who possess experience in one or more of the
following areas:
•

Critical Infrastructure Protection (“CIP”) family of Reliability Standards

•

Incident reporting

•

Cyber Asset and BES Cyber Asset definitions

•

Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT)

Name:
Organization:
Address:

Telephone:
E-mail:
Please briefly describe your experience and qualifications to serve on the requested Standard
Drafting Team (Bio):

If you are currently a member of any NERC drafting team, please list each team here:
Not currently on any active drafting team.
Currently a member of the following drafting team(s):
If you previously worked on any NERC drafting team please identify the team(s):
No prior NERC drafting team.
Prior experience on the following team(s):

Unofficial Nomination Form
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 | August 2018

2

Select each NERC Region in which you have experience relevant to the Project for which you are
volunteering:
Texas RE
FRCC
MRO

NPCC
RF
SERC

WECC
NA – Not Applicable

Select each Industry Segment that you represent:
1 — Transmission Owners
2 — RTOs, ISOs
3 — Load-serving Entities
4 — Transmission-dependent Utilities
5 — Electric Generators
6 — Electricity Brokers, Aggregators, and Marketers
7 — Large Electricity End Users
8 — Small Electricity End Users
9 — Federal, State, and Provincial Regulatory or other Government Entities
10 — Regional Reliability Organizations and Regional Entities
NA – Not Applicable
Select each Function 1 in which you have current or prior expertise:
Balancing Authority
Compliance Enforcement Authority
Distribution Provider
Generator Operator
Generator Owner
Interchange Authority
Load-serving Entity
Market Operator
Planning Coordinator

1 These

Transmission Operator
Transmission Owner
Transmission Planner
Transmission Service Provider
Purchasing-selling Entity
Reliability Coordinator
Reliability Assurer
Resource Planner

functions are defined in the NERC Functional Model, which is available on the NERC web site.

Unofficial Nomination Form
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 | August 2018

3

Provide the names and contact information for two references who could attest to your technical
qualifications and your ability to work well in a group:
Name:

Telephone:

Organization:

E-mail:

Name:

Telephone:

Organization:

E-mail:

Provide the name and contact information of your immediate supervisor or a member of your
management who can confirm your organization’s willingness to support your active participation.
Name:

Telephone:

Title:

Email:

Unofficial Nomination Form
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 | August 2018

4

Standards Announcement

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting

Nomination Period Open through August 29, 2018
Now Available

Nominations are being sought for standard drafting team (SDT) members through 8 p.m. Eastern,
Wednesday, August 29, 2018.
Use the electronic form to submit a nomination. If you experience issues using the electronic form,
contact Wendy Muller. An unofficial Word version of the nomination form is posted on the Drafting
Team Vacancies page and the project page.
By submitting a nomination form, you are indicating your willingness and agreement to actively
participate in face-to-face meetings and conference calls.
A significant time commitment is expected of SDT members to meet the six-month regulatory
deadline established in Order No. 848. SDT activities include participation in technical conferences,
stakeholder communications and outreach events, periodic drafting team meetings and conference
calls. Approximately three face-to-face meetings between September and December 2018 (on
average three full working days each meeting) with conference calls scheduled as needed to meet
the agreed-upon timeline the review or drafting team sets forth. Due to the expedited timeline on
this project, please be prepared for an initial meeting at the end of September 2018. NERC is
seeking individuals from the United States and Canada who possess experience in one or more of
the following areas:
•

Critical Infrastructure Protection (“CIP”) family of Reliability Standards

•

Incident reporting

•

Cyber Asset and BES Cyber Asset definitions

•

Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT)

Previous drafting or periodic review team experience is beneficial, but not required. See the
project page and unofficial nomination form for additional information.
Next Steps
The Standards Committee is expected to appoint members to the team mid-September 2018.
Nominees will be notified shortly after they have been selected.
For information on the Standards Development Process, refer to the Standard Processes Manual.

For more information or assistance, contact Senior Standards Developer, Alison Oswald (via email) or at
404-446-9668.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com

Standards Announcement | Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008
Nomination Period | August 2018

2

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Standard Development Timeline
This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will
be removed when the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board).

Description of Current Draft
This is the first draft of proposed standard for formal 20-day comment period.
Completed Actions

Date

Standards Committee approved Standard Authorization Request
(SAR) for posting

August 9, 2018

SAR posted for comment

August 10 –
September 10, 2018

Anticipated Actions

Date

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

5-day final ballot

January 2019

Board adoption

February 2019

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 1 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards
This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms:

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter
or (2) Physical Security Perimeter or, (3) Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System
for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or;
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.
Proposed New Term:

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 2 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-6

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner
4.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 3 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.6 Transmission Operator
4.1.7 Transmission Owner
4.2.

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-6:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 4 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.
5.

Effective Dates:
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems. CIP003, CIP-004, CIP-005, CIP-006, CIP-007, CIP-008, CIP-009, CIP-010, and CIP-011
require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural controls to
mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems. This suite of CIP Standards is referred to as the
Version 5 CIP Cyber Security Standards.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in their documented
processes, but they must address the applicable requirements in the table.
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it makes sense and is commonly understood. For example, documented
processes describing a response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident
response plans and recovery plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an
approach involving multiple procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a subject matter. Examples in the
standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel training
program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could also be
referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply any
additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 5 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.



High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization processes.
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 6 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation
Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 7 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process to identify, classify, and
respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

EACMS

Page 8 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


1.3

Measures

One or more processes to determine
if an identified Cyber Security Incident
is a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident or a Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incident and requires
notification per Requirement R4.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incidents
and documented processes for
notification.

The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


Requirements

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:

1.4

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Page 9 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R2.

Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time
Operations].

M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of
the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and
Testing.

CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:





Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Measures

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

Page 10 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident, or
performing an exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Document deviations from the plan(s)
taken during the response to the
incident or exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents.

Page 11 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 12 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 13 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
that the Responsible Entity determines
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
their associated:


EACMS

3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 14 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R4.

Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and each United States
Responsible Entity also shall notify the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT), or their
successors, of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents, unless prohibited by
law, according to each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber
Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.

CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems

Requirements

Measures

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

Except for Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents compromising or disrupting a
Physical Security Perimeter, initial
notifications and updates shall include the
following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial notifications
and updates to the E-ISAC and ICSCERT in the form of Attachment 1
submissions.



EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 15 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


4.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Measures

Responsible Entities shall use one of the
following methods for initial notification:
 Electronic submission of
Attachment 1;
 Phone; or
 Email.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and ICS-CERT in the form of
electronic submissions of Attachment
1, phone records or email.

If Attachment 1 was not submitted for
initial notification, it must be submitted
within 5 calendar days of initial
notification, without attribute information
if undetermined at the time of submittal.
Timeline for initial notification:


One hour from the determination
of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.



By the end of the next calendar day
after a determination of a
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident.

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Requirements

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and ICS-CERT in the form of
phone records for preliminary notice
or submissions through the E-ISAC
and ICS-CERT approved methods, or
Attachment 1 submissions.

Page 16 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.4

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

Responsible Entities shall submit
Attachment 1 updates for the attributes
required in Part 4.1 within 5 calendar days
of determination of new or changed
attribute information. Submissions must
occur each time new attribute information
is available until all attributes have been
reported.



EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Attachment 1
submissions to the E-ISAC and ICSCERT.

Page 17 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1.

Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the ERO
or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall serve as
the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period since
the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for three
calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent audit
records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

None

Page 18 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. Table of Compliance Elements

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

R1

Long Term
Planning

Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.2)

Page 19 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

R2

Operations
Planning

Lower

Real-time
Operations

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

Moderate VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

High VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident occurs. (2.2)

R3

Operations
Assessment

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months
between tests of the
plan. (2.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incidents. (2.3)

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within

Page 20 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan within greater
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

High VSL

Severe VSL
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
Page 21 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL
each person or group
with a defined role
within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days
of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

R4

Operations
Assessment

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident and the
attributes within the

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident but failed to
report on one or more

High VSL

Severe VSL

within 90 calendar
days of any of the
following changes that
the responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, but failed
to notify or update EISAC or ICS-CERT, or
their successors,
within the timeframes
pursuant to

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident. (R4)

Page 22 of 34

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
timeframes pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but
failed to submit the
form in Attachment 1.
(4.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident and the
attributes within the
timeframes pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but
failed to use one of
the methods for initial
notification pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Part 4.2.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Moderate VSL
of the attributes
within the timeframes
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.4 after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.4)

High VSL
Requirement R4, Part
4.3.

OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident but failed to
report on one or more
of the attributes after
determination of the
attribute pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1.

Page 23 of 34

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
D. Regional Variances

None.
E. Interpretations

None.
F. Associated Documents

None.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 24 of 34

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Guidelines and Technical Basis
Note: The Guidelines and Technical Basis section has not been revised as part of Project 201802. A separate technical rationale document has been created to cover Project 2018-02
revisions. Future edits to this section will be conducted through the Technical Rationale for
Reliability Standards Project and the Standards Drafting Process.
Section 4 – Scope of Applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Standards
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible
Entities to determine the scope of the applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard
applies. If the entity is registered as one or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1,
then the NERC CIP Cyber Security Standards apply. Note that there is a qualification in Section
4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of Distribution Providers to only those that own
certain types of systems and equipment listed in 4.2. Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by
the Responsible Entity, as qualified in Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the
standard. As specified in the exemption section 4.2.3.5, this standard does not apply to
Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems under
CIP-002-5’s categorization. In addition to the set of BES Facilities, Control Centers, and other
systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and equipment owned by
Distribution Providers. While the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES
characteristic, the additional use of the term BES here is meant to reinforce the scope of
applicability of these Facilities where it is used, especially in this applicability scoping section.
This in effect sets the scope of Facilities, systems, and equipment that is subject to the
standards.
Requirement R1:
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a
Cyber Security Incident response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at
http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling
Guide, Special Publication 800-61 revision 1, March 2008, online at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61-rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has
compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to
distinguish Reportable Cyber Security Incidents as one resulting in a necessary response action.
A response action can fall into one of two categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing
Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 25 of 34

Guidelines and Technical Basis
characteristic is whether or not action was taken in response to an event. Precautionary
measures that are not in response to any persistent damage or effects may be designated as
elective. All other response actions to avoid any persistent damage or adverse effects, which
include the activation of redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary
notice to the ES-ISAC within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is
reportable (not within one hour of the Cyber Security Incident, an important distinction). This
addition is in response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs
673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not require
a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable,
but at least preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan.
This includes the requirement in Part 2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The
testing requirements are specifically for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for
exercising the plan annually. Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill,
tabletop exercise, or full operational exercise. For more specific types of exercises, refer to the
FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four
types of discussion-based exercises: seminar, workshop, tabletop, and games. In particular, it
defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key personnel discussing simulated scenarios in an
informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans, policies, and
procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional
exercise, and full-scale exercise. It defines that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multijurisdictional, multi-discipline exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office, Emergency
operation centers, etc.) and ‘boots on the ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating
mock victims).”
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must
retain relevant records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of
specific types of evidence listed in the measure. Entities should refer to their handling
procedures to determine the types of evidence to retain and how to transport and store the
evidence. For further information in retaining incident records, refer to the NIST Guide to
Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response (SP800-86). The NIST guideline includes
a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing forensics.
Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are
two requirement parts that trigger plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2)
organizational or technology changes from Part 3.2.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 26 of 34

Guidelines and Technical Basis
The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber
Security Incident and involves the activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to
document lessons learned starts after the completion of the incident in recognition that
complex incidents on complex systems can take a few days or weeks to complete response
activities. The process of conducting lessons learned can involve the response team discussing
the incident to determine gaps or areas of improvement within the plan. Any documented
deviations from the plan from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible
to have a Reportable Cyber Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such
cases, the entity must retain documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated
with the Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)

1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and
distributing those updates. Entities should consider meeting with all of the individuals involved
in the incident and documenting the lessons learned as soon after the incident as possible. This
allows more time for making effective updates to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals,
and distributing those updates to the incident response team.
The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology
changes referenced in the plan and involves the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below.
Organizational changes include changes to the roles and responsibilities people have in the plan
or changes to the response groups or individuals. This may include changes to the names or
contact information listed in the plan. Technology changes affecting the plan may include
referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing systems.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 27 of 34

Guidelines and Technical Basis

1/1
Organization and
Technology Changes

3/1
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/1 - 3/1
Update Plan and Distribute Updates

1/1

3/1

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2

Rationale:
During the development of this standard, references to prior versions of the CIP standards and
rationale for the requirements and their parts were embedded within the standard. Upon BOT
approval, that information was moved to this section.
Rationale for R1:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to
the reliable operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides
feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber
Systems. Preventative activities can lower the number of incidents, but not all incidents can be
prevented. A preplanned incident response capability is therefore necessary for rapidly
detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction, mitigating the weaknesses that were
exploited, and restoring computing services. An enterprise or single incident response plan for
all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the Requirement. An organization may have a
common plan for multiple registered entities it owns.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry
feedback to more specifically describe required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed
to “respond to” for clarity.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part
only obligates entities to have a process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Also addresses the directive in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676 to report within
one hour (at least preliminarily).
Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 28 of 34

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the
interpretation that roles and responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming change to reference new defined term Cyber Security Incidents.

Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to
the reliable operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides
feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber
Systems. This requirement ensures implementation of the response plans. Requirement Part
2.3 ensures the retention of incident documentation for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an
incident occurs or when testing, but does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations
from the plan. It ensures the plan represents the actual response and does not exist for
documentation only. If a plan is written at a high enough level, then every action during the
response should not be subject to scrutiny. The plan will likely allow for the appropriate
variance in tactical decisions made by incident responders. Deviations from the plan can be
documented during the incident response or afterward as part of the review.
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response
plan’s effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s)
impacting a BES Cyber System.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for
review.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 29 of 34

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in
the Compliance Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s
response plan’s effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security
Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System. A separate plan is not required for those requirement
parts of the table applicable to High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems. If an entity has a
single Cyber Security Incident response plan and High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems,
then the additional requirements would apply to the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which
includes a directive to perform after-action review for tests or actual incidents and update the
plan based on lessons learned. Additional changes include specification of what it means to
review the plan and specification of changes that would require an update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons
learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to
update the plan in response to any changes. The modifications make clear the changes that
would require an update.
Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to
“control center.”

2

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the
requirements and to bring the
compliance elements into conformance
with the latest guidelines for developing
compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business
judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a
Responsible Entity.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Page 30 of 34

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to
Compliance Enforcement Authority.
3

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the
sentence pertaining to removing
component or system from service in
order to perform testing, in response to
FERC order issued September 30, 2009.

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for
Critical Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Update

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving
VRFs and VSLs revisions to certain CIP
standards.

6

10/4/18

Modified to address directives in FERC
Order No. 848

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Update

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

Page 31 of 34

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

CIP-008-6 - Attachment 1
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form
Use this form to report Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incidents in accordance with CIP-008-6, Requirement R4.

Contact Information
Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Phone Number:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Incident Type
☐ Reportable Cyber Security Incident
☐ Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident

Reporting Category
☐ Initial Notification
☐

Update

Required Attribute Information
1. Attack Vector

☐

Initial

☐ Update

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.
2. Functional Impact

Click or tap here to enter text.
3. Level of Intrusion

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Page 32 of 34

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 - Attachment 2
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Attachment 2 provides instructions to aid in the completion of Attachment 1.
CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Contact
Information

Incident Type

Reporting
Category

Required
Attribute
Information

Field Name

Instructions

Name

Enter the First and Last Name of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Phone Number

Enter the Phone Number(s) of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if Attachment 1 includes information for a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

Reportable
Attempted Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if Attachment 1 includes information for a
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.

Initial
Notification

Check this box if Attachment 1 is being submitted to satisfy
initial notification obligations of Requirement R4 Part 4.2.

Update

Check this box if Attachment 1 is being submitted to satisfy
subsequent follow-up or update obligations of Requirement
R4 Part 4.2.

Attack Vector



If known, enter a narrative description of the Attack
Vector for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Attack Vector
fields)

Note: Do not check this box for incidents related solely to a
PSP(s).

Examples include, but are not limited to, malware, use of
stolen credentials, etc.
Attack Vector
Initial Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Attack Vector
If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
Update Checkbox select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 33 of 34

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Required
Attribute
Information

Field Name
Functional
Impact

(Functional
Impact fields)

Required
Attribute
Information

Instructions


If known, enter a narrative description of the functional
impact for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Examples include, but are not limited to, situational
awareness, dynamic response, ability to perform Real-time
Assessments, or Real-time monitoring etc.
Functional
Impact Initial
Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Functional
Impact Update
Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion



If known, enter a narrative description of the level of
intrusion for the compromise or attempt to compromise
to satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement
R4 Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Level of
Intrusion fields)

Examples include, but are not limited to, whether the
compromise or attempt to compromise occurred on
Applicable Systems outside the Electronic Security Perimeter
(ESP), at the ESP, or inside the ESP. Additionally, level of
intrusion may include the Applicable System impact level and
Cyber Asset classification level.
Level of Intrusion
Initial Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
Update Checkbox select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 34 of 34

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Standard Development Timeline
This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will
be removed when the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board).

Description of Current Draft
This is the first draft of proposed standard for formal 20-day comment period.
Completed Actions

Date

Standards Committee approved Standard Authorization Request
(SAR) for posting

August 9, 2018

SAR posted for comment

August 10 –
September 10, 2018

Anticipated Actions

Date

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

5-day final ballot

January 2019

Board adoption

February 2019

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October
2018
Page 1 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards
This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms:

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter
or (2) Physical Security Perimeter or, (3) Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System
for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or;
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or.
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.
Proposed New Term:

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October
2018
Page 2 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B.
C.A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-65

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Special Protection System or Remedial Action Scheme
where the Special Protection System or Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October
2018
Page 3 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.4 Generator Owner
4.1.5 Interchange Coordinator or Interchange Authority
4.1.64.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

4.2.

4.1.74.1.6

Transmission Operator

4.1.84.1.7

Transmission Owner

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Special Protection System or Remedial Action Scheme
where the Special Protection System or Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-65:

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October
2018
Page 4 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.
5.

Effective Dates:
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.1. 24 Months Minimum – CIP-008-5 shall
become effective on the later of July 1, 2015, or the first calendar day of the ninth
calendar quarter after the effective date of the order providing applicable
regulatory approval.
2.

6.

In those jurisdictions where no regulatory approval is required, CIP-008-5 shall
become effective on the first day of the ninth calendar quarter following Board of
Trustees’ approval, or as otherwise made effective pursuant to the laws
applicable to such ERO governmental authorities.

Background:
Standard CIP-008-5 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002-5 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems.
CIP-003-5, CIP-004-5, CIP-005-5, CIP-006-5, CIP-007-5, CIP-008-5, CIP-009-5, CIP-010-1,
and CIP-011-1 require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural
controls to mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems. This suite of CIP Standards is referred
to as the Version 5 CIP Cyber Security Standards.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October
2018
Page 5 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in their documented
processes, but they must address the applicable requirements in the table.
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it makes sense and is commonly understood. For example, documented
processes describing a response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident
response plans and recovery plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an
approach involving multiple procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a subject matter. Examples in the
standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel training
program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could also be
referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply any
additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.
Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October
2018
Page 6 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning




High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October
2018
Page 7 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
D.B.
R1.

Requirements and Measures
Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-65 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-65 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 8 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-65 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process to identify, classify, and
respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

EACMS

Page 9 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-65 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


1.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

One or more processes to determine
if an identified Cyber Security Incident
is a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident and notify the Electricity
Sector Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (ES-ISAC), unless
prohibited by law. Initial notification
to the ES-ISAC, which may be only a
preliminary notice, shall not exceed
one hour from the determination of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.or
a Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and requires
notification per Requirement R4.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents and documentation
of initial notices to the Electricity
Sector Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). or
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents and documented processes
for notification.

The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Page 10 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-65 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.4

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Requirements
Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Page 11 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R2.

Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-65 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time
Operations].

M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of
the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-65 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and
Testing.

CIP-008-65 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:





Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Measures

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

Page 12 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-65 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident, or
performing an exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Document deviations from the plan(s)
taken during the response to the
incident or exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents.

Page 13 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-65 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-65 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 14 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-65 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 15 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-65 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
that the Responsible Entity determines
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
their associated:


EACMS

3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 16 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R4.

Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and each United States
Responsible Entity also shall notify the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT), or their
successors, of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents, unless prohibited by
law, according to each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber
Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.

CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems

Requirements

Measures

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

Except for Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents compromising or disrupting a
Physical Security Perimeter, initial
notifications and updates shall include the
following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial notifications
and updates to the E-ISAC and ICSCERT in the form of Attachment 1
submissions.



EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 17 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


4.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Measures

Responsible Entities shall use one of the
following methods for initial notification:
 Electronic submission of
Attachment 1;
 Phone; or
 Email.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and ICS-CERT in the form of
electronic submissions of Attachment
1, phone records or email.

If Attachment 1 was not submitted for
initial notification, it must be submitted
within 5 calendar days of initial
notification, without attribute information
if undetermined at the time of submittal.
Timeline for initial notification:


One hour from the determination
of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.



By the end of the next calendar day
after a determination of a
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident.

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Requirements

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and ICS-CERT in the form of
phone records for preliminary notice
or submissions through the E-ISAC
and ICS-CERT approved methods, or
Attachment 1 submissions.

Page 18 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.4

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

Responsible Entities shall submit
Attachment 1 updates for the attributes
required in Part 4.1 within 5 calendar days
of determination of new or changed
attribute information. Submissions must
occur each time new attribute information
is available until all attributes have been
reported.



EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

EACMS

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Attachment 1
submissions to the E-ISAC and ICSCERT.

Page 19 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
E.C.

1.

Compliance

Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the ERO
or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall serve as
the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period since
the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for three
calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent audit
records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:


Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

None

Page 20 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. Table of Compliance Elements

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-65)
Lower VSL

R1

Long Term
Planning

Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.2)
OR

Page 21 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-65)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but did
not provide at least
preliminary
notification to ES-ISAC
within one hour from
identification of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (1.2)

R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months
between tests of the
plan. (2.1)

OR

The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Reportable Attempted

The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

OR

Page 22 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-65)
Lower VSL

R3

Operations
Assessment

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan within greater
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident occurs. (2.2)

Cyber Security
Incidents. (2.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
Page 23 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-65)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days
of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

High VSL
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 90 calendar
days of any of the
following changes that
the responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

Page 24 of 37

Severe VSL

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-65)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

• Technology
changes.
R4

Operations
Assessment

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident and the
attributes within the
timeframes pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but
failed to submit the
form in Attachment 1.
(4.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident and the

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident but failed to
report on one or more
of the attributes
within the timeframes
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.4 after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.4)

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, but failed
to notify or update EISAC or ICS-CERT, or
their successors,
within the timeframes
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.3.

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Page 25 of 37

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-65)
Lower VSL
attributes within the
timeframes pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but
failed to use one of
the methods for initial
notification pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Part 4.2.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident but failed to
report on one or more
of the attributes after
determination of the
attribute pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1.

Page 26 of 37

Severe VSL

CIP-008-65 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
F.D.

Regional Variances

None.
G.E.

Interpretations

None.
H.F.

Associated Documents

None.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 27 of 37

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Guidelines and Technical Basis
Note: The Guidelines and Technical Basis section has not been revised as part of Project 201802. A separate technical rationale document has been created to cover Project 2018-02
revisions. Future edits to this section will be conducted through the Technical Rationale for
Reliability Standards Project and the Standards Drafting Process.
Section 4 – Scope of Applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Standards
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible
Entities to determine the scope of the applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard
applies. If the entity is registered as one or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1,
then the NERC CIP Cyber Security Standards apply. Note that there is a qualification in Section
4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of Distribution Providers to only those that own
certain types of systems and equipment listed in 4.2. Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by
the Responsible Entity, as qualified in Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the
standard. As specified in the exemption section 4.2.3.5, this standard does not apply to
Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems under
CIP-002-5’s categorization. In addition to the set of BES Facilities, Control Centers, and other
systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and equipment owned by
Distribution Providers. While the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES
characteristic, the additional use of the term BES here is meant to reinforce the scope of
applicability of these Facilities where it is used, especially in this applicability scoping section.
This in effect sets the scope of Facilities, systems, and equipment that is subject to the
standards.
Requirement R1:
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a
Cyber Security Incident response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at
http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling
Guide, Special Publication 800-61 revision 1, March 2008, online at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61-rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has
compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to
distinguish Reportable Cyber Security Incidents as one resulting in a necessary response action.
A response action can fall into one of two categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing
Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 28 of 37

Guidelines and Technical Basis
characteristic is whether or not action was taken in response to an event. Precautionary
measures that are not in response to any persistent damage or effects may be designated as
elective. All other response actions to avoid any persistent damage or adverse effects, which
include the activation of redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary
notice to the ES-ISAC within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is
reportable (not within one hour of the Cyber Security Incident, an important distinction). This
addition is in response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs
673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not require
a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable,
but at least preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan.
This includes the requirement in Part 2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The
testing requirements are specifically for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for
exercising the plan annually. Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill,
tabletop exercise, or full operational exercise. For more specific types of exercises, refer to the
FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four
types of discussion-based exercises: seminar, workshop, tabletop, and games. In particular, it
defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key personnel discussing simulated scenarios in an
informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans, policies, and
procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional
exercise, and full-scale exercise. It defines that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multijurisdictional, multi-discipline exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office, Emergency
operation centers, etc.) and ‘boots on the ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating
mock victims).”
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must
retain relevant records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of
specific types of evidence listed in the measure. Entities should refer to their handling
procedures to determine the types of evidence to retain and how to transport and store the
evidence. For further information in retaining incident records, refer to the NIST Guide to
Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response (SP800-86). The NIST guideline includes
a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing forensics.
Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are
two requirement parts that trigger plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2)
organizational or technology changes from Part 3.2.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 29 of 37

Guidelines and Technical Basis
The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber
Security Incident and involves the activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to
document lessons learned starts after the completion of the incident in recognition that
complex incidents on complex systems can take a few days or weeks to complete response
activities. The process of conducting lessons learned can involve the response team discussing
the incident to determine gaps or areas of improvement within the plan. Any documented
deviations from the plan from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible
to have a Reportable Cyber Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such
cases, the entity must retain documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated
with the Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)

1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and
distributing those updates. Entities should consider meeting with all of the individuals involved
in the incident and documenting the lessons learned as soon after the incident as possible. This
allows more time for making effective updates to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals,
and distributing those updates to the incident response team.
The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology
changes referenced in the plan and involves the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below.
Organizational changes include changes to the roles and responsibilities people have in the plan
or changes to the response groups or individuals. This may include changes to the names or
contact information listed in the plan. Technology changes affecting the plan may include
referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing systems.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 30 of 37

Guidelines and Technical Basis

1/1
Organization and
Technology Changes

3/1
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/1 - 3/1
Update Plan and Distribute Updates

1/1

3/1

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2

Rationale:
During the development of this standard, references to prior versions of the CIP standards and
rationale for the requirements and their parts were embedded within the standard. Upon BOT
approval, that information was moved to this section.
Rationale for R1:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to
the reliable operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides
feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber
Systems. Preventative activities can lower the number of incidents, but not all incidents can be
prevented. A preplanned incident response capability is therefore necessary for rapidly
detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction, mitigating the weaknesses that were
exploited, and restoring computing services. An enterprise or single incident response plan for
all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the Requirement. An organization may have a
common plan for multiple registered entities it owns.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry
feedback to more specifically describe required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed
to “respond to” for clarity.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part
only obligates entities to have a process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Also addresses the directive in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676 to report within
one hour (at least preliminarily).
Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 31 of 37

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the
interpretation that roles and responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming change to reference new defined term Cyber Security Incidents.

Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to
the reliable operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides
feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber
Systems. This requirement ensures implementation of the response plans. Requirement Part
2.3 ensures the retention of incident documentation for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an
incident occurs or when testing, but does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations
from the plan. It ensures the plan represents the actual response and does not exist for
documentation only. If a plan is written at a high enough level, then every action during the
response should not be subject to scrutiny. The plan will likely allow for the appropriate
variance in tactical decisions made by incident responders. Deviations from the plan can be
documented during the incident response or afterward as part of the review.
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response
plan’s effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s)
impacting a BES Cyber System.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for
review.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 32 of 37

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in
the Compliance Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s
response plan’s effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security
Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System. A separate plan is not required for those requirement
parts of the table applicable to High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems. If an entity has a
single Cyber Security Incident response plan and High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems,
then the additional requirements would apply to the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which
includes a directive to perform after-action review for tests or actual incidents and update the
plan based on lessons learned. Additional changes include specification of what it means to
review the plan and specification of changes that would require an update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons
learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to
update the plan in response to any changes. The modifications make clear the changes that
would require an update.
Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to
“control center.”

2

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the
requirements and to bring the
compliance elements into conformance
with the latest guidelines for developing
compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business
judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a
Responsible Entity.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Page 33 of 37

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to
Compliance Enforcement Authority.
3

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the
sentence pertaining to removing
component or system from service in
order to perform testing, in response to
FERC order issued September 30, 2009.

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for
Critical Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Update

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving
VRFs and VSLs revisions to certain CIP
standards.

6

10/4/18

Modified to address directives in FERC
Order No. 848

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Update

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

Page 34 of 37

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

CIP-008-6 - Attachment 1
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form
Use this form to report Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incidents in accordance with CIP-008-6, Requirement R4.

Contact Information
Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Phone Number:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Incident Type
☐ Reportable Cyber Security Incident
☐ Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident

Reporting Category
☐ Initial Notification
☐

Update

Required Attribute Information
1. Attack Vector

☐

Initial

☐ Update

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.
2. Functional Impact

Click or tap here to enter text.
3. Level of Intrusion

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Page 35 of 37

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 - Attachment 2
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Attachment 2 provides instructions to aid in the completion of Attachment 1.
CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Contact
Information

Incident Type

Reporting
Category

Required
Attribute
Information

Field Name

Instructions

Name

Enter the First and Last Name of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Phone Number

Enter the Phone Number(s) of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if Attachment 1 includes information for a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

Reportable
Attempted Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if Attachment 1 includes information for a
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.

Initial
Notification

Check this box if Attachment 1 is being submitted to satisfy
initial notification obligations of Requirement R4 Part 4.2.

Update

Check this box if Attachment 1 is being submitted to satisfy
subsequent follow-up or update obligations of Requirement
R4 Part 4.2.

Attack Vector



If known, enter a narrative description of the Attack
Vector for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Attack Vector
fields)

Note: Do not check this box for incidents related solely to a
PSP(s).

Examples include, but are not limited to, malware, use of
stolen credentials, etc.
Attack Vector
Initial Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Attack Vector
If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
Update Checkbox select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 36 of 37

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Required
Attribute
Information

Field Name
Functional
Impact

(Functional
Impact fields)

Required
Attribute
Information

Instructions


If known, enter a narrative description of the functional
impact for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Examples include, but are not limited to, situational
awareness, dynamic response, ability to perform Real-time
Assessments, or Real-time monitoring etc.
Functional
Impact Initial
Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Functional
Impact Update
Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion



If known, enter a narrative description of the level of
intrusion for the compromise or attempt to compromise
to satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement
R4 Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Level of
Intrusion fields)

Examples include, but are not limited to, whether the
compromise or attempt to compromise occurred on
Applicable Systems outside the Electronic Security Perimeter
(ESP), at the ESP, or inside the ESP. Additionally, level of
intrusion may include the Applicable System impact level and
Cyber Asset classification level.
Level of Intrusion
Initial Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
Update Checkbox select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Draft 1 of CIP-008-6
October 2018

Page 37 of 37

Implementation Plan
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting | Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Applicable Standard


CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Requested Retirement


CIP-008-5 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Prerequisite Standard(s)
These standard(s) or definitions must be approved before the Applicable Standard becomes
effective: None
Applicable Entities


Balancing Authority



Distribution Provider



Generator Operator



Generator Owner



Reliability Coordinator



Transmission Operator



Transmission Owner

New Terms in the NERC Glossary of Terms
This section includes all newly defined, revised, or retired terms used or eliminated in the NERC
Reliability Standard. New or revised definitions listed below become approved when the proposed
standard is approved. When the standard becomes effective, these defined terms will be removed
from the individual standard and added to the Glossary.
Proposed New Definition:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or



Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following
functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive
Remote Access; or (5) alerting

Proposed Modified Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter, (2)
or Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System for
High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following
functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive
Remote Access; or (5) alerting
Proposed Retirements of Approved Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, the Electronic Security Perimeter or
Physical Security Perimeter or,
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a
functional entity.
Background
The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 to augment
mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempted Cyber Security Incidents that
might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES).
FERC directed NERC to develop and submit modifications that would “require the reporting of
Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s
Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems
(EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the 4 elements outlined by FERC:

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | October 2018

2

1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by
ensuring that each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control
Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).
Effective Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the standard, or as otherwise
provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 calendar months after the date the
standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise provided for in that jurisdiction.
Definition
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the definition shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, or
as otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the definition shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 calendar months after the
date that Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise
provided for in that jurisdiction.
Retirement Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability
Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming effective.
Definition

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | October 2018

3

The definitions proposed for retirement shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming
effective.

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | October 2018

4

Unofficial Comment Form

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting
Note that this comment period is 20 days, with the ballot pool forming the first 15 and the initial ballot
conducted the final 5 days.
Do not use this form for submitting comments. Use the Standards Balloting and Commenting System
(SBS) to provide comments on CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security - Incident Reporting and Response Planning.
Comments must be submitted by 8 p.m. Eastern, Tuesday, October 22, 2018.
m. Eastern, Thursday, August 20, 2015
Additional information is available on the project page. If you have questions, contact Senior Standards
Developer, Alison Oswald (via email), or at 404-446-9668.
Background Information

The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 in order to
augment mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempts that might facilitate
subsequent efforts to harm the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC
to develop and submit modifications that would “require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or
associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the 4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber
Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).

Questions

1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) created a new definition and modified existing definitions to
address the directive in FERC Order No. 848 paragraph 31 regarding “attempts to compromise”
without expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that
use existing Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) definitions. Do
you agree with the proposed modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber
Security Incident, and the proposed new definition of, Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident? If not, please provide comments and alternate language, if possible.
Yes
No
Comments:
2. The SDT added Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) to applicable systems as
opposed to modifying the NERC Glossary EACMS definition to ensure the FERC Order No. 848
paragraph 54 directive to expand reporting requirements to EACMS was met without expanding
the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that use the existing
EACMS NERC Glossary definition. Do you agree with the addition of EACMS to the applicable
systems column in the tables in CIP-008-6? If not, please provide comments and an alternate
approach to addressing the directive, if possible.
Yes
No
Comments:
3. Do you agree with reporting timeframes included Requirement R4? If you disagree please explain
and provide alternative language and rationale for how it meets the directives in FERC Order No.
848.
Yes
No
Comments:
4. The SDT created Attachment 1 to be used for consistent reporting and intentionally aligned the
content with FERC Order No. 848 paragraphs 69 and 73. Do you agree with the content and use of
Attachment 1?
Yes
No
Comments:

Unofficial Comment Form
Project 2018-02 Modifiations to CIP-008 | October 2018

2

5. Do you agree with the required methods of notification proposed by the SDT in Requirement R4,
Part 4.2? If no, please explain and provide comments.
Yes
No
Comments:
6. Although not balloted, do you agree with the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for
Requirement R4? If no, please explain and provide comments.
Yes
No
Comments:
7. Do you agree with the 12-month Implementation Plan? If you think an alternate, shorter, or longer
implementation time period is needed, please propose an alternate implementation plan and time
period, and provide a detailed explanation of actions planned to meet the implementation
deadline.
Yes
No
Comments:
8. The SDT proposes that the modifications in CIP-008-6 provide entities with flexibility to meet the
reliability objectives in a cost effective manner. Do you agree? If you do not agree, or if you agree
but have suggestions for improvement to enable more cost effective approaches, please provide
your recommendation and, if appropriate, technical or procedural justification.
Yes
No
Comments:
9. Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.
Comments:

Unofficial Comment Form
Project 2018-02 Modifiations to CIP-008 | October 2018

3

Violation Risk Factor and Violation Severity Level Justification
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

This document provides the standard drafting team’s (SDT’s) justification for assignment of violation risk factors (VRFs) and violation severity
levels (VSLs) for each requirement in [Project Number and Name or Standard Number]. Each requirement is assigned a VRF and a VSL. These
elements support the determination of an initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of requirements in FERCapproved Reliability Standards, as defined in the Electric Reliability Organizations (ERO) Sanction Guidelines. The SDT applied the following
NERC criteria and FERC Guidelines when developing the VRFs and VSLs for the requirements.

NERC Criteria for Violation Risk Factors
High Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of
failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a
planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly
cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System
at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition.
Medium Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively
monitor and control the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is unlikely to lead to Bulk Electric System
instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal,
or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly and adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is
unlikely, under emergency, abnormal, or restoration conditions anticipated by the preparations, to lead to Bulk Electric System instability,
separation, or cascading failures, nor to hinder restoration to a normal condition.

Lower Risk Requirement

A requirement that is administrative in nature and a requirement that, if violated, would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical
state or capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk Electric System; or, a requirement that
is administrative in nature and a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, would not, under the emergency, abnormal, or
restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

FERC Guidelines for Violation Risk Factors
Guideline (1) – Consistency with the Conclusions of the Final Blackout Report

FERC seeks to ensure that VRFs assigned to Requirements of Reliability Standards in these identified areas appropriately reflect their historical
critical impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. In the VSL Order, FERC listed critical areas (from the Final Blackout Report) where
violations could severely affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System:


Emergency operations



Vegetation management



Operator personnel training



Protection systems and their coordination



Operating tools and backup facilities



Reactive power and voltage control



System modeling and data exchange



Communication protocol and facilities



Requirements to determine equipment ratings



Synchronized data recorders



Clearer criteria for operationally critical facilities



Appropriate use of transmission loading relief.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

2

Guideline (2) – Consistency within a Reliability Standard

FERC expects a rational connection between the sub-Requirement VRF assignments and the main Requirement VRF assignment.
Guideline (3) – Consistency among Reliability Standards

FERC expects the assignment of VRFs corresponding to Requirements that address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.
Guideline (4) – Consistency with NERC’s Definition of the Violation Risk Factor Level

Guideline (4) was developed to evaluate whether the assignment of a particular VRF level conforms to NERC’s definition of that risk level.
Guideline (5) – Treatment of Requirements that Co-mingle More Than One Obligation

Where a single Requirement co-mingles a higher risk reliability objective and a lesser risk reliability objective, the VRF assignment for such
Requirements must not be watered down to reflect the lower risk level associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

3

NERC Criteria for Violation Severity Levels
VSLs define the degree to which compliance with a requirement was not achieved. Each requirement must have at least one VSL. While it is
preferable to have four VSLs for each requirement, some requirements do not have multiple “degrees” of noncompliant performance and
may have only one, two, or three VSLs.
VSLs should be based on NERC’s overarching criteria shown in the table below:
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

The performance or product
measured almost meets the full
intent of the requirement.

The performance or product
measured meets the majority of
the intent of the requirement.

High VSL

The performance or product
measured does not meet the
majority of the intent of the
requirement, but does meet
some of the intent.

Severe VSL

The performance or product
measured does not
substantively meet the intent of
the requirement.

FERC Order of Violation Severity Levels
The FERC VSL guidelines are presented below, followed by an analysis of whether the VSLs proposed for each requirement in the standard
meet the FERC Guidelines for assessing VSLs:
Guideline (1) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Not Have the Unintended Consequence of Lowering the Current
Level of Compliance

Compare the VSLs to any prior levels of non-compliance and avoid significant changes that may encourage a lower level of compliance than
was required when levels of non-compliance were used.
Guideline (2) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Ensure Uniformity and Consistency in the Determination of
Penalties

A violation of a “binary” type requirement must be a “Severe” VSL.
Do not use ambiguous terms such as “minor” and “significant” to describe noncompliant performance.
Guideline (3) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Consistent with the Corresponding Requirement

VSLs should not expand on what is required in the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

4

Guideline (4) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Based on A Single Violation, Not on A Cumulative Number of
Violations

Unless otherwise stated in the requirement, each instance of non-compliance with a requirement is a separate violation. Section 4 of the
Sanction Guidelines states that assessing penalties on a per violation per day basis is the “default” for penalty calculations.
VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

NERC VRF Discussion

A VRF of Lower is being proposed for this requirement.
The VRF is being established for this requirement. A VRF of lower is appropriate due to the fact that the
requirement is associated with reporting obligations, not response to Cyber Security Incident(s),
Reportable Cyber Security Incident(s), or Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident(s). If violated, is
administrative and would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the bulk
electric system.

FERC VRF G1 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 1- Consistency
with Blackout Report
FERC VRF G2 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 2- Consistency
within a Reliability Standard
FERC VRF G3 Discussion

The proposed VRF is consistent among other FERC approved VRF’s within the standard.

Guideline 3- Consistency
among Reliability Standards
FERC VRF G4 Discussion

The team relied on NERC’s definition of lower risk requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

5

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

Guideline 4- Consistency
with NERC Definitions of
VRFs
FERC VRF G5 Discussion
Guideline 5- Treatment of
Requirements that Comingle More than One
Obligation

Failure to report would not, under Emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the
preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric System,
or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and the
attributes within the timeframes
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but failed to
submit the form in Attachment
1. (4.4)
OR

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident but failed to
report on one or more of the
attributes within the timeframes
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Part 4.4 after determination of
the attribute(s) not reported
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Part 4.1. (4.4)

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, but failed to notify
or update E-ISAC or ICS-CERT, or
their successors, within the
timeframes pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.3.

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or ICS-CERT, or
their successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable

OR

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

6

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and the
attributes within the timeframes
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but failed to
use one of the methods for
initial notification pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.2.

Moderate

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident but failed to
report on one or more of the
attributes after determination of
the attribute pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

7

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The requirement is new. Therefore, the proposed VSL does not have the unintended consequence of
lowering the level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSL uses the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and is, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

8

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

9

Consideration of Issues and Directives

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive

Source

Consideration of Issue or Directive

Augment reporting to include Cyber Security Incidents
that compromise or attempt to compromise a
Responsible Entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter or
associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring
Systems

FERC Order
848, p3

The Project 2018-02 Standard Drafting Team (SDT) agrees
that Reliability Standards include mandatory reporting of
Cyber Security Incidents that compromise or attempt to
compromise a Responsible Entities Electronic Security
Perimeter or associated Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring Systems and therefore proposes modification of
NERC Glossary of Terms definitions for Cyber Security Incident
and Reportable Cyber Security Incident and proposes the
addition of EACMS associated with High and Medium BES
Cyber Systems as applicable systems for requirements CIP008 R1, R2, R3, and R4.

Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports
should include certain minimum information to
improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of
comparison by ensuring that each report includes
specified fields of information. Specifically, the
minimum set of attributes to be reported should
include: (1) the functional impact, where possible, that
the Cyber Security Incident achieved or attempted to
achieve; (2) the attack vector used to achieve or

FERC Order
848, p3 and
p13

The SDT agrees that Cyber Security Incident reports should
include certain minimum information detailed in FERC Oder 848
p3 and p13 to improve the quality of reporting and allow for
ease of comparison by ensuring that each report includes
specified fields of information. The SDT drafted CIP-008 R4 to
address those minimum set of attributes to include; (1) the
functional impact, where possible, that the Cyber Security
Incident achieved or attempted to achieve; (2) the attack vector
used to achieve or attempt to achieve the Cyber Security

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive

Source

attempt to achieve the Cyber Security Incident; and (3)
the level of intrusion achieved or attempted by the
Cyber Security Incident.

Consideration of Issue or Directive
Incident; and (3) the level of intrusion achieved or attempted by
the Cyber Security Incident. Additionally, the SDT is requiring
the use of Attachment 1, Cyber Security Incident Reporting
Form to report Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents which includes
required minimum attributes. This requirement and use of a
standardized reporting form will ensure required information is
reported in consistent manner improving the quality of
reporting.

Filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports
should be established once a compromise or disruption
to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise
or disruption, is identified by a Responsible Entity

FERC Order
848, p3

The SDT agrees that the filing deadlines for Cyber Security
Incident Reports should be established as identified in FERC
Order 848, paragraph 3. The SDT proposes the addition of CIP008 Requirement 4 to establish report filing deadlines for a
compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an
attempted compromise or disruption, once it is determined by a
Responsible Entity.

Reports should continue to be sent to the E-ISAC, but
the reports should also be sent to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT)

FERC Order
848, p3

The SDT agrees that reports should be submitted to the E-ISAC,
and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial
Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT)
and proposes the addition of CIP-008 Requirement 4 to
establish reporting obligations. Requirement 4 includes the
requirement to notify E-ISAC and ICS-CERT using a method
identified in the requirement part such as submitting
Attachment 1 via email or via the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT portals.
The SDT did not modify any language that would remove or

Consideration of Issues and Directives
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

2

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive

Source

Consideration of Issue or Directive
alter the obligation to report to DHS through EOP-004 or OE417.

With regard to identifying EACMS for reporting purposes,
NERC’s reporting threshold should encompass the
functions that various electronic access control and
monitoring technologies provide. Those functions must
include, at a minimum: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring
and logging; (3) access control; (4) interactive remote
access; and (5) alerting. Reporting a malicious act or
suspicious event that has compromised, or attempted to
compromise, a responsible entity’s EACMS that perform
any of these five functions would meet the intended
scope of the directive by improving awareness of existing
and future cyber security threats and potential
vulnerabilities.

FERC Order
848, p54 and
p70

The SDT agrees that for reporting purposes, NERC’s reporting
threshold should encompass the functions that various
electronic access control and monitoring technologies provide.
The proposed new definition, Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident, identifies Cyber Security Incidents that
attempt to compromise or disrupt any of the following EACMS
functions related to electronic access: (1) authentication; (2)
monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive
Remote Access; or (5) alerting, as listed in FERC Order 848,
paragraph 54 and 70.

In a similar vein, the assets (i.e., EACMS) subject to the
enhanced reporting requirements should be identified
based on function, as opposed to a specific technology
that could require a modification in the reporting
requirements should the underlying technology change.
With regard to timing, we conclude that NERC should
FERC Order
establish reporting timelines for when the responsible
848, p89
entity must submit Cyber Security Incident reports to the
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT based on a risk impact assessment
and incident prioritization approach to incident reporting.
Consideration of Issues and Directives
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

The SDT agrees that reporting timelines should be established
for when the responsible entity must submit Cyber Security
Incident reports to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT based on a risk
impact assessment, as identified in FERC order 848, paragraph
89. The SDT proposes the addition of CIP-008 Requirement 4 to
3

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

Issue or Directive

Source

This approach would establish reporting timelines that
are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES
that loss, compromise, or misuse of those BES Cyber
Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.

Consideration of Issues and Directives
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October 2018

Consideration of Issue or Directive
establish reporting timelines for when the responsible entity
must submit Cyber Security Incident reports to the E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT. The initial notification timelines are identified in the
proposed Requirement 4, Part 4.3, and the update timelines are
identified in the proposed Requirement 4, Part 4.4. The
proposed reporting timelines establish reporting timelines that
are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES that loss,
compromise, or misuse of those BES Cyber Systems could have
on the reliable operation of the BES.

4

DRAFT
Cyber Security –
Incident Report
Technical Rationale and Justification for
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
October 2018

Table of Contents
Preface..................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................1
New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards ....................................................................................2
Proposed Modified Terms:.....................................................................................................................................2
Cyber Security Incident ......................................................................................................................................2
Reportable Cyber Security Incident ....................................................................................................................2
Proposed New Term: .............................................................................................................................................2
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident...................................................................................................2
Requirements R1, R2, and R3 ....................................................................................................................................3
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and Requirement R3 .............................................3
Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4 .............................................................................................3
Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts ............................................................3
Reported Attempted Cyber Security Incidents not eligible to meeting testing requirement ...................................3
Requirement R4 ........................................................................................................................................................4
General Considerations for Requirement R4 ..........................................................................................................4
Required Reportable Incident Attributes................................................................................................................4
Methods for Submitting Notifications ....................................................................................................................4
Notification Timing ................................................................................................................................................4
Notification Updates ..............................................................................................................................................5
Attachment 1 ............................................................................................................................................................6
General Considerations for Attachment 1 ..............................................................................................................6

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
ii

Preface
The vision for the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Enterprise, which is comprised of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the seven Regional Entities (REs), is a highly reliable and secure North American
bulk power system (BPS). Our mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and
security of the grid.
The North American BPS is divided into seven RE boundaries as shown in the map and corresponding table below.
The multicolored area denotes overlap as some load-serving entities participate in one Region while associated
Transmission Owners/Operators participate in another.

FRCC

Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

MRO

Midwest Reliability Organization

NPCC

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

RF

ReliabilityFirst

SERC

SERC Reliability Corporation

Texas RE

Texas Reliability Entity

WECC

Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
iii

Introduction
This document explains the technical rationale and justification for the proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6. It
provides stakeholders and the ERO Enterprise with an understanding of the technology and technical requirements
in the Reliability Standard. It also contains information on the Standard Drafting Team’s (SDT’s) intent in drafting the
requirements. This Technical Rationale and Justification for CIP-008-6 is not a Reliability Standard and should not be
considered mandatory and enforceable.
On July 19, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 848, where the
FERC directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to “develop and submit modifications to
the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access and Control or
Monitoring System (EACMS).” (Order 848, Paragraph 1)
In response to the directive in Order No. 848, the Project 2018-02 SDT drafted Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to
require Responsible Entities to implement methods augmenting the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents
to include: “(1) responsible entities must report Cyber Security incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP; (2) required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include
certain minimum information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report included specified fields of information; (3) filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be
established once a compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption,
is identified by a responsible entity; and (4) Cyber Security Incident reports should continue to be sent to the
Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), rather than the Commission, but the reports should also
be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control System Cyber Emergency Response Team
(ICS-CERT).” (Order 848, Paragraph 3)

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
1

New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
Proposed Modified Terms:
Cyber Security Incident
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) or Physical Security
Perimeter, or (3) Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems, or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.
The SDT modified the Cyber Security Incident definition to add part (3), above, to include Electronic Access Control
or Monitoring Systems (EACMS) in response to the Order. FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, directs the modification of
the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents to include the responsible entity’s ESP(s)
(already included above) or associated EACMS (which the SDT added to the above definition).
The SDT considered potential unintended consequences related to the use of the existing definition in CIP-003-6 and
qualified the addition of Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems with ‘High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems’ to assure clarity and the SDT’s intentions to exclude low impact.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions: (1)
authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting
The SDT also modified the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition to comply with FERC Order 848. The SDT
modified the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition to include incidents that compromised or disrupted an
ESP or an EACMS that provides specific functions, as directed by the Order. (Order 848, Paragraph 54)
The SDT considered potential unintended consequences related to the use of the existing definition in CIP-003-6 and
qualified the addition of Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems with ‘High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems’ to assure clarity and the SDT’s intentions to exclude low impact.

Proposed New Term:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions: (1)
authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
2

The SDT created this new definition to clarify attempted Cyber Security Incidents subject to reporting. FERC Order
848 specifically directs modifying the Reliability Standard(s) to require reporting of attempted compromises for
ESP(s) or associated EACMS(s). The SDT included the list of EACMS functions to clarify the parameters of Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incidents related to EACMS.
The Order specifically required the reporting of attempts to compromise for ESP, and EACMS, the SDT included “One
or more reliability tasks of a functional entity in the definition to be consistent with Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents.

Requirements R1, R2, and R3
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and Requirement R3
FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, which directs modifications to Reliability Standards to require reporting of incidents
that compromise, or attempt to compromise a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS. The intent of the SDT
was to minimize the changes within CIP-008 while also addressing the required changes, thus the SDT added “and
their associated EACMS” to the “Applicable Systems” column for Requirements R1, R2, and R3.
Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4
To minimize the changes to Requirement R1 the SDT created Requirement R4 and consolidated all the CIP-008-6
reporting requirements. The SDT deleted the Requirement R1 Part 1.2 reporting requirements and moved them to
Requirement R4 to serve this purpose.
Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts
The SDT recognizes that organizations are constantly evolving to meet emerging needs, and may re-organize or
change their names over time. The ICS-CERT has recently begun to change its name to the National Cybersecurity
and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) Industrial Control Systems, and the E-ISAC has previously re-branded
their name and may again in the future. By following Requirement R4 references to E-ISAC and ICS-CERT with “or
their successors” the SDT intended to ensure Requirement R4 can be implemented even if the names of E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT change or a different agency take over their current role.
Reported Attempted Cyber Security Incidents not eligible to meeting testing requirement
Requirement R2 Part 2.1 requires a test of the responsible entity’s incident response plan for a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. The SDT debated whether testing incident response plans for a Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident would also meet the Requirement R2 Part 2.1 testing requirement. However, the SDT concluded
that testing only the parts of a responsible entity’s incident response plan required to respond to an attempt to
compromise applicable Cyber Systems would not subject the testing to the same rigor as a response to an actual
compromise.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
3

Requirement R4
General Considerations for Requirement R4
Requirement R4 is a new requirement focused on mandatory reporting of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and
newly-defined Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents (refer to Proposed New Term, above). Previously, CIP008-5 defined reporting requirements for Reportable Cyber Security Requirements (Requirement R1 Part 1.2) only.
Required Reportable Incident Attributes
Requirement R4.1 specifies that initial notifications and updates include three attributes: 1) functional impact, 2)
attack vector used, and 3) level of intrusion achieved or attempted. These attributes are taken directly from the
Order. (FERC Order No. 848, paragraph 89).
The SDT understands that some or all of these attributes may be unknown at time of initial notification, thus added
“to the extent known” to account for this scenario.
Methods for Submitting Notifications
Requirement R4 Part 4.2 specifies responsible entities shall use one of three methods for initial notification. The SDT
endeavored to provide latitude in reporting methods and format for initial notification, to allow responsible entities’
personnel to focus on incident response itself and not methods and format of reporting in this stage of incident
response. The SDT defined three initial notification methods to provide a measure of standardization industry-wide.
While Requirement R4 Part 4.2 allows for several methods of initial notification, it also requires submission of
Attachment 1 to facilitate standardized reporting.
 Electronic submission of Attachment 1 – The SDT envisions this as a simple email with Attachment 1 attached.
However, the requirement is written to be broad enough that should either E-ISAC or ICS-CERT, or their
successors, offer other options for submitting Attachment 1 like a web portal, this would still be within the
requirement language.
 Phone – The SDT sees notification via telephone as a reasonable format for initial notification as it is quick
and allows personnel to get back to incident response expeditiously.
 Email – In this context, a manually populated or automatically generated email can be submitted by simply
including the required attributes without any specific format directly in an email to E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or
their successors. Again, the SDT views this as a quicker reporting method that could be used as a preliminary
method to notify during incident response.
The last paragraph of the requirement was included to ensure that known data in a common format is eventually
submitted via Attachment 1, as a common form allows for easier summarization, correlation, and trending of events.
Notification Timing
Requirement R4 Part 4.3 specifies two timelines for notification submission: one hour for Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents and end of next calendar day for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents. FERC Order No 848
directly states that reporting deadlines must be established in paragraph 3, and later in paragraph 89 states that
“timelines that are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES that loss, compromise, or misuse of those BES
Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.”
 Reportable Cyber Security Incidents – The SDT wrote Part R4.3 to use a one hour deadline for reporting of
these events, as incidents in this category include successful penetrations of ESPs, EACMS or BES Cyber
Systems. One hour is referenced directly in FERC Order No 848 paragraph 89 and is also the current reporting
requirement in CIP-008-5.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
4

Requirement R4




Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents – Due to the lower severity of these unsuccessful attempts at
penetrating ESP(s), EACMS, or BES Cyber Systems, the SDT proposed a longer reporting timeframe. The intent
behind the decision to add “By the end of the next calendar day (11:59 pm local time)” was to afford
responsible entities additional time to gather facts prior to notifications for the less severe Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident category.
Initial submission may be by made by one of the three methods described above. The SDT understands that
initial notification may not have all the details, but when Attachment 1 or an email is submitted, it is expected
that information that has been determined is reported within the notification deadlines.

Notification Updates
Requirement R4 Part 4.4 requires that responsible entities shall submit Attachment 1 updates for the required
attributes upon determination of new or changed attribute information. The SDT added this language to provide
responsible entities sufficient time to determine attribute information, which may be unknown at the time of initial
notification and which may change as more information is gathered. The intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.4 is to
provide a method for responsible entities to report new information over time as investigations progress. NOTE:
The SDT does not intend Attachment 1 updates specified in Requirement R4. Part 4.4 to expose responsible entities
to potential violations if, for instance, an initial notification on an attribute and an updated notification on the same
attribute have different information, since knowledge of attributes may change as investigations proceed. Rather,
the intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.4 is to have a mechanism to report incident information to E-ISAC and ICSCERT, or their successors, (and therefore, industry) upon determination of each required attribute.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
5

Attachment 1
General Considerations for Attachment 1
As discussed above in Requirement R4 rationale, the SDT created Attachment 1 to provide a standard method for
reporting to both E-ISAC and ICS-CERT or their successors until a time comes where an online portal may be
developed. Since the Order directs requiring reporting to both agencies, a standard format will allow responsible
entities to complete a single form and submit it to both agencies. (Order 848, Paragraph 3)
There was debate among the SDT on what to include in Attachment 1, and the SDT decided to include only those
elements required by FERC Order 848, to assure required attributes are captured and minimize risk of possible
violations for the responsible entities submitting the form. The SDT discussed potentially proposing modifications
to DOE Form OE-417 to meet the directives in the Order, however, with the recent updates of OE-417 by DOE and
timing of the Order, the SDT determined there was not enough time to make those modifications. The SDT
interpreted that FERC did not support the use of OE-417, since the Order notes the differences of DOE’s definition of
a “Cyber Event” and NERC’s definition of a Cyber Security Incident. (Order 848, Paragraph 73) Additionally, the SDT
had concerns that OE-417 was designed for a different purpose and considered the use of this form for CIP-008
reporting to be inefficient for reporting only the required attributes.
The SDT was purposeful in the design of Attachment 1 to be concise and require limited data. The intent was to ease
the burden on responsible entities by providing a method to quickly report required data while protecting entities
from concerns with over-reporting and potentially exposing protected information under CIP-004 and CIP-011.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| October 2018
6

Standards Announcement

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting
Initial Ballot and Non-ballot Poll Open through October 22, 2018
Now Available

The initial ballot and non-binding poll for CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning are open through 8 p.m. Eastern, Monday, October 22, 2018.
Balloting

Members of the ballot pools associated with this project can log into the Standards Balloting and
Commenting System (SBS) and submit their votes. If you experience issues using the SBS, contact Wendy
Muller.
•

If you are having difficulty accessing the SBS due to a forgotten password, incorrect credential
error messages, or system lock-out, contact NERC IT support directly at https://support.nerc.net/
(Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern).

•

Passwords expire every 6 months and must be reset.

•

The SBS is not supported for use on mobile devices.

•

Please be mindful of ballot and comment period closing dates. We ask to allow at least 48 hours
for NERC support staff to assist with inquiries. Therefore, it is recommended that users try logging
into their SBS accounts prior to the last day of a comment/ballot period.

Next Steps

The ballot results will be announced and posted on the project page. The drafting team will review all
responses received during the comment period and determine the next steps of the project.
For information on the Standards Development Process, refer to the Standard Processes Manual.
For more information or assistance, contact Senior Standards Developer, Alison Oswald (via email) or at
404-446-9668.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com

Standards Announcement

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting
Formal Comment Period Open through October 22, 2018
Ballot Pools Forming through October 17, 2018
Now Available

A 20-day formal comment period for CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning is open through 8 p.m. Eastern, Monday, October 22, 2018.
Commenting

Use the Standards Balloting and Commenting System (SBS) to submit comments. If you experience issues
using the SBS, contact Wendy Muller. An unofficial Word version of the comment form is posted on the
project page.
Ballot Pools

Ballot pools are being formed through 8 p.m. Eastern, Wednesday, October 17, 2018. Registered Ballot
Body members can join the ballot pools here.
•

If you are having difficulty accessing the SBS due to a forgotten password, incorrect credential
error messages, or system lock-out, contact NERC IT support directly at https://support.nerc.net/
(Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern).

•

Passwords expire every 6 months and must be reset.

•

The SBS is not supported for use on mobile devices.

•

Please be mindful of ballot and comment period closing dates. We ask to allow at least 48 hours
for NERC support staff to assist with inquiries. Therefore, it is recommended that users try logging
into their SBS accounts prior to the last day of a comment/ballot period.

Next Steps

A 5-day initial ballot for the standard, and a non-binding poll of the associated Violation Risk Factors and
Violation Severity Levels will be conducted October 18-22, 2018.

For information on the Standards Development Process, refer to the Standard Processes Manual.
For more information or assistance, contact Senior Standards Developer, Alison Oswald (via email) or at
404-446-9668.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com

Standards Announcement | Project 2016-02 Modifications to CIP Standards
CIP-002-6 and CIP-003-8 | August – October 2018

2

ÿ7ÿÿ$1%

010210345

d8ÿ$1% '9

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ



((97ÿe(

&7ÿ$1'91&7%ÿ1ÿ99ÿ$1'9199%

TUVVWXÿZ[\]VX\ÿÿ
((97ÿ)9*ÿ((97ÿ9!ÿ$1((979!16789
142#%
+,--./ÿ1,234ÿ034530ÿ6877ÿÿ68335ÿ99ÿ:9!9ÿ67897ÿ97ÿ68335#ÿ6
ÿ4ÿ:
;./<=>ÿ?/,@/ÿA,/34ÿ4314510345ÿ403433ÿB6
;./<=>ÿC=DÿA,/34ÿ4310010345ÿ53333ÿ86
+,--./ÿEFG34ÿ:
+,--./ÿHI/S/3Dÿ?3>23=/ÿ;,-P34ÿ0330
ÿ
+,--./ ?3>23=/ H^^<@2,/,/,/23=/ M..- R3<>S/ ;./3K
_@,I/<.= `aÿb.223=/ `aÿb.223=/
4#
3002
22
3QQ2
:9(97 53 4
4
:9(97 Q
3Q
3
3
Q
3Q
0
5
3425
N5
35N0
:9(97 Q0 4
"
:9(97 45 4
N
305#
43
3Q4N
N
:9(97 QN 4
4N
302
N0
3Q2
2
fÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿ)9ÿN"33ÿ679ÿ
(9ÿgd)::h30
11797919!16789
1"32

13>,/-''%() <=ÿ>-''%()
<=-ÿ>-''%()
4
43
3000
"2
3BBC
3

:2?7)+0( 6-)%
4
B

34

3

3

4

34

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

34

3

3

4

34

3

3

3

3"

4

34

0

30

3

"

0

#0

2D

40D4

034

D525

3

C

#4

EFGGHIÿKHHGÿLMLEMNO
@Pÿ Q

@9 @9

ÿ979

$%&'%() R4&+(0S+)0-(
4
Q[ÿÿQ[ÿ@9\9ÿ7
_ÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿ`9ÿD"33ÿa79ÿ
A9ÿb]`@@c30
11797919!16789
1"32

6-)%4
]977ÿ@!

T%70&(+)%U
.4-VW

*+,,-)
:XY>ÿZ%'Q^^A\9
1Q
010#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
?@997ÿÿ?@997ÿA9B9

0/)%+
ÿA 

4
4
4

?@97ÿ7@7ÿ@7CDÿEE
?IAÿÿ?J7ÿI!ÿA9B9ÿ
?L7ÿ9ÿ9B9ÿ7

F!ÿG77
K99ÿ?@7
G977H9ÿE7

?HH@B9
?HH@B9

9B9

4
4
4
4

?98ÿ9ÿ9B9Dÿ67
?!7ÿ79C
77ÿ?!CÿHÿ
97ÿH7
7ÿ9ÿIO9ÿ9B9

C7ÿM99
@ÿA78H!
N9B7ÿA@
FB8ÿ!8

79
?HH@B9
?HH@B9

9B9

4

ÿPC8ÿ78ÿIO9ÿ?!C

?87ÿ?789!

4

99ÿ79CÿA9B9

F7ÿ!9B

4

9CÿP!

9B9

4

9L9ÿPOCÿ79CÿÿK8?@97
79Cÿ
779B9ÿIO9ÿ?8@77

9B9

4
4

Jÿ9ÿIO9ÿ9B9Dÿ67
979I7ÿ79CÿP!7ÿ9DÿEE

N@@Cÿ9
P8C
7CÿNL9C
F79ÿP@@7

Qÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿR9ÿS"33ÿK79ÿ
@9ÿTFRAAU30
11797919!16789
1"32

G9ÿ77

7,88/)

9B9

9B9
787
K @L

9B9

79

9B9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
@@97
A!@98

1?

1?
8IC
@@97

1?

1?

1?
8IC
@@97
@@97
A!@98
@@97
A!@98
@@97
A!@98
@@97
A!@98

1?
@@97
A!@98
"10#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
4
97ÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9B9ÿCD!E

10*&,
D9ÿ

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

8-990*

9B9

4

97ÿH!87ÿIÿJÿ9ÿ

K7Lÿ@9

9B9

4
4

FÿM9ÿNÿO7N98PÿD!
9ÿ7

D9ÿ!F9
R7ÿS789F

79

9B9

4

DOÿ79Fÿÿ7!G9ÿ79FÿG7F

RG9ÿQ7897

9B9

4
4

7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿNÿ
9AÿTL
7ÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9B9

U9GÿOGF
Fÿ!9!

QNNGB9

9B9

4
4

UF78ÿ@A9ÿ9B9
UG77ÿÿUG77ÿV7ÿ@A9

9799ÿS989
SFÿ


Q7

9B9

4
4

U!L9ÿ79F
87ÿ67977ÿÿO!97ÿN7ÿ87
G7F
79Fÿÿ79FÿO9B9Pÿ67
B9!9ÿ79F

97

S!ÿS99
O9B97ÿDB

79

9B9

WB9ÿ!L9
X!77ÿS99
ÿO 77

QNNGB9
QNNGB9

9B9

R!9ÿO9B97

QNNGB9

4
4
4

Yÿ03445ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿ#K
"37
3ÿD
9ÿ

G99ÿWUVOOZ3
9Fÿ7ÿK
7
Fÿ7 0
11797919!16789
1"32

S!ÿI!8F

:;<=ÿ?&(0
8@F
GG97
8@F
GG97

1Q
8@F
GG97
GG97
O!G98

1Q
GG97
O!G98

1Q
GG97
O!G98

1Q
GG97
O!G98

1Q

1Q
GG97
O!G98

1Q

#10$

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
787
E FG

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
?79@9ÿ97ÿA9

0/)%+
B@8ÿCD97

4

?9ÿ7F7ÿ7

?9ÿB@

9@9

4
4

9KÿLGF77
OF9ÿE 99

79

9@9

4

?979ÿIÿ78ÿJD9ÿFF7
?9ÿJ7ÿ79KÿÿN7ÿKÿJD9ÿ78
Iÿ
QK8ÿC79ÿ
9DGRÿ67

JKFÿSG

9@9

4

QK8T!U9ÿ7799

ÿ!9

9@9

4
4

6BMCJÿÿ68ÿJD9ÿF7K
6F9ÿ67ÿB

79

79

4
4

67977ÿ7F7ÿF7KÿQ87
7
OM

I!ÿ
97
O9!ÿHFFK
MV
E9ÿE79

4
4
4

B!ÿP9

H979ÿ!7

7,88/)

9@9

MWWF@9
1M

98ÿQ7

9@9

NMECÿ9ÿ9@9
IG978ÿ9

Eÿ998@9
IKÿP

79

9@9

I77ÿ9ÿHK9F

B77KÿJ!897V

9@9

Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿL9ÿY"33ÿE79ÿ
F9ÿCBLHHP30
11797919!16789
1"32

9:;<ÿ>%'/
FF97
H!F98
FF97
H!F98

1M
FF97
H!F98
8JK
FF97
8JK
FF97

1M

1M

8JK
FF97

1M
8JK
FF97
FF97
H!F98
210#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
?7ÿ678ÿ@A9ÿB!C

0/)%+
9ÿD79C

4
4

?ÿB799ÿG9F97ÿHÿI9ÿ78ÿ@A9
?A9ÿ8ÿE9ÿB!C

H7JÿK
IFÿL789

4

Mÿ78ÿBÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9E9

IFÿ@9

4

M7ÿNC8

MJ9ÿLF

4
4
4
4

MBDÿ@A9
M77Jÿ@A9ÿ9E9ÿ67
M!79ÿ@A9ÿ78ÿI9

Iÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9E9Qÿ67

GE8ÿI99J9C
99ÿB8
B78CÿP!9
MJÿF9C

4

7ÿD8ÿRLB

M9ÿS79

4

9Jÿ@!ÿ@A9ÿG

SF7ÿA9C

4

9AJÿ78ÿL9!Cÿ979

ÿ?!

4

9AÿTJÿ@A9ÿB!C

LE9ÿL7

ÿ7979Cÿ

ÿÿO
ÿ8UGWLLI3
ÿ@A9ÿ78ÿ?0ÿ
Vÿ03445ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿX
9
"3
3
ÿM
F9
11797919!16789
1"32

MJ9ÿU
9

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

L ÿM9
B78CÿO!F7

7,88/)

9E9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
8@C
FF97

79

1B

9E9 FF97
L!F98

9E9 8@C
FF97

9E9 FF97
L!F98

79

1B
BHHFE9
1B

79

1B

9E9 8@C
FF97

9E9 8@C
FF97

9E9 8@C
FF97

9E9 FF97
L!F98

9E9 8@C
FF97

79

1B

#10#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
4

9ÿ@!ÿ9ÿAB9ÿ9C9

10*&,
D9C7ÿE9

4

HIÿ79FÿÿHJGÿIÿ78ÿ9ÿ

9ÿAF9

4

HGÿA!ÿAB9ÿK

K!ÿA99!J

4

HAÿÿH9ÿÿAB9ÿG7F

9ÿEJ!78

4
4

A9Jÿ9F
A9ÿC9ÿAB9ÿM!F

L ÿKB79F
@ÿG7

4

O!9ÿEG

4
4
4

A
@ÿ9!9ÿÿA!ÿL9C9ÿG7FÿN

9Bÿ@9

A78ÿI979ÿ9ÿ
AAOÿ9ÿP9ÿ7
ALIÿÿA!ÿL9C9ÿ9ÿ78ÿIÿ

4
4
4

A!ÿPFÿKÿ
ÿ4ÿNÿ97ÿ!7F
Q9NNÿDG9
A!ÿPFÿKÿ
ÿ4ÿNÿA978ÿH99ÿ!7F D9C7ÿ7BF
A!ÿPFÿKÿ
ÿ4ÿNÿL7Gÿ!7F O7ÿK!7

4
A!9ÿL!78ÿ79FRÿ67
Sÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿT9ÿU"33ÿ@79ÿ
G9ÿHKTLLE30
11797919!16789
1"32

79ÿ!9
978ÿ!9
Q9ÿLG

99ÿJBJF

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

8-990*

9C9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
8AF
GG97

9C9 8AF
GG97

9C9 8AF
GG97

9C9 8AF
GG97

79

1M

9C9 GG97
L!G98

9C9 GG97
L!G98

79

1M
MNNGC9
1M

9C9 GG97
L!G98
MNNGC9
1M

79

1M

9C9 8AF
GG97

9C9 GG97
L!G98

#10$

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
4
@A97ÿB!7ÿCDÿE
@ÿH9ÿKL9
4

10*&,
F!ÿ@GH
@9H97ÿ

4

@799ÿ9

ÿM79

4
4
4
4

@GKN9
@F
Fÿÿ@!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿOÿ
@99ÿDÿR
@9A79ÿ9ÿ9H9Tÿ67

MD79ÿO!A7
AÿP7QG
KN9ÿS!
BGÿ!

4
4

@9Aÿÿ@7ÿE9ÿOÿ78ÿ9
@B9ÿKN9ÿ9ÿ9H9

BÿE9
K99ÿEN7

4

S979ÿK9N

4

@!97ÿA7Dÿÿ@!97ÿA7D
@9H9Tÿ67
@!97ÿ6787ÿOÿ78ÿ9ÿ

4

@!7JN9ÿ9ÿKN9ÿ7

K!ÿB9JJ

4

AÿK!ÿC9ÿUATÿMFV

I7ÿB99

4
977999ÿW9DÿF!D
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿY"33ÿB79ÿ
A9ÿZEW@@M30
11797919!16789
1"32

2&3.')-*&4
5,067
I9ÿ77

@9H9ÿN77

O9ÿS!Q

E977ÿ7

8-990*
:;<=ÿ?&(0
FJJAH9
1F

9H9 AA97
@!A98

9H9 AA97
@!A98

79

1F

79

1F

79

1F

9H9 AA97
@!A98
FJJAH9
1F

9H9 8KD
AA97

9H9 AA97
@!A98

9H9 AA97
@!A98

9H9 8KD
AA97

9H9 AA97
@!A98
FJJAH9
1F
#10$

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
?9ÿ@ÿ78ÿÿA7Bÿ67

0/)%+
Cÿ?D7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

7,88/)

9E9

4

F?ÿ!9!ÿGÿ9D7

8ÿHI7

4

J9ÿ79C

A97ÿK97

4

J997ÿA9ÿMN9ÿA8D77

97ÿ9I7

9E9

4

O 9ÿ79CBÿ67

L97ÿ? 

9E9

0

G7ÿ6?P

8ÿQ79

9E9

0

9ÿ9Cÿ!7ÿGÿ9
Bÿ67

787ÿ@97

9E9

0

678997897ÿ9Cÿ?C9DÿP9

R978ÿK!

9E9

0

6?Pÿ
9Nÿ778Bÿ67

S9ÿM!

9E9

0

S87797ÿ6?PBÿ67

9Cÿ6I9

9E9

0

MHSÿ6797797BÿRR

SIÿTD7

9E9

0

?!N9ÿMN9ÿMBÿ67ÿUPV

9ÿW9!7

9E9

Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿQ9ÿY"33ÿS79ÿ
D9ÿPLQ??J30
11797919!16789
1"32

9E9
L!ÿJ9

9E9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
DD97
?!D98
DD97
?!D98
DD97
?!D98
DD97
?!D98
DD97
?!D98
DD97
?!D98
DD97
?!D98
DD97
?!D98
8MC
DD97
DD97
?!D98
8MC
DD97
DD97
?!D98
510#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?@
"
?B997ÿÿ?B997ÿE9D9

0/)%+
A977ÿAB9
FD8ÿG978

"
"

?@Eÿÿ?H7ÿ@!ÿE9D9ÿ
?98ÿ9ÿ9D9Lÿ67

ID7ÿI
88ÿ9779

"
"
"

?!7ÿ79K
?Dÿÿ?Dÿ7
7ÿ9ÿ@N9ÿ9D9

MÿFNK79ÿ@97
E ÿO779K
G99BKÿI

"

ÿPK8ÿ78ÿ@N9ÿ?!K

P7ÿG

"

?7799ÿG77

"
"

9Q9ÿPNKÿ79KÿÿR8?B97
79Kÿ
QÿPÿ7
779D9ÿ@N9ÿ?8B77

"

97ÿ9ÿ@N9ÿ9D9ÿSR!T

?8BÿM99

"

KÿCÿUB77

A78ÿG7
V!77
J77Kÿ99

"
KÿCÿI9ÿ9
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿI9ÿX"33ÿR79ÿ
B9ÿYFIEEM30
11797919!16789
1"32

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

JKÿ
7

ÿ9
99 ÿ98

787
R BQ

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
?CCBD9
1?

9D9 BB97
E!B98
?CCBD9
1?

9D9 BB97
E!B98

79

1?

79

1?

9D9 8@K
BB97

9D9 BB97
E!B98

9D9 BB97
E!B98
?CCBD9
1?

9D9 BB97
E!B98

9D9 8@K
BB97

79

1?

9D9

BB97
E!B98

4310#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?ÿ@9ÿAÿB7A98CÿD!
"
HÿI!ÿ@9
"
9ÿ7

0/)%+
B ÿEF
JHÿBF9
D99ÿ9?

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

K!ÿL!8?

"
"

7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿAÿ
9NÿOH
PF77ÿÿPF77ÿ9!9Cÿ67

I99ÿO
779ÿKN9

"

P!H9ÿ79?

K99ÿB !9

"


97

J7ÿ99

"
"

Q79?ÿÿQ79?ÿ7
Q8ÿD!7ÿIN9ÿG97?

G7ÿL8F
J9ÿD R779?

"

L79M9ÿ97ÿ@9

R97ÿBFF7

"

L9ÿB?9FÿS97ÿ7

B ÿD L!

"

L9ÿI7ÿ79?ÿÿR7ÿ?ÿIN9ÿ78
Kÿ
T?8ÿS79ÿ
9NHCÿ67

J7ÿ7

P!ÿE9

I!ÿDU9NH

S7ÿI79

"

!7779ÿG
Vÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿX67"93F
3ÿD
ÿ
F9ÿSPWBBE30
11797919!16789
1"32

PM8ÿD9

787
D FH
787
D FH

7,88/)

79

79

9M9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1G

1G
8I?
FF97
GAAFM9
1G

9M9 FF97
B!F98

9M9 FF97
B!F98

9M9 FF97
B!F98
GAAFM9
1G

9M9 FF97
B!F98

9M9 FF97
B!F98

9M9 FF97
B!F98

9M9 FF97
B!F98

9M9 8I?
FF97

9M9 FF97
B!F98

4410#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?@ABÿ9ÿ9C9
"
FG978ÿ9

0/)%+
98ÿDE9
Hÿ8I

"

F77ÿ9ÿJI9E

K7ÿLG

9C9

"

Aÿ78ÿ@ÿ9ÿHM9ÿ9C9

J997ÿH!9

9C9

"
"
"

A@NÿHM9
A!79ÿHM9ÿ78ÿO9

7ÿN8ÿPJ@

9ÿ78
J9ÿJ9EG9
7ÿJ77

"

9GÿH!ÿHM9ÿQ

7Iÿ889E7

9C9

"

9MÿRGÿHM9ÿ@!I

QC8ÿC9

9C9

"

J!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿH!ÿJ9C9ÿ

QEIÿSII!G

9C9

"

9ÿA!ÿ9ÿHM9ÿ9C9

JGI9ÿO9E77

9C9

"

Oÿ9ÿHM9ÿ9C9Tÿ67

K7ÿJG9I

9C9

"

B ÿPIÿJ9C9

9C9ÿM97

Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿW"33ÿA79ÿ
E9ÿBQVJJO30
11797919!16789
1"32

J ÿA9

787
A EG

7,88/)

79

9C9

79

79

9C9

9C9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1@
8HI
EE97
EE97
J!E98
8HI
EE97

1@

1@
8HI
EE97
8HI
EE97
8HI
EE97
EE97
J!E98
8HI
EE97
8HI
EE97
EE97
J!E98
4010#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?@ÿ79Aÿÿ?BCÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ

0/)%+
D78ÿEF9

"

?CÿG!ÿGH9ÿD

I7ÿJC

"

?Gÿÿ?9ÿÿGH9ÿC7A

K978ÿ?7

"
"

?H97ÿL!7ÿM9
G9ÿF9ÿGH9ÿI!A

CÿNA7
P9OOÿN78

"

NA77ÿ@897

"
"
"
"
"

G
Lÿ9!9ÿÿG!ÿJ9F9ÿC7AÿO

9HÿL9

G78ÿ@979ÿ9ÿ
GGNÿÿN!F9ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ
GJ@ÿÿG!ÿJ9F9ÿ9ÿ78ÿ@ÿ
G!ÿMAÿDÿ
ÿ4ÿOÿ97ÿ!7A
G!9ÿJ!78ÿ79ASÿ67

D7ÿQ79
9ÿR99
PC9ÿL9A9
PA9ÿ@!78A
CÿKCB

"

!9O8ÿL

CÿE9

"
JC97ÿL!7ÿMAÿD
"
JÿF9ÿGT9
ÿ799ÿ
C9ÿ?DXJJK30
Wÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿX9ÿYJ
"3739ÿ9L
11797919!16789
1"32

9ÿN79A
9ÿU78VB
PC9ÿG7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

P9ÿ77

7,88/)

9F9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
8GA
CC97

9F9 8GA
CC97

9F9 8GA
CC97
IOOCF9
1I

9F9 CC97
J!C98

9F9 CC97
J!C98

79

1I
IOOCF9
1I

79

1I
I7
1I

9F9 CC97
J!C98

9F9 8GA
CC97
IOOCF9
1I

79

1I

9F9 CC97
J!C98

4"10#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
"
@A
Aÿÿ@!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿBÿ

10*&,
@ ÿCD9

"

@99ÿGÿH

!7ÿ7

"

@9F79ÿ9ÿ9E9Iÿ67

JF9ÿK!97

"
"

@9Fÿÿ@7ÿL9ÿBÿ78ÿ9
@N9ÿCO9ÿ9ÿ9E9

89ÿ@E
J9MMÿ
9

"
"

@7ÿP9GÿCO9ÿÿGÿMÿ@7ÿ
@7Fÿ!7GÿCQLÿ
ÿ4

Pÿ88
RGÿ79G

"

@!97ÿF7GÿÿAFÿCO9ÿF7G

J9ÿL9FOD

"

@!97ÿ6787ÿBÿ78ÿ9ÿ

K98ÿK989D

"

FÿC!ÿQ9ÿSFIÿTAU

NÿL787

"
"
"

VÿÿFÿ9ÿ
977999ÿP9GÿA!G
@9ÿBÿ78ÿÿA7Iÿ67

78ÿL79G
67ÿB7
J799ÿNÿB

!F9
Iÿ67ÿVLP@@T3

Wÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿP9ÿ#Tÿ
"33ÿ7
N9G7ÿB
9ÿ

0
11797919!16789
1"32

Fÿ9979

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

J9MMÿJ77

8-990*

9E9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
FF97
@!F98

9E9 FF97
@!F98

9E9 FF97
@!F98

79

1A

9E9 8CG
FF97

79

1A

9E9 8CG
FF97

9E9 FF97
@!F98

9E9 FF97
@!F98

9E9 FF97
@!F98

79

1A
AMMFE9
1A

9E9 FF97
@!F98

9E9 FF97
@!F98

4#10$

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?9ÿ79@

0/)%+
@7ÿ

"

E 9ÿ79@Fÿ67

G9ÿ68

H

I7ÿ79@ÿ7ÿD9B9Fÿ67

J@ÿK9L9

H
H

IC97ÿM!ÿMN9ÿI7
IL7ÿ9ÿ9B9ÿ7

OLÿ7
I9ÿ?

H
H
H

I!7ÿ79@
@ÿQ9ÿPÿD7P98FÿG!
GDÿ79@ÿÿ7!C9ÿ79@ÿC7@

9ÿ?99L9
O7ÿI97
99ÿG79R

H
H

S79@ÿÿS79@ÿ7
S8ÿG!7ÿMN9ÿI97@

I!9@ÿD
ÿ77

H

T9ÿD@9CÿU97ÿ7

I789ÿ@

JT97
H
H
GTÿ79@ÿÿG87ÿTÿ78ÿ9ÿ
H
G89ÿ67ÿA
ÿ!79ÿ
9C9
ÿÿUAWDD?3
9B9ÿI07
ÿ

Vÿ034H5ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿH

"337ÿG
11797919!16789
1"32

8ÿC9!

O9ÿA9M9
D979ÿL9
@ÿJN7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
A!ÿ?9

787
G CL

7,88/)

9B9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
CC97
D!C98

9B9 CC97
D!C98

9B9 8M@
CC97

79

1I

9B9 8M@
CC97
IPPCB9
1I

79

1I

9B9 CC97
D!C98
IPPCB9
1I

9B9 CC97
D!C98

9B9 CC97
D!C98
IPPCB9
1I

79

1I

79

1I

9B9 CC97
D!C98

4210#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
?
@!ÿABÿCÿ
ÿ4ÿDÿE7Fÿ!7B

0/)%+
G7ÿH797

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

?
?

EF97ÿH!7ÿABÿC
E99ÿBÿK

9ÿ79
LÿK

?

ABÿE9I9Mÿ67

?

Nÿ79BÿO!Mÿ67

7ÿI7
H797
J77BÿG7PQP

9I9

2
2

J@
JF997ÿÿJF997ÿH!

FÿRS
EFÿCQB9

JDDFI9

9I9

2
2

J@EÿÿJS7ÿ@!ÿE9I9ÿ
JP7ÿ9ÿ9I9ÿ7

T9ÿB
H9ÿL

JDDFI9

9I9

2
2
2

J!7ÿ79B
JIÿÿJIÿ7
7ÿ9ÿ@Q9ÿ9I9

E9BÿH9Q
O97ÿRF9
HP9ÿTD

JDDFI9

79

9I9

2

ÿLB8ÿ78ÿ@Q9ÿJ!B

L997ÿLF7
L87
T9I7ÿE!B

79

2
9P9ÿLQBÿÿ
Uÿ79B
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿ?"33ÿH79ÿ
F9ÿWCUEEN30
11797919!16789
1"32

G9ÿ77

7,88/)

9I9
JDDFI9

9I9

9I9

9I9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
8@B
FF97

1J
FF97
E!F98
FF97
E!F98
FF97
E!F98

1J
FF97
E!F98

1J
8@B
FF97

1J

1J
8@B
FF97

1J
FF97
E!F98

4#10#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
2
@ÿAÿ7
2
9G!7ÿ67ÿHÿÿI!@JÿK9@ÿKL9
K7ÿKM9
2
779F9ÿKL9ÿC8E77

10*&,
B99ÿ
N@9ÿG!@
O ÿP779

2
2
2

LÿB9797ÿIE98ÿK79QÿIIIK
JÿP9QÿIÿ78ÿKL9ÿDÿO7D98Qÿ6I
9ÿ7

ÿP7
O9F9ÿ9
O979ÿA!DDE7

2
2
2
2
2

NOÿ79Jÿÿ7!E9ÿ79JÿE7J
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿDÿ
9LÿR@
LTÿ!7JÿKUH
HJ78ÿKL9ÿ9F9
HE77ÿÿHE77ÿ9!9Qÿ67

HF8ÿB9J99
PEÿP79
H977ÿ7
EEJÿH9
I!ÿV9@

2
2

Hÿ79JÿÿH9ÿ87ÿE7J
H!@9ÿ79J

W9DD9JÿH9K9
H9ÿB8L79

2

87ÿ67977ÿÿO!97ÿD7ÿ87 O9979ÿP
E7J
2
HKÿ979L9ÿ
ÿCE9ÿII
A99ÿN7
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿS9ÿY"33ÿN79ÿ
E9ÿVHSOOP30
11797919!16789
1"32

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

8-990*
:;<=ÿ?&(0
CDDEF9
1C

79

1C

9F9

I!ÿB!8J
H79ÿS9

EE97
O!E98

79

1C

79

1C

9F9 8KJ
EE97

79

1C
CDDEF9
1C
CDDEF9
1C
C7
1C

9F9 EE97
O!E98

79

1C

9F9 EE97
O!E98

9F9 EE97
O!E98

9F9 EE97
O!E98
4#10$

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
2

97

10*&,
!ÿ@9

2
2

D79EÿÿD79EÿC!7
D8ÿ@!7ÿIJ9ÿG97E

9ÿFE
ÿKJ89

2

N8ÿOE9

2

K9ÿI7ÿ79EÿÿM7ÿEÿIJ9ÿ78
Fÿ
K9ÿA9ÿ79E

I97ÿO

2
2
2
2

N9ÿC E!97
NE8Q!R9ÿI8!7
6B9ÿ67ÿP
SG

N9ÿC E!97
S!7TÿUB!
7ÿVW
S7ÿL

2

FL978ÿ9

SBÿNJ8

2

F77ÿ9ÿCE9B

ME9ÿOL97

2
2

FÿG799ÿP9B97ÿHÿO9ÿ78ÿIJ9
FJ9ÿ8ÿA9ÿG!E

K977ÿE
99ÿ7J9

2
@!9ÿ@!7ÿO99ÿ9
7E79ÿ
B9ÿ[PYCCO30
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿY9ÿZ
"3B
3ÿ@
11797919!16789
1"32

PA8ÿK87

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

8-990*

9A9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
BB97
C!B98
GHHBA9
1G
787

9A9 BB97
C!B98
@ BL
P!ÿO9

9A9 BB97
C!B98
@9ÿEJL
9A9 8IE
BB97

79

1G

79

1G

79

1G

9A9 8IE
BB97

9A9 8IE
BB97

9A9 BB97
C!B98
GHHBA9
1G

9A9 BB97
C!B98

9A9 BB97
C!B98

4#10$

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
?@AÿBC9
2

7ÿA8ÿFD@

0/)%+
D9E97ÿA9
G9ÿDEH

2
2
2

!79ÿFD@KÿLL

ÿBC9ÿ7

9HÿB!ÿBC9ÿM

ÿDJ
L!ÿ? L98
M7ÿD J

2

9CÿNHÿBC9ÿ@!I

DEGÿ

2
2

Aÿÿ
Aÿ79IKÿ67
PAÿ79IÿÿPHJÿAÿ78ÿ9ÿ

BÿLI7
Q7ÿ9

2

P99ÿBC9ÿ7

M77ÿQ77

2

PJÿB!ÿBC9ÿM

?J8ÿDO

2

P7ÿBC9ÿA9797ÿ67

777ÿ9!

2

PBÿÿP9ÿÿBC9ÿJ7I

9ÿQ

2

B9ÿE9ÿBC9ÿ@!I

I7ÿ@9

8ÿA9
ÿ
9ÿPMSDDU3
ÿ
Rÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿS9ÿTB
"33ÿ7?
7799ÿ

J9
0
11797919!16789
1"32

I7ÿP7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
D ÿ?9

7,88/)

79

9E9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1@
8BI
JJ97

79

1@

79

1@

9E9 8BI
JJ97

9E9 8BI
JJ97
@OOJE9
1@

9E9 8BI
JJ97

9E9 8BI
JJ97

9E9 8BI
JJ97

9E9 JJ97
D!J98

9E9 8BI
JJ97

9E9 JJ97
D!J98

79

1@

4510#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
??@ÿÿ@!A9ÿBÿ78ÿ9ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

2

?GBÿÿ?GBÿLÿ@@

0/)%+
CD@6
EFGH
I
KÿM!9N

2
2

?!ÿDNÿIÿ
ÿ4ÿJÿ97ÿ!7N
?!ÿDNÿIÿ
ÿ4ÿJÿG7Kÿ!7N

O97ÿ779
GKÿ
9J98

2

H9
ÿR

2

?!ÿDNÿIÿ
ÿ0ÿJÿB7ÿ!7NP
Q77
?!9ÿG!78ÿ79NPÿ67

KK97
G!K98
H7
1H

9A9 8?N
KK97
HJJKA9
1H

97ÿSN

9A9

2
2

GK97ÿO!7ÿDNÿI
GÿA9ÿ?T9

G!7ÿF
M9A7ÿ
997

2

G799ÿ9

KKNÿ!

2

GH
HÿÿG!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿBÿ

HNÿE!8

G9KÿÿG7ÿI9ÿBÿ78ÿ9
G7ÿV9Nÿ?S9ÿÿNÿJÿG7ÿ
G!97ÿK7NÿÿG!97ÿK7N
B9797
7ÿ678797ÿ

ÿB
78ÿ9ÿ 0
Xÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿYG
"3!3ÿ9O
K9ÿÿFIVGGQ3
2
2
2

11797919!16789
1"32

I79ÿL7U
G78ÿ?9
QKÿIÿG!W
OUÿO I78

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
HJJKA9
1H

9A9

KK97
G!K98
C9ÿ77
HJJKA9
1H

9A9 KK97
G!K98

9A9 KK97
G!K98

9A9 KK97
G!K98
H789NÿMKA HJJKA9
1H

79

1H

9A9 KK97
G!K98

79

1H

0310#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
?ÿ@!ÿA9ÿB?CÿDEF

0/)%+
GH7ÿI97

2
2

977999ÿL9MÿE!M
K9ÿQÿ78ÿÿE7Cÿ67

NÿO99ÿ?
NRÿK97

2

AKÿ!9!ÿPÿ9?7

D978Mÿ979

2

Lÿ79M

S7ÿ99?9M9

2

Dÿ79MÿQ!Cÿ67

O78ÿT7

2

D9ÿ79M

S99RÿU7

2

V 9ÿ79MCÿ67

Q9MÿT!

#

E?997ÿÿE?997ÿK9J9

9ÿW!7J7

#
#

E@KÿÿEH7ÿ@!ÿK9J9ÿ
ER7ÿ9ÿ9J9ÿ7

ÿXM
!9ÿDR!

#

E98ÿ9ÿ9J9Cÿ67

7ÿE R9?77

#
9R9ÿTUMÿÿ@P
Yÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿL9ÿZ"33ÿN79ÿ
?9ÿGSLKKD30
11797919!16789
1"32

K78ÿKPP9

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

S!ÿD9

7,88/)

9J9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
??97
K!?98
EPP?J9
1E

9J9 ??97
K!?98

9J9 ??97
K!?98

9J9 8@M
??97

9J9 ??97
K!?98

9J9 ??97
K!?98

9J9 ??97
K!?98

9J9 ??97
K!?98
EPP?J9
1E

9J9 8@M
??97

9J9 ??97
K!?98

9J9 ??97
K!?98

0410#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
#
?ÿ@ÿ7
#
779E9ÿFG9ÿB8D77

0/)%+
ÿA 9
B789GÿH9I9

#

9ÿ7

9ÿ@?

#

7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿCÿ
9GÿL?

#

ND77ÿÿND77ÿ9!9Oÿ67

9
ME99
A97ÿ8?7

#

N!?9ÿ79I

K9ÿ9

#
#
#

87ÿ67977ÿÿA!97ÿC7ÿ87 P97IÿA999
D7I
79I
Q!9ÿ@

97
9?IÿR9

#
#

S79IÿÿS79IÿA!7
S8ÿH!7ÿFG9ÿB97I

#

S8ÿH!7ÿFG9ÿF

#

K9ÿF7ÿ79IÿÿP7ÿIÿFG9ÿ78
Jÿ
Tÿ034#5ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV6D
"393ÿH
79ÿ

D9
ÿMNUAAR3
0

ÿ
6

7
ÿ
N



11797919!16789
1"32

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

J!ÿK!8I

B77ÿ6E7
8ÿH7D9I 787
H D?
Dÿ998I
787
H D?
Q977C9
N!ÿR9
S789D9I9
N7ÿ9

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
BCCDE9
1B

9E9 DD97
A!D98

9E9 8FI
DD97
BCCDE9
1B

9E9

DD97
A!D98

9E9 DD97
A!D98

9E9 DD97
A!D98
BCCDE9
1B

9E9 DD97
A!D98
BCCDE9
1B

9E9 DD97
A!D98

9E9 DD97
A!D98

9E9 DD97
A!D98

79

1B

0010#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
#
?@978ÿ9

0/)%+
A!ÿB

#

?77ÿ9ÿBD9E

ÿ!@E

#
#

?ÿF799ÿG9E97ÿHÿI9ÿ78ÿAJ9
?!E77ÿÿ?!E77ÿ79D

F77ÿK!
Lÿ!9

#

M7ÿND8

ÿM!@7@

#
#
#

M89ÿ67ÿG
M!79ÿAJ9ÿ78ÿI9

9JÿQ@ÿAJ9ÿF!D

OE9ÿM P
D7ÿB9@
EÿBC7

#

B!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿA!ÿB9C9ÿ

O9ÿRS97

#

97ÿH7ÿAJ9ÿF97D

G977ÿBE9

#
#

Tÿÿ
Tÿ79DUÿ67
RTÿ79DÿÿR@EÿTÿ78ÿ9ÿ

M7ÿB8
B7ÿD

#

A9ÿC9ÿAJ9ÿF!D

B7ÿMV

8ÿT9
ÿ
9ÿRGKBBI3
ÿ
Wÿ034#5ÿÿ
ÿK9ÿXA
"33ÿ7M
7799ÿ

E9
0
11797919!16789
1"32

G79ÿM7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

!79Dÿ?J9
B9DÿG7997

7,88/)

9C9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
8AD
EE97

9C9 EE97
B!E98
FHHEC9
1F

9C9 EE97
B!E98

9C9 EE97
B!E98

79

1F

79

1F

9C9 8AD
EE97

9C9 EE97
B!E98

9C9 EE97
B!E98
FHHEC9
1F

9C9 8AD
EE97

9C9 EE97
B!E98

79

1F

0"10#

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
$
@A99
ÿ7
$
$

10*&,
B87ÿC7
DE
@@IÿÿI!F9ÿBÿ78ÿ9ÿ
I77ÿJ9E9
@MBÿÿ@MBÿ79Gÿ9!9ÿ78ÿ89ÿII Nÿ7

$
$

@!ÿOGÿCÿ
ÿ4ÿLÿ97ÿ!7G
@!ÿOGÿCÿ
ÿ0ÿLÿB7ÿ!7GQ
R77
MH97ÿD!7ÿOGÿC
MÿF9ÿ@S9

PH9ÿ!
GÿJ97

$

M799ÿ9

D9ÿA7

$

MK
KÿÿM!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿBÿ

P7ÿTH

$

M99ÿGÿI

9ÿT99H7

$

M9H79ÿ9ÿ9F9Qÿ67

!8Gÿ
FE

$

M7Hÿ!7Gÿ@OCÿ
ÿ4

T7E7ÿI!

$
$

$

M!97ÿH7GÿÿM!97ÿH7G
B9797ÿ78ÿ79GÿDE97
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿ#"33ÿD79ÿ
H9ÿJCVMMR30
11797919!16789
1"32

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

CFÿP9!
I9Gÿ@97

P977L9ÿMGE9

P9ÿ77

8-990*

9F9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
8@G
HH97
KLLHF9
1K

9F9 HH97
M!H98
K7
1K

79

1K
KLLHF9
1K

9F9 HH97
M!H98

9F9 HH97
M!H98

9F9 HH97
M!H98

9F9 HH97
M!H98

9F9 HH97
M!H98

9F9 8@G
HH97

9F9 HH97
M!H98
0#10$

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
#
?!97ÿ6787ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ

0/)%+
8ÿA9B99

#

BÿD!ÿE9ÿFBGÿHIJ

KÿI99

#
#
#

977999ÿL9MÿI!M
Hÿ79Mÿ@!Gÿ67
H9ÿ79M

NO9ÿD7
QC8ÿRSM
@7ÿHK97

#
#

H997ÿI9ÿDS9ÿI8B77
U 9ÿ79MGÿ67

9ÿT!
9ÿQ
7

V

A!B77ÿN77ÿB7MÿAA

978ÿRB7

5

Q78ÿ
97

43
43
43

BB7S9ÿPÿN!9ÿQ9B97ÿP
D!ÿE9
T8ÿ9Mÿ877ÿ!7
N8S9ÿ9MÿW7X7

9SÿYKÿ?9ÿ9Mÿ!7

D99ÿR98
!9ÿN!7OM
IAI
ÿIQIN?W

43

9ÿDS9ÿ877ÿ!7

@!MÿLÿZ

43
9MT
\ÿ034453ÿÿ
ÿL9ÿ]?ÿ
"33ÿN
79ÿM

B9
ÿWQL??H3
0
9


ÿ








7
11797919!16789
1"32

I77Mÿ[7K
Q9Sÿ?!

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

Q!ÿH9

7,88/)

9C9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
BB97
?!B98

9C9 BB97
?!B98
IPPBC9
1I

79

1I

9C9 BB97
?!B98

79

1I

9C9 BB97
?!B98

9C9 BB97
?!B98

9C9 8DM
BB97
I7
1I

79

1I

9C9 8DM
BB97

9C9 BB97
?!B98
I7
1I

79

1I

0210#

010210345

*+,-+./ 01,2.342/35.
43
9
ÿ9Eÿ7EFÿ67
43
H997ÿ9Eÿ877ÿ!7
$%7ÿ4ÿÿ"0&ÿ'ÿ"0&ÿ979

Kÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿL9ÿ&"33ÿM79ÿ
J9ÿNOL$$H30
11797919!16789
1"32

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

65/+1
9ÿE79
$9)97ÿ!9I9

7+83,.2/+9
:15;<

=2>>5/
?@ABÿD+-5
G7
1G
G''J)9
1G
(9)! 4
9


0#10#

ÿ7ÿÿ$1%

010210345

_8ÿ$1% '9

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ



]]97ÿ`]

&7ÿ$1'91&7%ÿ1ÿ99ÿ$1'9199%

PQRRSTÿVWXYRTXÿÿ
()**+,ÿ.)/01ÿ034230ÿ3847ÿÿ65332ÿ69ÿ79!6ÿ67897ÿ97ÿ65332#ÿ
7787ÿ5ÿ6
ÿ4ÿ

8+,9:;ÿ<,)=,ÿ>),01ÿ4314210342ÿ403433ÿ?3
8+,9:;ÿ@:Aÿ>),01ÿ4310010342ÿ23333ÿ53
()**+,ÿBCD01ÿ

()**+,ÿEF,9G9,C1ÿ6
()**+,ÿ<0=90H1ÿ4
B+,)*ÿIÿ8+,0H1ÿ0"J
B+,)*ÿ()**+,ÿK++*1ÿ"33
LM+=M/1ÿJ5
N09;O,0Aÿ<0;/0:,ÿ8)*M01ÿ0"0
ÿ
()**+, <0;/0:,
EZZ9=/),9G0
EZZ9=/),9G0
.0;),9G0
.0;),9G0
N09;O,
8+,0H
[=)F,9+:
8+,0H
[=)F,9+:
<0;/0:, K++*
79]97ÿ4 2^
4
40
302
"#
3J2
3^
3
3
^
3^
79]97ÿ0 J
79]97ÿ" J3
4
2
344#
"2
322^
4
^
3"#^
J
3#"#
79]97ÿ^ 4"
79]97ÿ2 #2
4
4"
3"4
05
3#5
4
J
30^4
00
3J25
79]97ÿ# ^2
79]97ÿJ 4
3
3
3
3
3
79]97ÿ2 3
3
3
3
3
3
7ÿ5b9ÿ4^"33ÿ37394ÿ
]9ÿc_b77d3
3 0
3
4
34
aÿ03479
5ÿÿ]9

ÿ
11797919!16789
1"3#

.+
E\H,)9: 8+,0
4#
03
0
4
40
42
4
4
43
4#
44
2
4
3
3
3
3
3

410"

010210345

*+,,-)
$%&'%() .--,
<9=97 >
43
"33


$%&'%()
/%0&1)
3"

23304'+)05%
6-)%7
4

89
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ
2330467'+
)05%
:%&+)05%
84+9)0-(
6-)%7
34
0

:%&+)05%
84+9)0-(
30

:2;7)+0( 6-)%
"
0

2>

?0

4">4

??45

2#

4"5

#"

@ABBCDÿFCCBÿGHG@HIJ
<Kÿ L

<9 <9

ÿ979

$%&'%() M4&+(0N+)0-(
4
LXÿÿLXÿ<9Y9ÿ7
4
L=997ÿÿL=997ÿ<9Y9
4
L=97ÿ7=7ÿ=7[\ÿ]]
4
LX<ÿÿL`7ÿX!ÿ<9Y9ÿ
4
L98ÿ9ÿ9Y9\ÿ67
4
L!7ÿ79[
4
77ÿL![ÿ_ÿ
97ÿ_7
dÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿe9ÿ?"33ÿa79ÿ
=9ÿfZe<%'/
CC97
D!C98
G7
1G

9A9 CC97
D!C98

9A9 CC97
D!C98

79

1G

9A9 CC97
D!C98

79

1G

9A9 CC97
D!C98

9A9 CC97
D!C98

9A9 CC97
D!C98

79

1G
G7
1G

9A9 CC97
D!C98
GUUCA9
1G
"10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
4
7ÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9B9

10*&,
Cÿ!9!
9799ÿG989
GCÿ

G!ÿG99
E9B97ÿLB

4
4
4

FC78ÿ@A9ÿ9B9
FD77ÿÿFD77ÿI7ÿ@A9
F!J9ÿ79C
87ÿ67977ÿÿE!97ÿK7ÿ87
D7C
79Cÿÿ79CÿE9B9Mÿ67
B9!9ÿ79C

97

4
4

P79CÿÿP79Cÿ7
R9ÿ7D7ÿ7

Q!9ÿE9B97
R9ÿFB

4
4

9CÿIJD77
QD9ÿL 99

4

R979ÿGÿ78ÿ@A9ÿDD7
R9ÿ@7ÿ79CÿÿS7ÿCÿ@A9ÿ78
Gÿ
UC8ÿN79ÿ
9AJMÿ67

4

UC8O!V9ÿ7799

ÿ!9

4
4
4
4

ÿD9
@A9
ÿD7C 0
Wÿ03445ÿÿ
ÿI9ÿ$6FHN@ÿ
"33ÿLÿ6789ÿ

ÿNFIEET3
11797919!16789
1"3#

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

NB9ÿ!J9
O!77ÿG99
ÿE 77

@CDÿPJ

G!ÿ
97

F!ÿT9

8-990*

9B9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
DD97
E!D98
H7
1H
H7
1H

79

1H

9B9 DD97
E!D98
HKKDB9
1H
H7
1H

9B9 DD97
E!D98
HKKDB9
1H

9B9 DD97
E!D98

79

1H

9B9 DD97
E!D98

9B9 DD97
E!D98

9B9 DD97
E!D98

79

1H
$10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
6?9ÿ67ÿ@

0/)%+
A9!ÿB??C
DE
G9ÿG79

4

67977ÿ7?7ÿ?7CÿF87
7
AD

98ÿF7

4
4

JDGKÿ9ÿ9I9
LM978ÿ9

Gÿ998I9
LCÿN

4
4
4
4
4

L77ÿ9ÿBC9?
L7ÿ678ÿOP9ÿD!C
LÿD799ÿ@9?97ÿHÿN9ÿ78ÿOP9
LP9ÿ8ÿI9ÿD!C
Gÿ78ÿDÿ9ÿOP9ÿ9I9

@77CÿO!897E
9ÿQ79C
H7MÿE
N?ÿB789
N?ÿO9

4

G7ÿFC8

GM9ÿB?

4

4
GDQÿOP9
4
G77MÿOP9ÿ9I9ÿ67
4
G!79ÿOP9ÿ78ÿN9
4

Nÿ9ÿOP9ÿ9I9Sÿ67
Tÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV"33ÿG79ÿ
?9ÿK@UBBN30
11797919!16789
1"3#

@I8ÿN99M9C
99ÿD8
D78CÿJ!9
GMÿ?9C

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

B979ÿ!7

7,88/)

79

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1D

DHH?I9
1D

9I9

B ÿG9
D78CÿR!?7

??97
B!?98

79

1D

9I9 ??97
B!?98
D7
1D
D7
1D

79

1D
DHH?I9
1D

9I9 ??97
B!?98

9I9 ??97
B!?98

79

1D

79

1D

79

1D

9I9 ??97
B!?98
210"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4

7ÿ?8ÿ@AB

0/)%+
C9ÿD79

4
4
4

9GÿH!ÿHI9ÿJ

9IGÿ78ÿA9!Kÿ979

9IÿMGÿHI9ÿB!K

DF7ÿI9K

ÿL!
AE9ÿA7

4
4

9
ÿ79KÿÿN8ÿHI9ÿ78ÿLÿ

9ÿC!ÿ9ÿHI9ÿ9E9

CG9ÿO
9
P9E7ÿQ9

4

O?ÿ79KÿÿOGFÿ?ÿ78ÿ9ÿ

9ÿHK9

4

OFÿH!ÿHI9ÿJ

J!ÿH99!G

H
Cÿ9!9ÿÿH!ÿA9E9ÿF7KÿR

9IÿC9

H78ÿ?979ÿ9ÿ
4
4
HHLÿ9ÿ@9ÿ7
4
HA?ÿÿH!ÿA9E9ÿ9ÿ78ÿ?ÿ
4
H!ÿ@KÿJÿ
ÿ4ÿRÿ97ÿ!7K
4
H!ÿ@KÿJÿ
ÿ4ÿRÿH978ÿO99ÿ!7K
4
H!ÿ@KÿJÿ
ÿ4ÿRÿA7Fÿ!7K
Sÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿT9ÿU"33ÿC79ÿ
F9ÿOJTAAQ30

L!9ÿQF

4

11797919!16789
1"3#

79ÿ!9
978ÿ!9
D9ÿAF
D9RRÿPF9
P9E7ÿ7IK
L7ÿJ!7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

7,88/)

9E9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
FF97
A!F98
B7
1B

79

1B

9E9 FF97
A!F98

79

1B

9E9 FF97
A!F98

9E9 FF97
A!F98

9E9 FF97
A!F98

9E9 FF97
A!F98

79

1B
B7
1B
B7
1B
BRRFE9
1B

79

1B

9E9 FF97
A!F98
#10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
4
@!9ÿA!78ÿ79BCÿ67

10*&,
99ÿDEDB

4
4

AG97ÿH!7ÿIBÿJ
AÿF9ÿ@N9

K!ÿADF
A9F97ÿ

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

A799ÿ9
AD@E9
AK
KÿÿA!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿPÿ
A99ÿBÿS
A9G79ÿ9ÿ9F9Cÿ67
A9GÿÿA7ÿJ9ÿPÿ78ÿ9
AH9ÿ@E9ÿ9ÿ9F9

ÿO79
OB79ÿP!G7
GÿQ7RD
@E9ÿT!
HDÿ!
HÿJ9
@99ÿJE7

4

T979ÿ@9E

4
4

A!97ÿG7BÿÿA!97ÿG7B
A9F9Cÿ67
A!7ME9ÿ9ÿ@E9ÿ7
Gÿ@!ÿI9ÿUGCÿOKV

4
4

977999ÿW9BÿK!B
A9ÿPÿ78ÿÿK7Cÿ67

P9ÿT!R
BÿAG7

Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿY"33ÿH79ÿ
G9ÿZJWAAO30
11797919!16789
1"3#

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

L9ÿ77

@!ÿH9MM
L7ÿH99
J977ÿ7

8-990*

9F9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
GG97
A!G98
KMMGF9
1K

9F9 GG97
A!G98
K7
1K

79

1K

79

1K

79

1K
K7
1K
KMMGF9
1K

9F9 GG97
A!G98

9F9 GG97
A!G98
K7
1K

9F9 GG97
A!G98
K7
1K

9F9 GG97
A!G98
$10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
4
@Aÿ!9!ÿBÿ9C7

10*&,
8ÿDE7

4

G9ÿ79H

I97ÿJ97

4

G997ÿI9ÿLM9ÿI8C77

97ÿ9E7

0

B7ÿ6AN

8ÿO79

0

9ÿ9Hÿ!7ÿBÿ9
Pÿ67

787ÿQ97

0

678997897ÿ9HÿAH9CÿN9

R978ÿJ!

0
0
0

6ANÿ
9Mÿ778Pÿ67
S87797ÿ6ANPÿ67
LDSÿ6797797PÿRR

S9ÿL!
9Hÿ6E9
SEÿTC7

0
"
"
"
"

A!M9ÿLM9ÿLPÿ67ÿUNV
IL
IC997ÿÿIC997ÿA9F9
ILAÿÿIX7ÿL!ÿA9F9ÿ
I98ÿ9ÿ9F9Pÿ67

9ÿW9!7
R977ÿRC9
KF8ÿD978
OF7ÿO
88ÿ9779

Yÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿO9ÿZI!
"337ÿÿS
797H9ÿ
C9ÿNKOAAG30
11797919!16789
1"3#

GÿKMH79ÿL97

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

K!ÿG9

QHÿ
7

8-990*

9F9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
CC97
A!C98

9F9 CC97
A!C98

9F9 CC97
A!C98

9F9 CC97
A!C98

9F9 CC97
A!C98

9F9 CC97
A!C98

79

1I
I7
1I

9F9 CC97
A!C98
I7
1I
I7
1I
I7
1I
IBBCF9
1I

9F9 CC97
A!C98

79

1I

$10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?@ÿÿ?@ÿ7
"
7ÿ9ÿDE9ÿ9@9

0/)%+
A ÿB779C
F99GCÿH

"
"

I7ÿF
?7799ÿF77

"
"

ÿIC8ÿ78ÿDE9ÿ?!C
9J9ÿIECÿ79CÿÿK8?G97
79Cÿ
JÿIÿ7
779@9ÿDE9ÿ?8G77

"

97ÿ9ÿDE9ÿ9@9ÿMK!N

?8GÿO99

"

CÿLÿPG77

"

CÿLÿH9ÿ9

Q78ÿF7
R!77
S77Cÿ99

"
"
"
"
"

CÿT9ÿLÿA7L98UÿK!
JÿD!ÿT9
9ÿ7
VG77ÿÿVG77ÿ9!9Uÿ67
V!J9ÿ79C

A ÿOG
FJÿAG9
K99ÿ9C
779ÿQE9
Q99ÿA !9

Wÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿH9ÿX

"9337ÿK79ÿ
G9ÿYVHAAO30
11797919!16789
1"3#

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

ÿ9
99 ÿ98

F7ÿ99

7,88/)

79

9@9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1?
GG97
A!G98
?7
1?

9@9 GG97
A!G98
?LLG@9
1?

9@9 GG97
A!G98

9@9 GG97
A!G98

79

1?

787
K GJ

9@9

Q!ÿS!8C

79

79
?7
?7

9@9

9@9

GG97
A!G98

1?

1?

1?

1?
GG97
A!G98
GG97
A!G98

510"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?79@ÿÿ?79@ÿ7
?8ÿF!7ÿGH9ÿA97@
"

0/)%+
A7ÿB8C
I9ÿF J779@

"

B79E9ÿ97ÿM9

J97ÿLCC7

"

B9ÿL@9CÿN97ÿ7

L ÿF B!

"

I7ÿ7

P!ÿQ9

"

B9ÿG7ÿ79@ÿÿJ7ÿ@ÿGH9ÿ78
Oÿ
R@8ÿN79ÿ
9HKSÿ67

G!ÿFT9HK

N7ÿG79

"

679C!77ÿA

PE8ÿF9

"
"
"

IA
JAFNÿ9ÿ9E9
OK978ÿ9

B@ÿK9
98ÿRC9
Gÿ8@

"
"

O77ÿ9ÿL@9C
Fÿ78ÿAÿ9ÿGH9ÿ9E9

I7ÿ?K
L997ÿG!9

"
FABÿGH9
"
F!79ÿGH9ÿ78ÿQ9
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿW"33ÿF79ÿ
C9ÿNPVLLQ30
11797919!16789
1"3#

9ÿ78
L9ÿL9CK9

787
F CK
787
F CK

L ÿF9

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
ADDCE9
1A

9E9 CC97
L!C98

9E9 CC97
L!C98

9E9 CC97
L!C98

9E9 CC97
L!C98

9E9 CC97
L!C98

9E9 CC97
L!C98

79

1A

79

1A

9E9 CC97
L!C98
A7
1A

9E9 CC97
L!C98

79

1A

79

1A
4310"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"

7ÿ?8ÿ@AB

0/)%+
7ÿA77

"
"

9EÿF!ÿFG9ÿH

9GÿJEÿFG9ÿB!I

7Iÿ889D7
HC8ÿC9

"

A!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿF!ÿA9C9ÿ

HDIÿKII!E

"

9ÿL!ÿ9ÿFG9ÿ9C9

AEI9ÿM9D77

"

Mÿ9ÿFG9ÿ9C9Nÿ67

O7ÿAE9I

"

P ÿ@IÿA9C9

9C9ÿG97

"

P?ÿ79IÿÿPEDÿ?ÿ78ÿ9ÿ

H78ÿQC9

"

PDÿF!ÿFG9ÿH

B7ÿAD

"

PFÿÿP9ÿÿFG9ÿD7I

M978ÿP7

"
"

PG97ÿL!7ÿ@9
F9ÿC9ÿFG9ÿB!I

DÿRI7
O9SSÿR78

"
F
Lÿ9!9ÿÿF!ÿA9C9ÿD7IÿS

79ÿ
D9ÿPHUAAM30
Tÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV
9
"3Gÿ
3L9
ÿL
11797919!16789
1"3#

RI77ÿ?897

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

787
L DE

7,88/)

9C9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
DD97
A!D98
B7
1B

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98
BSSDC9
1B

9C9 DD97
A!D98

9C9 DD97
A!D98

4410"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%()
"
"
"
"
"

*+&,(-.,)-/(
?78ÿ@979ÿ9ÿ
??DÿÿD!E9ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ
?H@ÿÿ?!ÿH9E9ÿ9ÿ78ÿ@ÿ
?!ÿKJÿAÿ
ÿ4ÿLÿ97ÿ!7J
?!9ÿH!78ÿ79JMÿ67

0/)%+
A7ÿB79
F9ÿ97G
FG9ÿI9J9
FJ9ÿ@!78J
GÿNGO

"

!9L8ÿI

GÿP9

"
"
"
"

HG97ÿI!7ÿKJÿA
HÿE9ÿ?Q9
H799ÿ9
HC
CÿÿH!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿ@ÿ

9ÿD79J
9ÿR78SO
FG9ÿ?7
H ÿ?O9

"

H99ÿJÿD

!7ÿ7

"
"
"

H9G79ÿ9ÿ9E9Mÿ67
H9GÿÿH7ÿA9ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9
HI9ÿ?U9ÿ9ÿ9E9

FG9ÿT!97
89ÿHE
F9LLÿ
9

"
H7ÿV9Jÿ?U9ÿÿJÿLÿH7ÿ
"
H7Gÿ!7Jÿ?KAÿ
ÿ4
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿX"33ÿI79ÿ
G9ÿYAVHHN30
11797919!16789
1"3#

Vÿ88
PJÿ79J

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

F9ÿ77

F9LLÿF77

7,88/)

79

79

79
C7

9E9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1C

1C

1C

1C
GG97
H!G98

9E9 GG97
H!G98
CLLGE9
1C

79

1C
C7
1C

9E9 GG97
H!G98

9E9 GG97
H!G98
C7
1C

79

1C

9E9 GG97
H!G98

79

1C

9E9 GG97
H!G98

4010"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
?!97ÿ@7AÿÿB@ÿCD9ÿ@7A

0/)%+
E9ÿF9@DG

"

@ÿC!ÿI9ÿJ@KÿLBM

NÿF787

"
"

977999ÿO9AÿB!A
?9ÿPÿ78ÿÿB7Kÿ67

67ÿP7
E799ÿNÿP

"

Lÿ79AÿP!Kÿ67

@ÿ9979

"

L9ÿ79A

A7ÿ

"
R
R
R
R

Q 9ÿ79AKÿ67
B7ÿ79Aÿ7ÿ?9H9Kÿ67
B!7ÿ79A
AÿI9ÿUÿ?7U98KÿN!
N?ÿ79Aÿÿ7!@9ÿ79Aÿ@7A

N9ÿ68
SAÿT9G9
9ÿL99G9
E7ÿB97
99ÿN79V

R
R

W79AÿÿW79Aÿ7
W8ÿN!7ÿCD9ÿB97A

B!9Aÿ?
ÿ77

R

P9ÿ?A9@ÿX97ÿ7

B789ÿA

Yÿ034R5ÿÿ
ÿO9ÿRS"P9
337ÿN79ÿ
@9ÿXFO??L30
11797919!16789
1"3#

8ÿ@9!

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

F!ÿL9

787
N @G

7,88/)

9H9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
@@97
?!@98

9H9 @@97
?!@98
B7
1B

9H9 @@97
?!@98

9H9 @@97
?!@98

9H9 @@97
?!@98
B7
1B
B7
1B
BUU@H9
1B

79

1B

9H9 @@97
?!@98
BUU@H9
1B

9H9 @@97
?!@98

9H9 @@97
?!@98
BUU@H9
1B

4"10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
$
@!ÿABÿCÿ
ÿ4ÿDÿE7Fÿ!7B

10*&,
G7ÿH797

$
$

EF97ÿH!7ÿABÿC
E99ÿBÿK

9ÿ79
LÿK

$

ABÿE9I9Mÿ67

$

Nÿ79BÿO!Mÿ67

7ÿI7
H797
J77BÿG7PQP

2
2

J@
JF997ÿÿJF997ÿH!

FÿRS
EFÿCQB9

2
2

J@EÿÿJS7ÿ@!ÿE9I9ÿ
JP7ÿ9ÿ9I9ÿ7

T9ÿB
H9ÿL

2
2
2

J!7ÿ79B
JIÿÿJIÿ7
7ÿ9ÿ@Q9ÿ9I9

E9BÿH9Q
O97ÿRF9
HP9ÿTD

2

ÿLB8ÿ78ÿ@Q9ÿJ!B

L997ÿLF7
L87
T9I7ÿE!B
O99ÿ

2
9P9ÿLQBÿÿ
Uÿ79B
Vÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿ$
"3P3ÿÿL
H

79ÿ

F9
ÿWCUEEN30



ÿ






7
11797919!16789
1"3#

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

G9ÿ77

8-990*

9I9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
FF97
E!F98
JDDFI9
1J

9I9 FF97
E!F98

9I9 FF97
E!F98

9I9 FF97
E!F98
J7
1J

9I9 FF97
E!F98
JDDFI9
1J

9I9 FF97
E!F98
JDDFI9
1J

79

1J

9I9 FF97
E!F98

79

1J
JDDFI9
1J
JDDFI9
1J

4$10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
0/)%+
2
9?!7ÿ67ÿ@ÿÿA!BCÿD9BÿDE9 GB9ÿ?!B
D7ÿDF9
779I9ÿDE9ÿH8J77
K ÿL779
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

EÿM9797ÿAJ98ÿD79NÿAAAD
CÿL9NÿAÿ78ÿDE9ÿOÿK7O98Nÿ6A
9ÿ7
GKÿ79Cÿÿ7!J9ÿ79CÿJ7C
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿOÿ
9EÿQB
ESÿ!7CÿDT@
@C78ÿDE9ÿ9I9
@J77ÿÿ@J77ÿ9!9Nÿ67

ÿL7
K9I9ÿ9
K979ÿP!OOJ7
@I8ÿM9C99
LJÿL79
@977ÿ7
JJCÿ@9
A!ÿU9B

2

@!B9ÿ79C

@9ÿM8E79

2
2

87ÿ67977ÿÿK!97ÿO7ÿ87 K9979ÿL
J7C
@Dÿ979E9ÿ
ÿHJ9ÿAA
P99ÿG7

2


97

9Cÿ7ÿV
7
CÿK!7 0
"37
3ÿG
9ÿ

J99ÿU@RKKL3
Wÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿR9ÿXV
11797919!16789
1"3#

!ÿG9
9ÿAC

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

7,88/)

79

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1H

9I9

A!ÿM!8C
@79ÿR9

JJ97
K!J98

79

1H

79

1H
H7
1H

79

1H
HOOJI9
1H
HOOJI9
1H
H7
1H

9I9 JJ97
K!J98

9I9 JJ97
K!J98

9I9 JJ97
K!J98

9I9 JJ97
K!J98

9I9 JJ97
K!J98
HOOJI9
1H
4210"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
?8ÿ@!7ÿAB9ÿC97D

0/)%+
ÿEB89
L8ÿMD9

2

E9ÿA7ÿ79DÿÿJ7ÿDÿAB9ÿ78
Kÿ
E9ÿH9ÿ79D

2
2
2
2

L9ÿI D!97
LD8O!P9ÿA8!7
6F9ÿ67ÿN
QC

L9ÿI D!97
Q!7RÿSF!
7ÿTU
Q7ÿG

2

KG978ÿ9

QFÿLB8

2

2
2
2
2

K77ÿ9ÿID9F
KÿC799ÿN9F97ÿVÿM9ÿ78ÿAB9
KB9ÿ8ÿH9ÿC!D
@!9ÿ@!7ÿM99ÿ9
F7D
2
@CEÿAB9
2

!79ÿWICXÿKK
2

ÿAB9ÿ7
Yÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿZ9ÿ[
9
"33ÿ@
79ÿ

F9
0
GÿA!
ÿA
B9ÿ\NZIIM3
ÿN
11797919!16789
1"3#

A97ÿM

JD9ÿMG97
E977ÿD
99ÿ7B9
NH8ÿE87
I9H97ÿE9
ÿIF
K!ÿ@ K98
N7ÿI F

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
787
@ FG
N!ÿM9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
FF97
I!F98

9H9 FF97
I!F98
@9ÿDBG
9H9 FF97
I!F98

79

1C

79

1C

79

1C

9H9 FF97
I!F98

9H9 FF97
I!F98
C7
1C
CVVFH9
1C
CVVFH9
1C
C7
1C
I ÿ@9

7,88/)

9H9

79

79

79
C7

1C

1C

1C

1C

4#10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
2

9@ÿABÿC@9ÿD!E

10*&,
FGHÿ

2
2

Jÿÿ
Jÿ79EKÿ67
NJÿ79EÿÿNBIÿJÿ78ÿ9ÿ

CÿLE7
O7ÿ9

2

N99ÿC@9ÿ7

P77ÿO77

2

NIÿC!ÿC@9ÿP

QI8ÿFM

2

N7ÿC@9ÿJ9797ÿ67

777ÿ9!

2

NCÿÿN9ÿÿC@9ÿI7E

9ÿO

2
2

C78ÿJ979ÿ9ÿ
CCLÿÿL!G9ÿJÿ78ÿ9ÿ

2
2
2

CFJÿÿCFJÿTÿLL
C!ÿREÿPÿ
ÿ4ÿMÿ97ÿ!7E
C!ÿREÿPÿ
ÿ4ÿMÿF7Iÿ!7E

E7ÿN7
ORL6
SNFD
P
IÿU!9E
Q97ÿ779
FIÿ
9M98

2

C!ÿREÿPÿ
ÿ0ÿMÿJ7ÿ!7EK
V77
F!787ÿ7
9I9
EKÿ6ÿ7NPXFFV3

Wÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿX9ÿYC!
"393ÿÿQ
9ÿ

0
11797919!16789
1"3#

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

8-990*

9G9

:;<=ÿ?&(0
II97
F!I98
DMMIG9
1D

9G9 II97
F!I98

9G9 II97
F!I98

9G9 II97
F!I98

9G9 II97
F!I98

9G9 II97
F!I98

79

1D

79

1D
D7
D7

9G9

D9
ÿA

1D

1D
II97
F!I98
DMMIG9
1D

97ÿ@E

9G9

II97
F!I98

4$10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
2
@A97ÿB!7ÿCDÿE
@ÿJ9ÿKL9
2

10*&,
@!7ÿF
M9J7ÿ
997

2
2

@799ÿ9
@H
Hÿÿ@!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿNÿ

AADÿ!
HDÿO!8

2
2
2

E79ÿP7Q
@78ÿK9
TAÿEÿ@!U

2

@9Aÿÿ@7ÿE9ÿNÿ78ÿ9
@7ÿR9DÿKS9ÿÿDÿIÿ@7ÿ
@!97ÿA7Dÿÿ@!97ÿA7D
N9797
AÿK!ÿC9ÿVAWÿTHX

2
2

977999ÿR9DÿH!D
@9ÿNÿ78ÿÿH7Wÿ67

BÿY99ÿA
BQÿ@97

2

C@ÿ!9!ÿIÿ9A7

T978Dÿ979

2
2

Rÿ79D
T9ÿ79D

E7ÿ99A9D9
E99QÿS7

#
HA997ÿÿHA997ÿ@9J9
HU779ÿK!
ÿ@9
J9ÿ 0
[ÿ034#5ÿÿ
ÿR9ÿ\HK@ÿ
"33ÿÿB
ÿ
A9
ÿFER@@T3
11797919!16789
1"3#

FU7ÿP97

9ÿZ!7J7

ÿMD

2&3.')-*&4
5,067
G9ÿ77

8-990*
:;<=ÿ?&(0
HIIAJ9
1H

9J9 AA97
@!A98
H7
1H

9J9 AA97
@!A98
H789DÿMAJ HIIAJ9
1H

79

1H

9J9 AA97
@!A98

9J9 AA97
@!A98

79

1H

9J9 AA97
@!A98

9J9 AA97
@!A98
H7
1H
E!ÿT9

9J9 AA97
@!A98
H7
1H
HIIAJ9
1H
4$10"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
#
?@7ÿ9ÿ9A9ÿ7

0/)%+
!9ÿB@!

#

?98ÿ9ÿ9A9Eÿ67

7ÿ? @9C77

#

9@9ÿFGHÿÿIJ

D78ÿDJJ9

#
#

@ÿFÿ7
779A9ÿIG9ÿ?8C77

ÿD 9
?789GÿK9H9

#
#

9ÿ7
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿJÿ
9GÿN@

#

PC77ÿÿPC77ÿ9!9Eÿ67

9ÿF@
9
OA99
D97ÿ8@7

#

P!@9ÿ79H

M9ÿ9

#

87ÿ67977ÿÿD!97ÿJ7ÿ87 Q97HÿD999
C7H
79H
R!9ÿF

97
9@HÿB9

#
#

#
S79HÿÿS79HÿD!7
ÿK!779ÿ

ÿI
ÿ?97H
Tÿ034#5ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿVS
"383ÿK
C9G9
ÿOPUDDB3
0
11797919!16789
1"3#

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

L!ÿM!8H

?77ÿ6A7
8ÿK7C9H 787
K C@

7,88/)

9A9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
CC97
D!C98

9A9 CC97
D!C98

9A9 CC97
D!C98
?JJCA9
1?

9A9 CC97
D!C98
?7
1?
?JJCA9
1?

9A9

9A9
?7

CC97
D!C98
CC97
D!C98

1?

?JJCA9
1?

9A9 CC97
D!C98
?JJCA9
1?

9A9 CC97
D!C98

4510"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
#
?8ÿ@!7ÿAB9ÿA

0/)%+
Cÿ998D

#
#

H9ÿA7ÿ79DÿÿI7ÿDÿAB9ÿ78
Jÿ
6C9ÿ67ÿM
JE978ÿ9

K977L9
?789C9D9
M7ÿ9
A!ÿG

#
#
#
#

J77ÿ9ÿGD9C
JÿO799ÿM9C97ÿLÿN9ÿ78ÿAB9
J!C77ÿÿJ!C77ÿ79D
@7ÿQD8

ÿ!EC
O77ÿP!
Iÿ!9
ÿ@!E7E

#
#
#

@89ÿ67ÿM
@!79ÿAB9ÿ78ÿN9

9BÿREÿAB9ÿO!D

KC9ÿ@ ?
D7ÿG9E
CÿGF7

#

G!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿA!ÿG9F9ÿ

K9ÿST97

#

97ÿL7ÿAB9ÿO97D

M977ÿGC9

#

SHÿ79DÿÿSECÿHÿ78ÿ9ÿ

G7ÿD

#

Uÿ034#5ÿÿ
ÿP9ÿVA
"33ÿ7@
7799ÿ

C9
0
8ÿH9
ÿ
9ÿSMPGGN3
ÿ
11797919!16789
1"3#

M79ÿ@7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
787
@ CE
M!ÿN9

!79DÿJB9
G9DÿM7997

7,88/)

9F9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
CC97
G!C98

9F9 CC97
G!C98

79

1O

9F9 CC97
G!C98
O7
1O
OLLCF9
1O
O7
1O

9F9 CC97
G!C98

79

1O

79

1O

9F9 CC97
G!C98

9F9 CC97
G!C98

9F9 CC97
G!C98

9F9 CC97
G!C98

79

1O

0310"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
#
?@99
ÿ7

#
#

0/)%+
A87ÿB7
CD
??FÿÿF!G9ÿAÿ78ÿ9ÿ
F77ÿH9D9
?IAÿÿ?IAÿ79Jÿ9!9ÿ78ÿ89ÿFF Kÿ7
?!ÿLJÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿMÿ97ÿ!7J
BGÿN9!
?!ÿLJÿBÿ
ÿ0ÿMÿA7ÿ!7JO
F9Jÿ?97
P77
IQ97ÿC!7ÿLJÿB
NQ9ÿ!
IÿG9ÿ?R9
JÿH97

#
#

I799ÿ9
I99ÿJÿF

C9ÿ@7
9ÿS99Q7

#
#

I9Q79ÿ9ÿ9G9Oÿ67
I7Qÿ!7Jÿ?LBÿ
ÿ4

!8Jÿ
GD
S7D7ÿF!

#

I!97ÿQ7JÿÿI!97ÿQ7J
A9797ÿ78ÿ79JÿCD97
Qÿ?!ÿL9ÿTQOÿPEU

N977M9ÿIJD9

#
#
#
#

#

#
977999ÿV9JÿE!J
!Q9
Oÿ67ÿHBVIIP3

"33ÿ7
C9J7ÿA
9ÿ

0
Xÿ034#5ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿYPÿ
11797919!16789
1"3#

DÿE99
CR9ÿ?7
BG8ÿW@J

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

N9ÿ77

7,88/)
E7

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1E

79
E7
E7

79

1E

1E

1E

1E

EMMQG9
1E

9G9 QQ97
I!Q98
E7
1E

9G9 QQ97
I!Q98
E7
1E

9G9 QQ97
I!Q98

9G9 QQ97
I!Q98

9G9 QQ97
I!Q98
E7
1E

79

1E
0410"

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

)*+,*-. /0+1-231.24#
D9ÿ79E

54.*0
F7ÿDG97
9ÿK!
978ÿOI7
H78ÿ
97

43
43
43

D997ÿJ9ÿ'%9ÿJ8I77
M!I77ÿN77ÿI7EÿMM
II7%9ÿ&ÿN!9ÿH9I97ÿ&
'!ÿP9
K8ÿ9Eÿ877ÿ!7
N8%9ÿ9EÿQ7R7

9%ÿTGÿ$9ÿ9Eÿ!7

43

9ÿ'%9ÿ877ÿ!7

F!EÿUÿV

43
43
43
43

9EK
$ÿ9Eÿ7
9
ÿ9Eÿ7EXÿ67
D997ÿ9Eÿ877ÿ!7

J77EÿW7G
H9%ÿ$!
9ÿE79
$9(97ÿ!9G9

#
L
5

$%7ÿ4ÿÿ"33ÿ&ÿ"33ÿ979

Yÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿZ"33ÿN79ÿ
I9ÿQHU$$D30
11797919!16789
1"3#

'99ÿO98
!9ÿN!7SE
JMJ
ÿJHJN$Q

6*72+-1.*8
904:;
H!ÿD9

<1==4.

9(9

>?@AÿC*,4
II97
$!I98

79

1J
J7
1J

9(9 II97
$!I98
J7
1J

79

1J

9(9 II97
$!I98

9(9 II97
$!I98
J&&I(9
1J

79

1J
J7
1J
J7
1J
'9(! 4
9


0010"

010210345

$ÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿ%9ÿ&"33ÿ'79ÿ
(9ÿ)*%++,30
11797919!16789
1"3#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0"10"

Standards Announcement

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting
Formal Comment Period Open through October 22, 2018
Ballot Pools Forming through October 17, 2018
Now Available

A 20-day formal comment period for CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning is open through 8 p.m. Eastern, Monday, October 22, 2018.
Commenting

Use the Standards Balloting and Commenting System (SBS) to submit comments. If you experience issues
using the SBS, contact Wendy Muller. An unofficial Word version of the comment form is posted on the
project page.
Ballot Pools

Ballot pools are being formed through 8 p.m. Eastern, Wednesday, October 17, 2018. Registered Ballot
Body members can join the ballot pools here.
•

If you are having difficulty accessing the SBS due to a forgotten password, incorrect credential
error messages, or system lock-out, contact NERC IT support directly at https://support.nerc.net/
(Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern).

•

Passwords expire every 6 months and must be reset.

•

The SBS is not supported for use on mobile devices.

•

Please be mindful of ballot and comment period closing dates. We ask to allow at least 48 hours
for NERC support staff to assist with inquiries. Therefore, it is recommended that users try logging
into their SBS accounts prior to the last day of a comment/ballot period.

Next Steps

A 5-day initial ballot for the standard, and a non-binding poll of the associated Violation Risk Factors and
Violation Severity Levels will be conducted October 18-22, 2018.

For information on the Standards Development Process, refer to the Standard Processes Manual.
For more information or assistance, contact Senior Standards Developer, Alison Oswald (via email) or at
404-446-9668.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com

Standards Announcement | Project 2016-02 Modifications to CIP Standards
CIP-002-6 and CIP-003-8 | August – October 2018

2

Comment Report
Project Name:

2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | CIP-008-6

Comment Period Start Date:

10/3/2018

Comment Period End Date:

10/22/2018

Associated Ballots:

2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting CIP-008-6 IN 1 ST

There were 86 sets of responses, including comments from approximately 176 different people from approximately 116 companies
representing 10 of the Industry Segments as shown in the table on the following pages.

Questions
1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) created a new definition and modified existing definitions to address the directive in FERC Order No.
848 paragraph 31 regarding “attempts to compromise” without expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP
standards that use existing Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) definitions. Do you agree with the
proposed modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident, and the proposed new definition
of, Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident? If not, please provide comments and alternate language, if possible.

2. The SDT added Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) to applicable systems as opposed to modifying the NERC
Glossary EACMS definition to ensure the FERC Order No. 848 paragraph 54 directive to expand reporting requirements to EACMS was met
without expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that use the existing EACMS NERC Glossary
definition. Do you agree with the addition of EACMS to the applicable systems column in the tables in CIP-008-6? If not, please provide
comments and an alternate approach to addressing the directive, if possible.

3. Do you agree with reporting timeframes included Requirement R4? If you disagree please explain and provide alternative language and
rationale for how it meets the directives in FERC Order No. 848.

4. The SDT created Attachment 1 to be used for consistent reporting and intentionally aligned the content with FERC Order No. 848
paragraphs 69 and 73. Do you agree with the content and use of Attachment 1?

5. Do you agree with the required methods of notification proposed by the SDT in Requirement R4, Part 4.2? If no, please explain and provide
comments.

6. Although not balloted, do you agree with the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for Requirement R4? If no, please explain
and provide comments.

7. Do you agree with the 12-month Implementation Plan? If you think an alternate, shorter, or longer implementation time period is needed,
please propose an alternate implementation plan and time period, and provide a detailed explanation of actions planned to meet the
implementation deadline.

8. The SDT proposes that the modifications in CIP-008-6 provide entities with flexibility to meet the reliability objectives in a cost effective
manner. Do you agree? If you do not agree, or if you agree but have suggestions for improvement to enable more cost effective approaches,
please provide your recommendation and, if appropriate, technical or procedural justification.

9. Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.

Organization
Name

Name

BC Hydro and Adrian
Power
Andreoiu
Authority

Brandon
McCormick

Segment(s)

1

Brandon
McCormick

Luminant
Brenda
Mining
Hampton
Company LLC

Region

WECC

FRCC

7

Group Name

BC Hydro

FMPA

Luminant

Group Member
Name

Group
Member
Organization

Group
Member
Segment(s)

Group Member
Region

Hootan Jarollahi

BC Hydro and 3
Power
Authority

WECC

Helen Hamilton
Harding

BC Hydro and 5
Power
Authority

WECC

Tim Beyrle

City of New
4
Smyrna Beach
Utilities
Commission

FRCC

Jim Howard

Lakeland
Electric

5

FRCC

Javier Cisneros

Fort Pierce
Utilities
Authority

3

FRCC

Randy Hahn

Ocala Utility
Services

3

FRCC

Don Cuevas

Beaches
Energy
Services

1

FRCC

Jeffrey Partington Keys Energy
Services

4

FRCC

Tom Reedy

Florida
Municipal
Power Pool

6

FRCC

Steven Lancaster

Beaches
Energy
Services

3

FRCC

Chris Adkins

City of
Leesburg

3

FRCC

Ginny Beigel

City of Vero
Beach

3

FRCC

Brenda Hampton

Luminant Luminant
Energy

6

Texas RE

Stewart Rake

Luminant
7
Mining
Company LLC

Texas RE

Alshare Hughes

Luminant Luminant

Texas RE

5

Generation
Company LLC
Tennessee
Valley
Authority

Exelon

Santee
Cooper

Duke Energy

MRO

Brian Millard

Chris Scanlon

Chris Wagner

Colby Bellville

Dana Klem

1,3,5,6

SERC

1

Exelon
Utilities

1

1,3,5,6

1,2,3,4,5,6

Tennessee
Valley
Authority

Santee
Cooper

FRCC,RF,SERC Duke Energy

MRO

MRO NSRF

Kurtz, Bryan G.

Tennessee
Valley
Authority

1

SERC

Grant, Ian S.

Tennessee
Valley
Authority

3

SERC

Thomas, M. Lee

Tennessee
Valley
Authority

5

SERC

Parsons, Marjorie Tennessee
S.
Valley
Authority

6

SERC

Chris Scanlon

BGE, ComEd, 1
PECO TO's

RF

John Bee

BGE, ComEd, 3
PECO LSE's

RF

Rene' Free

Santee
Cooper

1,3,5,6

SERC

Rodger Blakely

Santee
Cooper

1,3,5,6

SERC

Bob Rhett

Santee
Cooper

1,3,5,6

SERC

Doug Hils

Duke Energy

1

RF

Lee Schuster

Duke Energy

3

FRCC

Dale Goodwine

Duke Energy

5

SERC

Greg Cecil

Duke Energy

6

RF

3,4,5,6

MRO

Joseph DePoorter Madison Gas
& Electric
Larry Heckert

Alliant Energy 4

MRO

Amy Casucelli

Xcel Energy

1,3,5,6

MRO

Michael Brytowski Great River
Energy

1,3,5,6

MRO

Jodi Jensen

Western Area 1,6
Power
Administration

MRO

Kayleigh
Wilkerson

Lincoln
Electric
System

1,3,5,6

MRO

Mahmood Safi

Omaha Public 1,3,5,6
Power District

MRO

PPL Devin Shines
Louisville Gas
and Electric
Co.

Seattle City
Light

Ginette
Lacasse

1,3,5,6

1,3,4,5

RF,SERC

WECC

PPL NERC
Registered
Affiliates

Seattle City
Light Ballot
Body

Brad Parret

Minnesota
Powert

1,5

MRO

Terry Harbour

MidAmerican
Energy
Company

1,3

MRO

Tom Breene

Wisconsin
3,5,6
Public Service
Corporation

MRO

Jeremy Voll

Basin Electric 1
Power
Cooperative

MRO

Kevin Lyons

Central Iowa
Power
Cooperative

1

MRO

Mike Morrow

Midcontinent
ISO

2

MRO

Brenda Truhe

PPL Electric
Utilities
Corporation

1

RF

Charles Freibert

PPL 3
Louisville Gas
and Electric
Co.

SERC

JULIE
HOSTRANDER

PPL 5
Louisville Gas
and Electric
Co.

SERC

Linn Oelker

PPL 6
Louisville Gas
and Electric
Co.

SERC

Pawel Krupa

Seattle City
Light

1

WECC

Hao Li

Seattle City
Light

4

WECC

Bud (Charles)
Freeman

Seattle City
Light

6

WECC

Mike Haynes

Seattle City
Light

5

WECC

Michael Watkins

Seattle City
Light

1,4

WECC

Faz Kasraie

Seattle City
Light

5

WECC

John Clark

Seattle City
Light

6

WECC

Tuan Tran

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Corporation

Southwest
Power Pool,
Inc. (RTO)

Manitoba
Hydro

Southern
Company Southern
Company
Services, Inc.

Julie Severino

Kimberly Van
Brimer

Mike Smith

1

2

FirstEnergy

MRO

1

Pamela Hunter 1,3,5,6

3

WECC

Laurrie Hammack Seattle City
Light

3

WECC

Aubrey Short

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Corporation

4

RF

Aaron
Ghodooshim

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Corporation

3

RF

Robert Loy

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Solutions

5

RF

Ann Ivanc

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Solutions

6

RF

Southwest
Power Pool
(RTO)

2

MRO

Louis Guidry

Cleco

1,3,5,6

SERC

Yuguang Xiao

Manitoba
Hydro

5

MRO

Karim Abdel-Hadi Manitoba
Hydro

3

MRO

Blair Mukanik

Manitoba
Hydro

6

MRO

Mike Smith

Manitoba
Hydro

1

MRO

Katherine Prewitt

Southern
Company
Services, Inc.

1

SERC

Joel Dembowski

Southern
Company Alabama
Power
Company

3

SERC

William D. Shultz

Southern
Company
Generation

5

SERC

Jennifer G. Sykes Southern
Company
Generation
and Energy
Marketing

6

SERC

SPP CIP-008 Matt Harward

Manitoba
Hydro

SERC

Seattle City
Light

Southern
Company

Dominion Dominion
Resources,
Inc.

PSEG

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

Sean Bodkin

Sean Cavote

Todd Bennett

6

1,3,5,6

1,3,5,6

Dominion

FRCC,NPCC,RF PSEG REs

AECI

Connie Lowe

Dominion Dominion
Resources,
Inc.

3

NA - Not
Applicable

Lou Oberski

Dominion Dominion
Resources,
Inc.

5

NA - Not
Applicable

Larry Nash

Dominion 1
Dominion
Virginia Power

NA - Not
Applicable

Tim Kucey

PSEG - PSEG 5
Fossil LLC

NPCC

Karla Barton

PSEG - PSEG 6
Energy
Resources
and Trade
LLC

RF

Jeffrey Mueller

PSEG - Public 3
Service
Electric and
Gas Co.

RF

Joseph Smith

PSEG - Public 1
Service
Electric and
Gas Co.

RF

Michael Bax

Central
1
Electric Power
Cooperative
(Missouri)

SERC

Adam Weber

Central
3
Electric Power
Cooperative
(Missouri)

SERC

Stephen Pogue

M and A
3
Electric Power
Cooperative

SERC

William Price

M and A
1
Electric Power
Cooperative

SERC

Jeff Neas

Sho-Me
3
Power Electric
Cooperative

SERC

Peter Dawson

Sho-Me
1
Power Electric
Cooperative

SERC

Mark Ramsey

N.W. Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.

1

NPCC

John Stickley

NW Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.

3

SERC

Ted Hilmes

KAMO Electric 3
Cooperative

SERC

Walter Kenyon

KAMO Electric 1
Cooperative

SERC

Kevin White

Northeast
1
Missouri
Electric Power
Cooperative

SERC

Skyler Wiegmann Northeast
3
Missouri
Electric Power
Cooperative

SERC

Ryan Ziegler

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

1

SERC

Brian Ackermann

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

6

SERC

Brad Haralson

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

5

SERC

1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) created a new definition and modified existing definitions to address the directive in FERC Order No.
848 paragraph 31 regarding “attempts to compromise” without expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP
standards that use existing Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) definitions. Do you agree with the
proposed modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident, and the proposed new definition
of, Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident? If not, please provide comments and alternate language, if possible.
Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Does not limit what must be reported, but Entity will need to devote significant resources, which takes away time from addressing cyber attacks
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
PPL NERC Registered Affiliates generally agree with the changes. However, neither the modified term “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” nor the new
term “Attempted Cyber Security Incident” appears to include compromise or disruptions of a Cyber Asset supporting a PACS. Specifically, EACMS and
ESP are mentioned, but a PSP is not.
This omission of Cyber Assets supporting a PACS, if purposeful, seems inconsistent with other NERC guidance. We would suggest either providing
clear rationale for this omission or correcting the language for consistency if it was not left out on purpose.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name

Revisions to Defined Terms.docx

Comment

AZPS recommends that the proposed definitions be reviewed to ensure there is not redundancy of terms within other defined terms as such redundancy
can result in unintended consequences. For example, the term Cyber Security Incident references attempts to compromise. Thus, the incorporation of
the same or similar verbiage into the newly proposed term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is not necessary. Accordingly, APS proposes
the revisions to the defined terms Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident shown in the attached.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
American Transmission Company LLC (ATC) supports the proposed new and modified definitions; however, believes there may be opportunity for
further improvement. ATC offers the following perspective and rationale and requests the SDT consider this as an alternative approach:
The existence of the Physical Security Perimeters (PSPs) within the Cyber Security Incident definition causes confusion within the Requirements. To
gain ultimate clarity, ATC requests the SDT remove PSP from the Cyber Security Incident definition and consider the creation of a second new
definition to assure Registered Entity’s Cyber Security Incident Planning and Response Programs continue to take into account a Cyber Security breach
that may occur through physical means. ATC offers the proposed draft definition language as originally directed by FERC in Order 706 paragraph 656:
Potential Cyber Security Incident (new definition):
A malicious physical act or suspicious physical event that:
•

Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the Physical Security Perimeter or;

•

Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.

Cyber Security Incident (adjustments to proposed modified definition):
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

Has been determined to be a Potential Cyber Security Incident

•

Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the Electronic Security Perimeter or Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System for High
or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or;

•

Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.

ATC asserts this approach:
1. May help simplify and clarify the scope of the Definitions, Requirement language, and Attachment 1,

2. Remove the ambiguity that a physical act/event alone constitutes a cyber act/event; thereby removing the opportunity for interpretative debate
of what could be ‘perceived’ or ‘implied’ as reportable under CIP-008. This helps clarify that physical acts/events involving a PSP are to be
treated as cyber ‘potentialities’.
3. Draws a clearer tie between CIP-006 and CIP-008 while adding clarity to the relationship between physical acts/events that may manifest into
cyber acts/events,
4. Retains the obligation for Registered Entities to investigate physical acts/events as potential attack vectors for Cyber Security Incidents that,
once determined, must trigger Cyber Security Incident Response,
5. Achieves the current and historical FERC directives, and
6. Does not change the intention nor results of Cyber Security Incident planning and response.
Next, to complete this concept, the Requirement language could be modified as follows:
A. Add ‘BES” in front of “Cyber Security Incident Response plan(s)” in CIP-008-6 Requirement R1 to draw a clear tie to CIP-006-6 Requirement R1
Parts 1.5, 1.7, and 1.10 without having to open CIP-006 for modifications. Proposal:
R1. Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more BES Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable
requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long
Term Planning].
B. Add the explicit obligation to investigate Potential Cyber Security Incidents to Requirement R1 Part 1.1. Proposal:
One or more processes to:
1. Investigate Potential Cyber Security Incidents, and
2. Identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
C. Remove the confusing PSP exclusion from Requirement R4 Part 4.1. Proposal:
Initial notifications and updates for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and/or Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents shall include the
following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
D. Simplify CIP-008-6 Attachment 2, by removing the ‘Note’ about PSP(s) from Section: Incident Type, Field Name: Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident.

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Under # 3 in the proposed modification of terms, The term Electronic Access control of monitoring should read Electronic Access control or
monitoring systems. We think the definition to be overly broad, determining what is an “attempt” or “suspicious” is not defined entities will not apply
the definition consistently. The SDT should consider including PACS. Should not include physical security perimeter because it is inconsistent with the
definition to only include cyber incidents.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Propose adding ‘as determined by the entity’ to the definition.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

WECC voted yes to approve the revisions to CIP-008 but is providing comments for consideration that WECC believes would improve the Standard.
The “Cyber Security Incident” Definition needs to be revised to, "[…] (3) Electronic Access Control OR Monitoring System for High or Medium Impact
BES Cyber Systems, […]" rather than "Control OF Monitoring."
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NRG requests that NERC consider providing additional clarity in definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident to further specify "attempt" meaning in
the "Reportable Attempted" term (for example, intentional attempt) within the glossary of terms (NERC) or within the technical guidance of the draft
standard changes relating to CIP-008-6.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The proposed revised definitions of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security incident appear to expand on the
definition of EACMS. The both include the following language: “Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.” Texas RE
recommends that it would be cleaner to include these functions in the definition of EACMS.

In the proposed definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, the phrase “attempt to compromise or disrupt” is very broad. Texas RE
recommends describing in detail what this means.

Texas RE is concerned the proposed language may allow for entities not reporting threats to Physical Security Perimeters (PSP). First, the proposed
definition of Cyber Security Incident includes the PSP. The proposed definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident does not include
PSP. Additionally, Part 4.1 includes the language, “Except for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security
Perimeter”. A compromised Physical Security Perimeter could be just as damaging as a compromised Electronic Security Perimeter. Texas RE
recommends the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Part 4.1 apply to PSPs as well.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant

Answer
Document Name
Comment
Luminant does not agree with the proposed definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. As currently written there are no boundaries on
what constitutes an “attempt” which will lead to different interpretations and therefore inconsistent enforcement. For example, would malware present on
a Transient Cyber Asset that is detected during a scan of that asset be considered an attempt to compromise or disrupt reliability tasks, an ESP or
EACMS? At its very core, all malware is an attempt to compromise something, but the majority of malware is not at all targeted toward disrupting power
operations. Another example is extensive scanning to identify weaknesses and gather any available information. While this is often the first step of an
actual attack, it is also often not targeted or performed by inexperienced actors. While such activities should be noted and investigated, in and of
themselves they are generally not treated as actual or attempted cyber security incidents.
Luminant recommends the SDT clarify the intent of this reporting. If the focus is to establish a more extensive baseline understanding of the nature of
cyber security threats and vulnerabilities encountered within the industry than perhaps we can create a treatment similar to aggregate self-logging for
“minimum risk” events that require periodic reporting. The examples above would be included in such reporting. This approach could reduce the debate
over what constitutes an “attempt” and an entity can be considered in compliance as long as the event is reported. Much like aggregate self-logging, if
the ERO disagrees that an activity is “minimum risk,” they can address that individually and disseminate lessons learned to evolve the definition. In this
approach, an event that has clear indicators of intent to disrupt reliability tasks, ESPs, PSPs, EACMS or BCS would not be eligible for aggregate
reporting and would instead follow a more rigorous approach.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jack Cashin - American Public Power Association - 4
Answer
Document Name
Comment
APPA appreciates the drafting team working to address FERC’s directives while preserving the integrity CIP-003’s scope and CIP standards that use
the NERC Glossary definitions. However, public power does not agree with the proposed definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
and offers an alternative below.
APPA’s concern with the proposed definition is due to the use of, “one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” The use of the term Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident and that proposed definition, introduce ambiguity to determining attacker intent, making it difficult to determine if an
attacker intended to compromise or disrupt one or more reliability tasks.
For example, in the event of a ransomware attack affecting an EMS workstation – it would be difficult to distinguish if this was an attempt to compromise
or disrupt a reliability task, or if the attacker was interested in financial gain? The following definition attempts to eliminate this type of concern:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
• the operation of a BES Cyber System; or
• Electronic Security Perimeter; or
• Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the

following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.
Additionally, the phrase “attempt to compromise or disrupt” introduces ambiguity in itself, unless defined to include all access attempts. What constitutes
an attempt to compromise or disrupt? Would a port scan be an attempt to compromise or disrupt? Would 5 failed login attempts within a specified
timeframe reach that threshold?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
ERCOT has joined the comments of the ISO/RTO Council and offers these supplemental comments.
Regarding the “Cyber Security Incident” definition, “High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems” is not necessary in the definition. EACMSs are already
limited to High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems. Also, the applicability is addressed in the Applicable Systems column of the table with each
requirement.
Regarding the definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident,” the details of the EACMS functions are not necessary; including the list of functions
may have the unintended consequence of excluding things that should be included.
Regarding the definition of “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident,” ERCOT questions the need for this definition. The reporting timelines can
be addressed with the requirement parts for compromise vs. attempt to compromise.
Regarding the concept of “attempt”generally, ERCOT requests more specificity and clarification on the types and thresholds of attempts that are
expected to be reported. As FERC Order 848 recognized, specificity in the reporting threshold is needed “to ensure that [the reporting obligation] would
provide meaningful data without overburdening entities.” FERC Order 848 at ¶ 52 (quoting NERC comments). Lack of specificity will result in differing

interpretations of “attempt” across the industry. A conservative reading of this term could yield substantial over-reporting of activities that do not bear
any indication of malicious intent or harm. This could lead to over-reporting of incidents to E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, thereby reducing visibility of reports
of legitimate incidents. Other entities may interpret the term in such a way that leads to information regarding important events not being reported. To
avoid these results, ERCOT strongly encourages the SDT to identify specific reporting thresholds such as those proposed by the ISO/RTO Council.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The phrase “attempts to compromise” is overly broad. The intent of the scope of this clause should to be more clearly defined as the undefined term
could be interpreted in many different ways . Additionally, while we agree with the five criteria proposed, additional criteria for the reporting of an
attempted compromise should also be included to address the bounds of attempts.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

How do we measure an attemps to compromise?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Definitions should not include EACMs. Every packet denied by a firewall would generate a potential Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident,
making this requirement onerous for the entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laura Nelson - IDACORP - Idaho Power Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The definition of “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” is still unclear. What does it mean to attempt? What includes an attempt?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident and Cyber Security Incident have defined inconsistencies such as one references BES operation and the
other for Reliability tasks. Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident uses "attempt" in the definition and never defines what is an "attempt".
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is defined using the proposed modified term Cyber Security Event. This
redundancy suggests that, instead of creating a new term, the definition of Cyber Security Incident should be expanded to include the desired elements
of the proposed new term.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is defined using the proposed modified term Cyber Security Event. This
redundancy suggests that, instead of creating a new term, the definition of Cyber Security Incident should be expanded to include the desired elements
of the proposed new term.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tyson Archie - Platte River Power Authority - 5
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
Platte River is okay with the draft requirement language as proposed in CIP-008-6.
Platte River is recommending a modification be made to the proposed new term: Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.
The proposed term assumes the Responsible Entity can determine the intent of the individual whose activity was identified. Since, by definition, the
attempt was unsuccessful, the Registered Entity cannot know what the individual was trying to accomplish. The method to implement the definition, as
proposed, is not clear. Platte River is recommending the following modifications be made to the definition:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to circumvent:
·

Electronic Security Perimeter; or

·
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and
logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting
Platte River believes this definition better captures the intent of the changes in CIP-008-6. Registered Entity staff are better able to determine if the
individual was attempting to circumvent their security controls without having to determine the individual’s intent.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is defined using the proposed modified term Cyber Security Event. This
redundancy suggests that, instead of creating a new term, the definition of Cyber Securtiy Incident shoudl be expanded to include the desired elements
of the proposed new term.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed definition of “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” does not provide enough specificity to make a determination as to whether
an incident was attempted. Lack of clarity in this definition would make the difference between TVA reporting: 1) only those incidents that had a high
potential of success but were not successful; and 2) any and all efforts to gain intelligence about NERC CIP scoped systems. The subsequent reporting
of the latter could be overwhelming to TVA, E-ISAC, and ICS-CERT.
In addition, lack of specificity in the definition of the word “disrupt” could have a similar effect. This term should be limited to disruptions from cyber
events to avoid reporting of purposeful disruptions (e.g., asset reboots for maintenance purposes). Without this, all maintenance disruptions could be
reportable.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The Cyber Security Incident definition is rooted in the law (Section 215) definition: “The term ‘cybersecurity incident’ means a malicious act or
suspicious event that disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of those programmable electronic devices and communication networks
including hardware, software and data that are essential to the reliable operation of the bulk power system.” This definition clearly identifies the target of
the event to be “programmable electronic devices and communication networks.” The current NERC glossary term includes PSPs as a target. PSPs
are not “programmable electronic devices and communication networks.” The definition would be better aligned with the law by deleting “Physical
Security Perimeter’ from the Cyber Security Incident definition. “Programmable electronic devices and communication networks” create the concept of
ESPs or are EACMS. So references in the definition to ESPs and EACMS don’t contradict the law (Section 215).
With the addition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, the existing term Reportable Cyber Security Incident should be revised to more
clearly delineate the difference between the two terms. For example: Reportable Successful Cyber Security Incident or Reportable Actual Cyber
Security Incident. We recognize this would require minor changes in CIP-003. In the webinar, there was also mention of tracking historical metrics with
future metrics. It shouldn’t be difficult to add historical metrics to the future metrics especially given there were so few historical metrics. These two items
are worth it to minimize confusion.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The definition of a Cyber Security Incident includes compromise or attempted compromise of a Physical Security Perimeter (PSP), but in Part 4.1 the
report for PSP’s are excluded. If the intent is to only report on incidents that actually compromise cyber equipment then the standard would be clearer if
the PSP was removed from the Cyber Security Incident definition as shown below.
Change Cyber Security Incident definition to read: A malicious act or suspicious event that:
{C}·
Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter or (2) Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System
for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or;
{C}·

Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.

Change Part 4.1 to read: Reportable Cyber Security Incident initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted
For example, if a PSP was breached and no BES Cyber Systems were compromised then there was not actually a Cyber Security Incident. The breach
may have been due to theft or vandalism not involving BES Cyber Systems.

Additionally, the attempt to compromise definition needs to be consistent with the current version of the standard, CIP-008-5 R1.1, which requires
each entity to have a process to identify if a malicious act or suspicious event was an attempt to compromise the Electronic Security Perimeter.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
BPA appreciates the challenge facing the SDT in addressing the directive regarding “attempts to compromise” as required by FERC Order No.
848. BPA recommends the SDT revise CIP-008-6 to include clear language allowing the entity to define “an attempt.” This will take into consideration
entities of varying size facing differing threat vectors.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident definition as written and interpreted by the SDT is intended to provide entities flexibility to define
“attempt” and a process around reporting. This may result in a very low threshold that is defined by entities and result in underreporting with no added
value. On the flip side, this can also result in unnecessary overload if reporting criteria is set too high. Another concern is that this flexibility also allows
for an auditor’s own interpretation of “attempt”.
BC Hydro does not see any value-add in making reportable attempts a mandatory requirement as opposed to having this be a voluntary process.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Physical Security Perimeter (PSP) should be removed from the Cyber Security Incident definition. It is not consistent with the proposed revised
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and the proposed new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. If the intent is to keep PSP then this
should be represented in a new PSP specific definition.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

The definition of a Cyber Security Incident includes compromise or attempted compromise of a Physical Security Perimeter (PSP), but in Part 4.1 the
report for PSP’s are excluded. If the intent is to only report on incidents that actually compromise cyber equipment then the standard would be clearer if
the PSP was removed from the Cyber Security Incident definition as shown below.
Change Cyber Security Incident definition to read: A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter or (2) Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System for
High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or;

•

Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.

Change Part 4.1 to read: Reportable Cyber Security Incident initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted
For example, if a PSP was breached and no BES Cyber Systems were compromised then there was not actually a Cyber Security Incident. The breach
may have been due to theft or vandalism not involving BES Cyber Systems.
Additionally, the attempt to compromise definition needs to be consistent with the current version of the standard, CIP-008-5 R1.1, which requires
each entity to have a process to identify if a malicious act or suspicious event was an attempt to compromise the Electronic Security Perimeter.
Likes

1

Dislikes

Central Hudson Gas &amp; Electric Corp., 1, Pace Frank
0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
WEC Energy Group agrees that the new and modified definitions meet FERC’s directive in Oder No. 848 and we generally support these
definitions except for one term. WEC Energy Group is concerned that the term “attempt to compromise” is ambiguous and insufficiently
understood.
The Commission used the term “attempt to compromise” in Order 848 but also stated that the directive was “to augment the reporting of
Cyber Security Incidents, including incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm reliable operation of the BES.” (see P2) We
believe this was meant to focus the reporting on incidents that represent a clear threat to the BES.
We believe the SDT should consider either defining the term or developing boundaries that can be consistently applied by the industry to
provide clearer focus on incidents that have been identified as genuine threats to protected BES Cyber Systems. This would better ensure
the term is understood broadly by industry allowing entities to develop measured and consistent processes that ensure new requirements
do not interfere or otherwise complicate industry efforts to identify issues that represent serious risks to BES Reliability.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Given that the definition of Cyber Security Incident includes “compromise or was an attempt to compromise”, the definitions of the modified Reportable
Cyber Security Incident and the new Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident are broad enough to bring almost each Cyber Security Incident to
become a reportable one. We disagree that each compromise or was an attempt to compromise of ESP or EACMS needs to be reported unless it
affects reliability, in that it may result in millions of reports per year. If it is intended to include attempts of compromise affecting reliability to be
reportable, we suggest only to revise the existing Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition rather than creating additional reportable one:
“Reportable Cyber Security Incident: A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted or was an attempt to compromise or disrupt one or
more reliability tasks of a functional entity.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
As drafted, it is difficult to discern a difference between the definitions for Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident. Additionally, we do not think it is reasonable or necessary to report all "knocks on the door" to our ESPs or EACMS. We propose the following
modifications (or something similar) to both defitions so that there is a more clear distinction between the two and clear reporting expectations.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has disrupted
•
•
•

One or more reliability task of a functional entity; or
BES Cyber System; or
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and
logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.

Reportable Attempted Cyber Secuirty Incident:

A Cyber Security Incident where there was access into an ESP, or an EACMS, but there was no resulting disruption to the EACMS, BES Cyber System,
or a reliability task.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
SCL believes that by modifying the definition of Cyber Security Incident, the intent of the FERC order can be met. The definition of Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident is not necessary if these changes are made.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is circular with Cyber Security Incident. The term Cyber Security Incident already
included the term “attempt” in a different meaning.
Suggested updated definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious or suspicious event related to:
•

an Electronic Security Perimeter or

•

a Physical Security Perimeter or

•

Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System for High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that successfully compromised or disrupted:

•

one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity or

•

an Electronic Security Perimeter or

•

an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and
logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise or disrupt:
•

one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity or

•

an Electronic Security Perimeter or

•

an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and
logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.

Attempted should also be defined to provide the appropriate guidance as to what constitutes a Reportable Attemped Cyber Security Incident. Some
possible items to include as an attempt are:
•

was directed specifically at or appeared to be specifically directed at an ESP, ECASM or BCA

•

was not incidental to other network activity, including bulk, non-specific undesired network activity

could have feasibly compromised an ESP, EACMS or BCA by its very nature
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The definition of a Cyber Security Incident includes compromise or attempted compromise of a Physical Security Perimeter (PSP), but in Part 4.1 the
report for PSP’s are excluded. If the intent is to only report on incidents that actually compromise cyber equipment then the standard would be clearer if
the PSP was removed from the Cyber Security Incident definition as shown below.
Change Cyber Security Incident definition to read: A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•
Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter or (2) Electronic Access Control of Monitoring
System for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or;
•

Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.

Change Part 4.1 to read: Reportable Cyber Security Incident initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted
For example, if a PSP was breached and no BES Cyber Systems were compromised then there was not actually a Cyber Security Incident. The breach
may have been due to theft or vandalism not involving BES Cyber Systems.
Additionally, the attempt to compromise definition needs to be consistent with the current version of the standard, CIP-008-5 R1.1, which requires
each entity to have a process to identify if a malicious act or suspicious event was an attempt to compromise the Electronic Security Perimeter.
ALSO:
Reclamation recommends the definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident be expanded to include disruption or attempted compromise
of Physical Security Perimeters and Physical Access Control Systems. This would allow identifying a Facility as a potential target without its reliability or
operations being affected.
Reclamation also recommends removing the following language from the bullet point for EACMS because it is redundant of the EACMS definition: “that
provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.”
Therefore, Reclamation recommends the proposed new term be changed
from:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
Electronic Security Perimeter; or
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging;
(3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting
to:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP); or
Physical Security Perimeter, including locally-mounted hardware or devices; or
Physical Access Control Systems (PACS); or
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS).

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
"attempted" is to broad of a term. Our SMEs have concerns that the term could be viewed to broadly which could then in turn result in altert fatique and
credible indicents could then be missed.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The phrase “. . . an attempt to . . .” in the proposed modification of the term Cyber Security Incident and in the proposed new term Reportable Cyber
Security Incident is too vague. Modification of the phrase “. . . an attempt to . . .” to “. . . an attempt, which, if successful, would have resulted in the
compromise or disruption . . .” or something similar seems to be closer to the intent of the proposed changes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Due to a lack of published draft Implementation Guidance, it is challenging to fully assess the impacts of the new “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident” definition and the addition of EACMS in terms of how much additional investigation and reporting volume will fall on the Responsible Entity.
Providing specific guidance with examples of what would and would not be a “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” may alleviate these
concerns.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Agree with the language of the definition, but believe that the addition of a new definition so closely related and worded to two existing definitions could
cause confusion among industry. Would suggest revisiting the topic as a SDT.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NRECA is concerned with the broad expansion of the two draft modified definitions and the same with the draft new definition. In these draft definitions
and many other places in CIP-008-6 the inclusion of EACMSs is directed by FERC in Order No. 848; however, NRECA believes that FERC provided
NERC and the drafting team the opportunity to further analyze the five functions FERC identified to determine and provide support for inclusion of an
appropriate subset of EACMSs to be applicable to the modified and new requirements. In this first draft of the definitions and other modified and new
requirements, the drafting team’s approach is to include essentially all EACMSs without providing criteria for determining the appropriate applicable
subset of EACMSs addressed in the modified and new requirements. NRECA urges the drafting team to undertake analysis to determine what
EACMSs should be applicable in order to protect the reliability of the BES. This is especially important for the Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident definition and related reporting requirements as it will require a report for every packet denied by a firewall, making this requirement overly
burdensome for entities without a commensurate benefit to the reliability of the BES and BES Cyber Systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Utility Services agrees with APPA's comments. Additionally, we note that the definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident (as well as that
of Reportable Cyber Security Incident) not including a Cyber Security Incident to a Physical Security Perimeter that does not compromise or disrupt one
of the three bulleted items, and wonder if that was an intentional decision.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We are concerned with the broad expansion of the two draft modified definitions and the same with the draft new definition. In these draft definitions
and many other places in CIP-008-6 the inclusion of EACMSs is directed by FERC in Order No. 848; however, we believe that FERC provided NERC
and the drafting team the opportunity to further analyze the five functions FERC identified to determine and provide support for inclusion of an
appropriate subset of EACMSs to be applicable to the modified and new requirements. In this first draft of the definitions and other modified and new
requirements, the drafting team’s approach is to include essentially all EACMSs without providing criteria for determining the appropriate applicable
subset of EACMSs addressed in the modified and new requirements. We urge the drafting team to undertake analysis to determine what EACMSs
should be applicable in order to protect the reliability of the BES. This is especially important for the Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
definition and related reporting requirements as it will require a report for every packet denied by a firewall, making this requirement overly burdensome
for entities without a commensurate benefit to the reliability of the BES and BES Cyber Systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

•

Overall our SMEs believe this standard should focus more on the risk and benefits of monitoring events within the power grid versus work, effort
and expense of collecting data on potential cyber intrusions.Second bullet fails to capture the “… for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems…”Proposed Modified Term, “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” - None of the listed bullets currently capture Physical attacks or
compromises of the physical perimeter.Recommend deleting the term “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” and modifying the
definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident to include the following: A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised, disrupted or was an
attempt to compromise or disrupt

•

Also agree with NPCC submitted comments

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
I support all comments submitted by Terry Harbour, Berkshire Hathaway Energy-MidAmerican Energy Company.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Definitions do not limit what must be reported. Entity will need to devote significant resources to reporting – which takes away resources from
addressing cyber attacks
Some concern with “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” for field locations (substations & generators) since these locations have fewer defense layers.
Concerns that the “Cyber Security Incident” puts the burden of determining intent – is the intent to “compromise” or “disrupt.” Expect this lack of clarity to
result in in over-reporting which makes finding the real incident akin to a needle in the haystack.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
GSOC is concerned with the broad expansion of the two draft modified definitions and the same with the draft new definition. In these draft definitions
and many other places in CIP-008-6 the inclusion of EACMSs is directed by FERC in Order No. 848; however, GSOC believes that FERC provided
NERC and the drafting team the opportunity to further analyze the five functions FERC identified to determine and provide support for inclusion of an
appropriate subset of EACMSs to be applicable to the modified and new requirements. In this first draft of the definitions and other modified and new
requirements, the drafting team’s approach is to include essentially all EACMSs without providing criteria for determining the appropriate applicable
subset of EACMSs addressed in the modified and new requirements. GSOC urges the drafting team to undertake analysis to determine what EACMSs
should be applicable in order to protect the reliability of the BES. This is especially important for the Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
definition and related reporting requirements as it will require a report for every packet denied by a firewall, making this requirement overly burdensome
for entities without a commensurate benefit to the reliability of the BES and BES Cyber Systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Proposed modified terms and Proposed new term include a separate definition for EACMS when compared to the current EACMS definition in the
NERC Glossary. The proposed modifications and proposed new term should reference the existing definition of EACMS. There should be no
difference in identifying EACMS for incident reporting purposes vs systems already identified as EACMS.
Proposed modified terms and Proposed new term include the phrases “attempt to compromise” and “attempt to disrupt”. Further clarification is needed
for the meaning of these phrases to guide Responsible Entities on reporting requirements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Vectren agrees with the modified definitions of Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident. However, the new definition
of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is very broad which leaves it open to interpretation. This definition as written will cause an
unreasonable administrative burden on the entity, requiring us to dedicate significant time and resources to track and investigate potential
attempts.
By investigating blocked attempts, the focus is shifted away from higher risks. The resources of E-ISAC and ICS-CERT will also be impacted
by a larger volume of reports regarding lower risk threats including the potential attempts to compromise. Ultimately, this shift in focus could
lead to a compromise of safety and reliability of the BES.
Recognizing the task of the SDT to draft a reasonable definition, the definition in its present form will not serve the intent of the FERC Order
No. 848 directive. We would suggest the SDT narrow the scope of “attempts to compromise” within the definition to alleviate the potential
burden to the entity, E-ISAC and ICS-CERT.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed modification to the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident indirectly alters and expands the current definition of Electronic
Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS), potentially bringing into scope Cyber Assets for CIP-008 reporting that Responsible Entities had not
previously determined in scope for CIP overall. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Energy) proposes that the language following

the listing of EACMS in the Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident definitions, “that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting” be removed.
For the proposed new term of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, the determination of intent in the phrase “attempt to compromise or
disrupt” is subjective and therefore difficult to apply as a standard. Any packet or connection rejected by a firewall, access control list, or logged access
attempt could be interpreted as existing security controls working as designed or as an attempted compromise to possibly report. This could be millions
of attempts, per day, per EACMS under normal operations. No Technical Rationale or Implementation Guidance is offered to assist with
characterization of an attempt to compromise or compromise of an EACMS. CenterPoint Energy acknowledges the Technical Rationale and
Justification provided by the SDT and the ongoing efforts to update the Guidelines and Technical Basis of the CIP Standards. For the benefit of these
modifications, successful ballot, and implementation, CenterPoint Energy suggests that the SDT coordinate with the CIP Guidelines and Technical
Basis Review team to provide the revised guidance with this project’s materials or adjust the Implementation Plan to allow for the development of the
guidance well in advance of the effective date. Most notably, the guidance should assist with characterization of an attempt to compromise or
compromise of an EACMS.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Colby Bellville - Duke Energy - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,SERC,RF, Group Name Duke Energy
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Duke Energy recommends that further clarification be given on what constitutes an actual “attempt” when determining whether a Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incident has occurred. Perhaps this could be made clearer in an Implementation Guide with examples of what an “attempt” should be
considered as.
Likes

1

Dislikes

Long Island Power Authority, 1, Ganley Robert
0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
More guidance is needed regarding the definition of what constitutes an “attempt.”
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
FMPA agrees with the below comments from APPA:
: APPA appreciates the drafting team working to address FERC’s directives while preserving the integrity CIP-003’s scope and CIP standards that use
the NERC Glossary definitions. However, public power does not agree with the proposed definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
and offers an alternative below.
APPA’s concern with the proposed definition is due to the use of, “one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” The use of the term Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident and that proposed definition, introduce ambiguity to determining attacker intent, making it difficult to determine if an
attacker intended to compromise or disrupt one or more reliability tasks.
For example, in the event of a ransomware attack affecting an EMS workstation – it would be difficult to distinguish if this was an attempt to compromise
or disrupt a reliability task, or if the attacker was interested in financial gain? The following definition attempts to eliminate this type of concern:

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
· the operation of a BES Cyber System; or
· Electronic Security Perimeter; or
· Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.

Additionally, the phrase “attempt to compromise or disrupt” introduces ambiguity in itself, unless defined to include all access attempts. What constitutes
an attempt to compromise or disrupt? Would a port scan be an attempt to compromise or disrupt? Would 5 failed login attempts within a specified
timeframe reach that threshold?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Attempts to compromise are a constant in an interconnected world. Expanding the criteria of Reportable Incidents will be burdensome to entities and
NERC without considerable benefit. The CIP standards and the protections required within are what reduce cybersecurity risk and prevent attempts to
compromise. Any unsuccessful attempts are a sign the controls are working and are not incidents, they are cybersecurity events. Where controls fail or
are bypassed and or compromised ie an actual incident[1], should be the only Reportable Cybersecurity Incident.

{C}[1]
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed new term ““Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident”” is redundant. Already included within the definition of “Cyber Security
Incident” is the statement “or was an attempt to compromise”. Therefore the defined term of a “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” is inclusive of this
condition. A solution would be to indicate the nature of the reportable event as successful, or attempted.
In addition, ITC concurs with the follwing comments submitted by SPP:
"Grammatical Issues: The draft definition for Cyber Security Incident contains a typographical error that should be fixed prior to final ballot. The terms
should be “Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems.”
Additionally, the definitions of Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should reference EACMS
consistent with the general definition of Cyber Security Incident: “Electronic Access to Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) for High or Medium
Impact BES Cyber Systems that provide the following functions…”
Substantive Issues: The proposed definitions of “Cyber Security Incident” and “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” includes the language
“attempt to compromise or disrupt” as an element of the condition. The statement “attempt to compromise or disrupt” is unclear, ambiguous, and should
be further defined by criteria. The SSRG supports the following categories proposed by the SWG in its comments:
•

If discovered, persistent compromise and attempts to pivot to critical systems could be interpreted as facilitating effort to harm reliable
operation.

•

Insider incidents involving access to ESP’s.

•

Incidents involving ICS systems (such as ICCP network or server equipment).

•

Incidents involving Physical access that could involve BES Cyber Systems.

•

Events and incidents noted as involving ESP’s.

•

Incidents with progress along a kill chain to the Modify/Install step (reference: http://www.nerc.com/pa/CI/ESISAC/Documents/EISAC_SANS_Ukraine_DUC_18Mar2016.pdf). “

Does this need to address entity definition of attempt (confirmed attempt?). Does the exclusion of PSP attempts and disruption make sense as far as
reporting goes? PSP’s would seem to be as important as ESP’s in this regard.
With regard to the proposed definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident”: Should this simply be EACMS without restriction or one of other
descriptions of EACMS?
With regard to the proposed definition of “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident”: Is this definition needed given the prior definitions (note
“attempt” shows up in Cyber Security Incident already)?"
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - 1,3,5 - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
EEI agrees that the new and modified definitions meet FERC’s directive in Oder No. 848 and we generally support these definitions except for one term.
EEI is concerned that the term “attempt to compromise” is ambiguous and insufficiently understood.
The Commission used the term “attempt to compromise” in Order 848 but also stated that the directive was “to augment the reporting of Cyber Security
Incidents, including incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm reliable operation of the BES.” (see P2) We believe this was meant to focus
the reporting on incidents that represent a clear threat to the BES.
We believe the SDT should consider either defining the term or developing boundaries that can be consistently applied by the industry to provide clearer
focus on incidents that have been identified as genuine threats to protected BES Cyber Systems. This would better ensure the term is understood
broadly by industry allowing entities to develop measured and consistent processes that ensure new requirements do not interfere or otherwise
complicate industry efforts to identify issues that represent serious risks to BES Reliability.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
With the addition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, the existing term Reportable Cyber Security Incident should be revised to more
clearly delineate the difference between the two terms.
Actual and attempted compromise of assets including EACMS. The word “attempt’ can be defined differently than what the OE-417. An “attempt” could
be reportable if a declared incident could potentially affect our in-scope assets. Each entity has a threshold that depends on the resources and skills that
they have. EACMs have attempts every day. We could not find language defining an “attempt to compromise”.
The current NERC glossary term includes PSPs as a target. PSPs are not, “programmable electronic devices and communication networks.” The
definition would be better aligned with the law by deleting, “Physical Security Perimeter” from the Cyber Security Incident definition. “Programmable
electronic devices and communication networks” create the concept of ESPs or are EACMS. So references in the definition to ESPs and EACMS don’t
contradict the law (Section 215
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Proposed modified terms and Proposed new term include a separate definition for EACMS when compared to the current EACMS definition in the
NERC Glossary. The proposed modifications and proposed new term should reference the existing definition of EACMS. There should be no
difference in identifying EACMS for incident reporting purposes vs systems already identified as EACMS.

Proposed modified terms and Proposed new term include the phrases “attempt to compromise” and “attempt to disrupt”. Further clarification is needed
for the meaning of these phrases to guide Responsible Entities on reporting requirements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
What constitutes an attempt? Without a clearer definition, the concern is that we will be reporting attempts every day and having continuous follow-up
reporting for things that may not necessarily add any additional security. The Standard should provide criteria for attempts and/or make it clear within
the requirement that the Entity defines a process to make that determination. If not, it is left open for auditor interpretation and potential violations for not
reporting something they think should have been reported.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ozan Ferrin - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power agrees with APPA's comments:
"APPA appreciates the drafting team working to address FERC’s directives while preserving the integrity CIP-003’s scope and CIP standards that use
the NERC Glossary definitions. However, public power does not agree with the proposed definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
and offers an alternative below.
APPA’s concern with the proposed definition is due to the use of, “one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” The use of the term Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident and that proposed definition, introduce ambiguity to determining attacker intent, making it difficult to determine if an
attacker intended to compromise or disrupt one or more reliability tasks.
For example, in the event of a ransomware attack affecting an EMS workstation – it would be difficult to distinguish if this was an attempt to compromise
or disrupt a reliability task, or if the attacker was interested in financial gain? The following definition attempts to eliminate this type of concern:

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:

A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
· the operation of a BES Cyber System; or
· Electronic Security Perimeter; or
· Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.

Additionally, the phrase “attempt to compromise or disrupt” introduces ambiguity in itself, unless defined to include all access attempts. What constitutes
an attempt to compromise or disrupt? Would a port scan be an attempt to compromise or disrupt? Would 5 failed login attempts within a specified
timeframe reach that threshold?"
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Wagner - Santee Cooper - 1, Group Name Santee Cooper
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Santee Cooper believes that “Attempted” in Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident needs to be defined further. The SDT should
provide guidance on what needs to be reported as a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The phrase “for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems” should be removed from the definition for Cyber Security Incident. Applicability
information should be in the Standards and requirement language, not in definitions. Although Low Impact facilities are not required to define an ESP or
EACMS, entities that have defined these controls at Low Impact assets should report compromises or attempted compromises to the ESP or EACMS if
they detect them.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: APPA appreciates the drafting team working to address FERC’s directives while preserving the integrity CIP-003’s scope and CIP
standards that use the NERC Glossary definitions. However, public power does not agree with the proposed definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and offers an alternative below.
APPA’s concern with the proposed definition is due to the use of, “one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” The proposed definition of
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident and that term, introduce ambiguity in determining attacker intent, making it difficult to determine if an
attacker intended to compromise or disrupt one or more reliability tasks.
For example in the event of a ransomware attack that affected an EMS workstation – it would be difficult to distinguish if this was an attempt to
compromise or disrupt a reliability task, or was the attacker’s intent financial gain? The following definition attempts to eliminate this concern:

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
· the operation of a BES Cyber System; or
· Electronic Security Perimeter; or
· Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We agree with EEI's comments for this question.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
PSEG supports EEI's comments. The term “attempts to compromise” could be construed as vague because it does not clearly define what constitutes a
reportable attempt, which could create an undue reporting burden on entities without a commensurate reliability benefit. Many entities receive
thousands of attempts to comprise their networks daily, and most have nothing to do with the EMS system. The standard should make clear that
“attempts” of that kind should not be reportable.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

RoLynda Shumpert - SCANA - South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Currently, NERC does not define what an “Attempt” is. An “attempt” could vary from entity to entity depending on how an individual defines the
term. The language “attempt” could be comprised of anything; the wording of a “Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or “attempt” to compromise,
a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACM…”is vague and ambiguous. Not only does “attempt” needs to be defined so does “detected. If one
perceives there to be an “attempt” what are the measures/definition for “detecting” the “attempt.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ruida Shu - Northeast Power Coordinating Council - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - NPCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Definitions do not limit what must be reported. Entity will need to devote significant resources to reporting – which takes away resources from
addressing cyber attacks

Some concern with “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” for field locations (substations & generators) since these locations have fewer defense layers.
Concerns that the “Cyber Security Incident” puts the burden of determining intent – is the intent to “compromise” or “disrupt.” Expect this lack of clarity to
result in in over-reporting which makes finding the real incident akin to a needle in the haystack.
Likes

1

Dislikes

Hydro One Networks, Inc., 1, Farahbakhsh Payam
0

Response

David Maier - Intermountain REA - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The issue with this draft is the potential for application inconsistency based on what is assumed to be an “attempt”. Neither “Attempts to compromise”
nor “attempt” have been defined by the SDT.
1. attempt” should be properly defined by the SDT to remove ambiguity. In defining what constitutes an attempt, the SDT may require evidence of
intent and relate all actions and packets from a campaign as a single attempt report.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The concerns about expanding the scope of EACMS into CIP-003-6 (or -7) appear to be misplaced. The requirements that are applicable to EACMS are
clearly identified in the “Applicable Systems” column in each Requirement table. Even if Low Impact Cyber Assets should meet the definition of EACMS,
they would not be subject to those related requirements unless explicitly included in the corresponding “Applicable Systems” column. Mixing applicability
of EACMS into a Term definition goes against norms established in the rest of CIP Standards, regardless of whether “High or Medium Impact” is also
added. Suggest removing “High or Medium Impact” from the CSI definition.

The concept of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident (RACSI) and the resulting definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” (RCSI) is
unnecessarily complicated, counter-intuitive, and results in unnecessarily verbose additions to the requirements. The term “Cyber Security Incident”
(CSI) includes both attempted and “successful” cases of being disrupted/compromised. RCSI is confusing because it adds to CSI reporting
requirements but subtracts the attempted incidents, with only the former reflected in the name. As such, the name “RCSI” erroneously suggests it

includes all CSI that meet additional reporting requirements. A more complete name might address this concern however this doesn’t address the
remaining concerns.

The proposed RSCI and RACSI terms separate out attempted and “successful” reportable CSI, which results in having to name both whenever
referencing reportable CSI. This results in the need to repetitively insert “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” after “Reportable Cyber
Security Incident” 14 times (including the missed additions in M4 and probably R4.1). The only standalone use of RACSI occurs in R4.3 to specify the
different reporting timelines. A more concise and intuitive approach would be to define RCSI only as the CSI that meet the conditions that make it
reportable (ie. Not PSP related) and thus include both attempted and “successful” CSI.
This would avoid the need to verbosely replace “RCSI” with “RCSI and/or RACSI” the 14 times. It is suggested that RACSI be abandoned and instead a
new term should be adopted that encompasses the RCSI that meet the additional Compromising or Disruptive criteria. Possible names might include
variations including “Compromise” or “Disrupt” (C/DRSCI? RC/DSCI?) but seem unwieldy. Incorporating the word “successful” as used above is
unhelpful because it is a so called “success” only from the attacker’s perspective. We suggest using the term “Reportable Cyber Security Attack”
(RCSA), which describes both variations while clearly and concisely indicating it is more serious than a mere RCSI. Other names might be more
appropriate, but we will use RSCA for the rest of this comment.

The advantages of using the existing CSI, the redefined RSCI, and the new RSCA terms would be:
·

they build on each other intuitively

·
a single term exists to express the context mentioned by each (sub-)requirement. (ie. No need to list combinations of CSI, RCSI, or RCSA in the
text of any (sub-)requirement)

In addition to the above concerns, the proposed CSI, RCSI, and RACSI definitions use similar but differently worded inclusions that is unnecessarily
complicated and may lead to unintended interpretations. For CSI, consider:
·
Reference to ESP and EACMS seems redundant as what component of an ESP is not an EACMS? And all EACMS are being included in the
“Applicable System” column anyway. EACMS do not need to be mentioned in the definitions.
For RCSI and RACSI, consider:
·
By definition, a BES Cyber System (BCS) embodies one or more “reliability tasks” and under CIP-002, all such cyber assets supporting those
tasks must be grouped into a BCS. Therefore the “Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System” in CSI is equivalent to
“One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity” in RSCI/RACSI. Why should RSCI/RCSA be based on CSI but then restate this?
·
Use of the words “compromise” and “disrupt” are inconsistent. CSI applies only “compromise” to the first inclusion and “disrupt” to the second.
RSCI/RASCI uses “compromised or disrupted” for all of its inclusions, however it is limited to only the inclusions that exist for CSI, so the RSCI/RASCI
inclusions appear broader than they are. For instance, a non-disruptive compromise of a BCS cyber asset would not be included by the proposed
RSCI/RASCI definitions because it doesn’t meet the CSI inclusions.
·
Redefinition of EACMS (functions 1-5) seems entirely redundant and should be removed even though that terminology was used by FERC in its
order. Even if EACMS includes some unlisted function other than the 5 mentioned, it would still be included by the fact that all EACMS are being added
to the “Applicable Systems” column.

The logical intersection of RCSI or RACSI definition with CSI definition and inclusion of above considerations leaves RCSI/RACSI with effectively only
the following much more narrow inclusions:

·

Disruption of a BCS

·

Compromise of an ESP

The following proposed term definition approach captures the intent of the drafted definitions without the confusing parallel language:

CSI: A malicious act or suspicious event that attempts or succeeds in compromising or disrupting:
·

a reliability function of a BES Cyber System

·

an ESP

·

a PSP

RCSI: A CSI where the compromise or disruption has been confirmed, excluding those incidents that solely involve a PSP.
RACSI: A CSI where the compromise or disruption has not been confirmed, excluding those incidents that solely involve a PSP.

BCS applicability (High, Medium, Low) and related EACMS still identified in the “Applicable Systems” as per convention.

The phrasing also ensures when a CSI involves both the cyber and physical aspects, the CSI is still reportable.

If combined with the earlier suggestion of using alternate terms CSI, RCSI, and RCSA, the definitions could be as follows or similar:
CSI: Same as above approach.
RCSI: A CSI for which the actual or attempted compromise or disruption does not solely involve the PSP.
RCSA: A RCSI for which the compromise or disruption is confirmed to have occurred [rather than merely be attempted]
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

With regard to the proposed definition of “Cyber Security Incident”, the notion of attempts seems to be left to the responsible entity to define as part of
process development. The SWG proposed the following categories of attempts at compromise of the BES for responses to the NOPR (Docket Nos.
RM18-2-000 and AD17-9-000) : “…Some criteria for events and incidents that should be reported include:
•

If discovered, persistent compromise and attempts to pivot to critical systems could be interpreted as facilitating effort to harm reliable
operation.

•

Insider incidents involving access to ESP’s.

•

Incidents involving ICS systems (such as ICCP network or server equipment).

•

Incidents involving Physical access that could involve BES Cyber Systems.

•

Events and incidents noted as involving ESP’s.

•

Incidents with progress along a kill chain to the Modify/Install step (reference: http://www.nerc.com/pa/CI/ESISAC/Documents/EISAC_SANS_Ukraine_DUC_18Mar2016.pdf). “

It may be that such lists of criteria for categories of attempts belong in Implementation Guidance more than the standard requirement language
itself. The drafting team should include language in either the standard or the guidance to clarify the role of the responsible entity in defining attempts in
a manner that lends itself to effective compliance monitoring.
In the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident, the SWG proposes that Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) not be limited
to specific functions. This will enable clear use of existing categorization of cyber assets without confusion or added burden of sub-categorization for
EACMS cases.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Grammatical Issues: The draft definition for Cyber Security Incident contains a typographical error that should be fixed prior to final ballot. The terms
should be “Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems.”
Additionally, the definitions of Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should reference EACMS
consistent with the general definition of Cyber Security Incident: “Electronic Access to Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) for High or Medium
Impact BES Cyber Systems that provide the following functions…”

Substantive Issues: The proposed definitions of “Cyber Security Incident” and “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” includes the language
“attempt to compromise or disrupt” as an element of the condition. The statement “attempt to compromise or disrupt” is unclear, ambiguous, and should
be further defined by criteria. The SSRG supports the following categories proposed by the SWG in its comments:
{C}·
If discovered, persistent compromise and attempts to pivot to critical systems could be interpreted as facilitating effort to harm reliable
operation.
{C}·

Insider incidents involving access to ESP’s.

{C}·

Incidents involving ICS systems (such as ICCP network or server equipment).

{C}·

Incidents involving Physical access that could involve BES Cyber Systems.

{C}·

Events and incidents noted as involving ESP’s.

{C}·
Incidents with progress along a kill chain to the Modify/Install step (reference: http://www.nerc.com/pa/CI/ESISAC/Documents/EISAC_SANS_Ukraine_DUC_18Mar2016.pdf). “

Does this need to address entity definition of attempt (confirmed attempt?). Does the exclusion of PSP attempts and disruption make sense as far as
reporting goes? PSP’s would seem to be as important as ESP’s in this regard.
With regard to the proposed definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident”: Should this simply be EACMS without restriction or one of other
descriptions of EACMS?
With regard to the proposed definition of “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident”: Is this definition needed given the prior definitions (note
“attempt” shows up in Cyber Security Incident already)?

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities
Answer

No

Document Name

2018_ 02_ CIP 008 6_ 102218 Final Comments.docx

Comment
Comments: The current draft does not provide clarity on what constitutes an attempt. Attempt is not a defined term and does not identify that the entity
may come up with a methodology or approach on what constitutes an attempt. Including attempt “as is” leaves room for differences of opinion on what
an attempt is and could be interpreted differently among entities and auditors. Exelon suggests including a requirement for entities to develop a process
to define attempts. A defined term may be overly prescriptive, and inhibit the evolution of information sharing. Separately, the standard drafting team
should clarify the Cyber Security Response obligations related to PSPs by removing Physical Security Perimeters from Cyber Security Incident
definition unless its paired with the breach to an ESP or EACMS. As the proposed Cyber Security Incident definition reads, it could be interpreted that a
PSP breach alone constitutes a Cyber Security Incident

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Xcel Energy recognizes and supports the good work that the CIP-008-6 Standards Drafting Team (SDT) has done in addressing the Commission’s
objectives, identified in Order 848, for modifications to Cyber Security Incident Reporting. While Xcel Energy generally agrees with the SDT’s direction,
we believe that some further clarification is needed for the proposed definitions for Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents, and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents. To remedy the lack of clarity we believe exists around these terms Xcel Energy suggests the following
three changes be made:
1. Retirement of the term Cyber Security Incident
2. Modify the term Reportable Cyber Security Incident to read as follows:
Reportable BES Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious cyber event that compromises an Electronic Security Perimeter or Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System
(EACMS) of a High or Medium Impact BES Cyber System or; compromises or disrupts the operation of a High or Medium Impact BES Cyber System.
3. Modify the new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident to read as follows:
Reportable Attempted BES Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious cyber event that was an attempt to compromise an Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring System (EACMS) of a High or Medium Impact BES Cyber System or; was an attempt to compromise or disrupt the operation of a High or
Medium Impact BES Cyber system.
If the SDT opts to keep all three definitions, Xcel Energy would suggest they be changed to read:
BES Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the Electronic Security Perimeter or Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System for High
or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems; or

•

Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.

Reportable BES Cyber Security Incident:
A BES Cyber Security Incident that results in an actual compromise or disruption
Reportable Attempted BES Cyber Security Incident:

A BES Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt
The suggested changes above are based on the following issues identified by Xcel Energy:
•

•

Xcel Energy removed the list of EACMS in the above suggested definitions. It is our belief that listing the types of EACMS that apply is
redundant. The only EACMS that would have been excluded would have been intermediate systems. However, by including any EACMS that
have IRA we have brought intermediate systems back into scope. Also, if the type of EACMS in scope needs to be incorporated, inserting it in
these definitions may be problematic. If the distinction needs to be made about the types of EACMS, we suggest it be contained with the
Standard itself.
Xcel Energy is also concerned with the inclusion of “one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity” as it is superfluous and very vague. The
use of the term is already contained in scope of CIP-002. The inclusion of the term BES Cyber Systems in the proposed changes to
definitions above incorporates the intent of including the “one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity” language. It would be best to
remove this wording to avoid any undue confusion that could result.

•

The current definition of a Cyber Security Incident includes language for the attempt or compromise of a Physical Security Perimeter (PSP) and
the modified definition includes the references to PSPs as well. However, all reporting Requirements and definitions of Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents and attempts exclude PSPs. This leads us to inquire what the role of a PSP in a Cyber Security Incident is. Physical Security
compromises are already reported under EOP-004 R2 to law enforcement. Responsible Entities could report on compromises to Physical
Access Control Systems but those were not included in the FERC Order 848. Xcel Energy would recommend removing references to Physical
Security from the proposed modification to the Cyber Security Incident definition. Or the Standard Drafting Team should identify the role the
PSPs have in a Cyber Security Event and when they do not need to be reported under the requirements.

•

Xcel Energy believes the BES should be added to the definitions for Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents, and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents. Xcel Energy notes that a “cyber security incident” is a common term used broadly across many
industries and throughout the Xcel Energy enterprise, with the term already existing in many policies, plans, and procedures that do not apply to
a BES. NERC’s use of the term applying strictly to incidents affecting the BES creates clarity issues in documentation that uses the term more
broadly. Xcel Energy uses an enterprise wide cyber security center that monitors, investigates, and responds to all types of cyber security
events, regardless of their BES designation. Using common terminology and only applying it to events that affect BES systems will make it
more difficult to internally differentiate between those incidents that relate to the BES and those that do not. Adding BES to these terms will
allow Responsible Entities to update internal documentation in such a way to avoid confusion events and appropriate responses to those
events.
In the modified term for Cyber Security the new (3) lists “Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems, or;” The “of” should be removed and replaced with “or.”

•
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Need to draw some boundaries around what does (and does not) constitute an attempted compromise. Too burdensome on small entities with no
"floor" on what might constitute an attempted compromise.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Vectren agrees with the modified definitions of Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident. However, the new definition of
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is very broad which leaves it open to interpretation. This definition as written will cause an unreasonable
administrative burden on the entity, requiring us to dedicate significant time and resources to track and investigate potential attempts.
By investigating blocked attempts, the focus is shifted away from higher risks. The resources of E-ISAC and ICS-CERT will also be impacted by a larger
volume of reports regarding lower risk threats including the potential attempts to compromise. Ultimately, this shift in focus could lead to a compromise
of safety and reliability of the BES.
Recognizing the task of the SDT to draft a reasonable definition, the definition in its present form will not serve the intent of the FERC Order No. 848
directive. We would suggest the SDT narrow the scope of “attempts to compromise” within the definition to alleviate the potential burden to the entity,
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Without additional parameters around the specifics of what constitutes an “Attempt to Compromise”, Southern Company asserts that the requirements
are painted with too broad a brush. Further defining “Cyber Security Incident”, “Attempt to Compromise”, “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident”, and “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” will allow Registered Entities the opportunity to meet the standard in a clear and measurable
way. See below for alternate definitions that clarify the meanings and alleviates ambiguity contained within the current proposed definitions.
Notably, Southern Company does not agree with the proposed definition of “Reportable Attempted CSI” (RACSI). The new defined term still fails to
establish the parameters for what is “reportable” and should focus solely on the threshold that turns a CSI into a Reportable Attempt. If the definition of
CSI is substituted where used within RACSI, it is very unclear. We suggest that this definition not have a subject of “Cyber Security Incident” since it
appears that the RACSI definition is a repeat of CSI minus PSPs. We suggest that instead of repeating most of the definition of CSI and also using the
CSI term as the subject, this definition should instead focus solely on the threshold that turns a CSI, which already includes attempts, into a Reportable
Attempt.
Southern Company proposes the following alternate definitions for use in CIP-008:

Cyber Security Incident – “an unconfirmed malicious act or suspicious event requiring additional investigation to determine if it:
•
•

Compromised, or was an attempt to compromise the ESP or PSP, or
Disrupted, or was an attempt to disrupt the operation of a BES Cyber System or associated EACMS”

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident – “a confirmed malicious act that:
•
•

Was determined by the Responsible Entity to be an attempt to compromise the ESP, or
Was determined by the Responsible Entity to be an attempt to disrupt the operation of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System or
associated EACMS.”

Note: Once confirmed by the Responsible Entity, the incident must be reported within the prescribed timeframes.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident - a confirmed malicious act that has compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.
* See comments in our response to Q2 regarding the creation of a new NERC defined term “EACS”.

Using the above definitions, CSI is an event that appears to potentially be malicious or suspicious and must be investigated further as per existing
requirements. Once a determination is made that the event was actually targeting or attempting to compromise a BES Cyber System, or associated
ESP or EACMS (for high and medium impact BCS), the event then falls into one of the two reportable categories depending on the level of success in
the attempted or actual compromise, and the impact classification of the compromised asset(s). The proposed modifications shown above maintain
proper scoping of reporting “attempts to compromise” at the high and medium impact BCS and associated EACMS level and does not impact the
current use of the CSI and RCSI defined terms as they apply to CIP-003 R2, Attachment 1, Section 4.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends the proposed definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident be expanded to include disruption or attempted
compromise of Physical Security Perimeters and Physical Access Control Systems. This would allow identifying a Facility as a potential target without
its reliability or operations being affected.

Reclamation also recommends removing the following language from the bullet point for EACMS because it is redundant of the EACMS definition: “that
provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.”

Therefore, Reclamation recommends the proposed new term be changed
from:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
•

One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or

•

Electronic Security Perimeter; or

•

Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and
logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting

to:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
•

One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or

•

Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP); or

•

Physical Security Perimeter, including locally-mounted hardware or devices; or

•

Physical Access Control Systems (PACS); or

•

Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS).

If the above solution is not accepted, Reclamation asserts the following:

The proposed definition of a Cyber Security Incident includes compromise or attempted compromise of a Physical Security Perimeter (PSP), but in Part
4.1 the report excludes PSPs. For example, if a PSP was breached and no BES Cyber Systems were compromised, then there was not actually a
Cyber Security Incident. The breach may have been due to theft or vandalism not involving BES Cyber Systems.

The Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident definition needs to be consistent with the current version of the standard, CIP-008-5 R1.1, which
requires each entity to have a process to identify if a malicious act or suspicious event was an attempt to compromise the Electronic Security Perimeter.
If the intent is to only report incidents that actually compromise cyber equipment, Reclamation recommends the Cyber Security Incident definition be
changed to:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
- Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter or (2) Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System for High
or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or;
- Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reclamation also recommends removing “Except for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter,”
from Requirement R4 Part 4.1 so it reads:
Initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

2. The SDT added Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) to applicable systems as opposed to modifying the NERC
Glossary EACMS definition to ensure the FERC Order No. 848 paragraph 54 directive to expand reporting requirements to EACMS was met
without expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that use the existing EACMS NERC Glossary
definition. Do you agree with the addition of EACMS to the applicable systems column in the tables in CIP-008-6? If not, please provide
comments and an alternate approach to addressing the directive, if possible.
Amy Casuscelli - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While Xcel Energy agrees with adding EACMS to the Applicable Systems column in the Requirement tables, we would like to express our concern with
the effect of adding certain monitoring and alerting systems as applicable EACMS. If we are required to monitor our monitoring systems for Cyber
Security Incidents and Attempted Cyber Security Incidents, then shouldn’t we also need to monitor that monitoring system? It is not clear to Xcel Energy
where the line of succession for reporting on monitoring and alerting systems would conclude. The addition of monitoring systems creates a “hall of
mirrors” effect. Xcel Energy asks the Standard Drafting Team to address the hall of mirror issue with appropriate language in the Requirement.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NC
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ruida Shu - Northeast Power Coordinating Council - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - NPCC
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

We agree that adding EACMS is a step in the right direction.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We agree that adding EACMS is a step in the right direction
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Texas RE agrees with the addition of EACMS to the applicable systems column in the tables in CIP-008-6. Please see Texas RE’s comments to
question #1 regarding the definition.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No Comment
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Wagner - Santee Cooper - 1, Group Name Santee Cooper
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ozan Ferrin - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jack Cashin - American Public Power Association - 4

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;

Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Colby Bellville - Duke Energy - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,SERC,RF, Group Name Duke Energy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laura Nelson - IDACORP - Idaho Power Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends the SDT use existing terms from the NERC Glossary or follow procedures for adding new terms to the NERC Glossary of
Terms. Instead of stating the EACMS example in the requirement, the EACMS definition should be revised as follows:
Cyber Assets that perform electronic access control or electronic access monitoring of the Electronic Security Perimeter(s) or BES Cyber Systems. This
includes Intermediate Systems. Examples include Cyber Assets that provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and
logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company feels the unnecessary inclusion of cyber assets that are used solely to perform a “monitoring and alerting” function is an undue
burden to entities as they have been confirmed to have little to no impact on BES reliability. In NERC’s comments to FERC in response to the
associated FERC NOPR, NERC stated[1]:
“Additionally, as the term EACMS covers a wide array of devices that perform different control or monitoring functions, the various types of EACMS
present different risks to BES security. As such, it may be necessary to differentiate between the types of EACMS to ensure that any reporting
requirement is scoped properly. NERC thus respectfully requests that the Commission provide NERC the flexibility to define “attempts to compromise”
and differentiate among EACMS, as necessary, to ensure that any reporting obligation is designed to gather meaningful data without overburdening
entities.”
“given the wide array of EACMS, it may be beneficial to limit the types of EACMS subject to any reporting requirement to scope the requirement
appropriately.”
“while NERC is supportive of the general scope proposed by the Commission, NERC recognizes that there is still a need to refine the scope of the
proposed directive to ensure that it would provide meaningful data without overburdening entities. NERC identified at least two items that require
additional focus.”
“Second, as defined in the NERC Glossary, EACMS include a wide variety of devices that perform control or monitoring functions. The risks posed by
these various systems may differ substantially. It is important to focus industry resources on higher risk systems. Certain devices that qualify as EACMS

may have no or minimal impact on the security of BES Cyber Systems if compromised. NERC thus needs to consider whether to define the reporting
threshold to differentiate between the various types of EACMS for reporting purposes.”
“For these reasons, NERC respectfully requests that the Commission provide NERC the flexibility to refine the thresholds for reporting, including
defining “attempts to compromise” and differentiating between EACMS, as necessary, to ensure that any reporting obligation is designed to gather
meaningful data without overburdening entities.”
Despite FERC’s position and language used in the Final Order, Southern feels additional discussion is needed between NERC and FERC to avoid
unnecessarily scoping in systems that, if compromised, do not have a direct impact on the BES. Failing to realize this fact could hinder existing NERC
SDT efforts in the realm of development of new requirements to address virtualization and other technological advancements.
Southern Company supports the Project 2016-02 SDT that is also working on redefining the EACMS definition to address virtualization and other
technological advancements, and we strongly encourage the Project 2018‑02 S D T to w ork together with them on this. Working on establishing this
alignment between SDTs now will help alleviate the need in the future to modify standards again.

[1] NERC Filings to FERC DL_NERC_Comments_Cyber_Security_Incident_Reporting, Page 2, Paragraph 1.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
While Vectren agrees that adding EACMS to the scope is a good security practice, it is not clear how entities would meet the requirement without a
more focused definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Maier - Intermountain REA - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Applying this as reportable only to EACMSs implies that an attempt to compromise an EACMS is reportable but an attempt to compromise a BCA is
not. “Attempt to compromise” must be defined and mitigating controls and monitoring should be applied to all assets and in uniform fashion.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Add the list of functions noted in the FERC order, to define the in-scope terms.
The FERC Order as follows: “and their associated EACMS that provide any of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3)
access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.” We appreciate that this FERC clarification is in the definitions of Reportable Cyber
Security Incident and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. However, requirement part 1.1, for example, is only about Cyber Security Incidents
for which the definition does not contain this FERC clarification. Therefore, as proposed, the scope of EACMS is different for this requirement part. For
consistent scoping, the five functions should be added to the EACMS reference in all of the CIP-008 requirements’ applicable systems.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
While Vectren agrees that adding EACMS to the scope is a good security practice, it is not clear how entities would meet the requirement
without a more focused definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
GSOC is concerned with the broad expansion of the two draft modified definitions and the same with the draft new definition. In these draft definitions
and many other places in CIP-008-6 the inclusion of EACMSs is directed by FERC in Order No. 848; however, GSOC believes that FERC provided
NERC and the drafting team the opportunity to further analyze the five functions FERC identified to determine and provide support for inclusion of an
appropriate subset of EACMSs to be applicable to the modified and new requirements. In this first draft of the definitions and other modified and new
requirements, the drafting team’s approach is to include essentially all EACMSs without providing criteria for determining the appropriate applicable
subset of EACMSs addressed in the modified and new requirements. GSOC urges the drafting team to undertake analysis to determine what EACMSs
should be applicable in order to protect the reliability of the BES. This is especially important for the Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
definition and related reporting requirements as it will require a report for every packet denied by a firewall, making this requirement overly burdensome
for entities without a commensurate benefit to the reliability of the BES and BES Cyber Systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Agree with NPCC comments
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We are concerned with the broad expansion of the two draft modified definitions and the same with the draft new definition. In these draft definitions
and many other places in CIP-008-6 the inclusion of EACMSs is directed by FERC in Order No. 848; however, we believe that FERC provided NERC
and the drafting team the opportunity to further analyze the five functions FERC identified to determine and provide support for inclusion of an
appropriate subset of EACMSs to be applicable to the modified and new requirements. In this first draft of the definitions and other modified and new
requirements, the drafting team’s approach is to include essentially all EACMSs without providing criteria for determining the appropriate applicable
subset of EACMSs addressed in the modified and new requirements. We urge the drafting team to undertake analysis to determine what EACMSs
should be applicable in order to protect the reliability of the BES. This is especially important for the Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
definition and related reporting requirements as it will require a report for every packet denied by a firewall, making this requirement overly burdensome
for entities without a commensurate benefit to the reliability of the BES and BES Cyber Systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NRECA is concerned with the broad expansion of the two draft modified definitions and the same with the draft new definition. In these draft definitions
and many other places in CIP-008-6 the inclusion of EACMSs is directed by FERC in Order No. 848; however, NRECA believes that FERC provided
NERC and the drafting team the opportunity to further analyze the five functions FERC identified to determine and provide support for inclusion of an
appropriate subset of EACMSs to be applicable to the modified and new requirements. In this first draft of the definitions and other modified and new
requirements, the drafting team’s approach is to include essentially all EACMSs without providing criteria for determining the appropriate applicable
subset of EACMSs addressed in the modified and new requirements. NRECA urges the drafting team to undertake analysis to determine what
EACMSs should be applicable in order to protect the reliability of the BES. This is especially important for the Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident definition and related reporting requirements as it will require a report for every packet denied by a firewall, making this requirement overly
burdensome for entities without a commensurate benefit to the reliability of the BES and BES Cyber Systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed changes and new definitions should be confirmed prior to expanding the reporting requirements to additional assets.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
This reference to EACMS also should include the five functions described in the FERC Order as follows: “and their associated EACMS that provide any
of the following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.” We
appreciate that this FERC clarification is in the definitions of Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.
However, requirement part 1.1, for example, is only about Cyber Security Incidents for which the definition does not contain this FERC clarification.
Therefore, as proposed, the scope of EACMS is different for this requirement part. For consistent scoping, the five functions should be added to the
EACMS reference in all of the CIP-008 requirements’ applicable systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
SRP recommends an adjustment from ECAMs to EAC systems because monitoring systems are not as critical and having the ECAMs monitored by a
separate system will incur additional costs and resources.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Definitions should not include EACMs. Every packet denied by a firewall would generate a potential Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident,
making this requirement onerous for the entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

3. Do you agree with reporting timeframes included Requirement R4? If you disagree please explain and provide alternative language and
rationale for how it meets the directives in FERC Order No. 848.
Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
TVA agrees with the proposed reporting timeframes only if the definition of “attempted” is appropriately clarified based on TVA’s comments to Question
1.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Assuming there is no measurable impact on risk, I recommend updating R4.2 and R4.4 from 5 days to 7 days, so that updates could be made on a
weekly basis. I recognize these reports are not intended to be a regular occurrence, but also recognize that the reporting frequency could support this
consideration.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Assuming there is no measurable impact on risk, we recommend updating R4.2 and R4.4 from 5 days to 7 days, so that updates could be made on a
weekly basis. We recognize these reports are not intended to be a regular occurrence, but also recognize that the reporting frequency could support
this consideration.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Please see comment on #4, below, regarding risk for meeting the 1 hour reporting deadline. For Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents, we
suggest the deadline is changed from the next calendar day to the next business day.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
ATC agrees the reporting timeframes are reasonable; however, because Reportable Attempted Security Incidents constitute a condition where security
controls operated as designed and prevented an actual compromise or disruption, ATC supports further SDT consideration of a longer timeframe for
preliminary reporting of Reportable Attempted Security Incidents to balance the risk, timely reporting, and administrative burden. Additionally, where the
term ‘calendar day’ is used, ATC requests the SDT consider adding the qualifier, of ‘11:59 pm local time’ for ultimate clarity on the reporting deadline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The companies recommend replacing “5 calendar days” with “5 nonholiday weekdays.”
The recommendation is to avoid required follow-up reporting to fall on a weekend or holiday.

Also, we do not believe occasionally extending a follow-up reporting period to seven or eight days is detrimental to the reliability of the BES.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Wagner - Santee Cooper - 1, Group Name Santee Cooper
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Santee Cooper agrees that the time for reporting a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should be different from that of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
This is reasonable and adds flexibility because the requirement makes it clear that 1) the timeframe is based on when the incident is determined to be
reportable and 2) attribute information does not need to be submitted until it can be determined. Also, the requirement lets entities update attribute
information when revised information becomes available.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

NC
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laura Nelson - IDACORP - Idaho Power Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Maier - Intermountain REA - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name

Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Xcel Energy believes that reporting updates stemming from a Reportable Cyber Security Incident would be better reported on a weekly (7 calendar
days) basis after the initial notification. Entities will learn additional details of a Cyber Security Incident as the investigation evolves over time. Reporting
each new item learned each time it is learned would create an administrative burden. Gathering information and reporting over 7 calendar days would
allow for a more uniform internal process and regular timely reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments of the ISO/RTO Council.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
There is ambiguity in when the reporting timeframes begin. Additional language should be added that clarify that the timeframes do not begin until the
entity has concluded it's investigation and made a determination on the attempt or actual penetration. The current language could be interpreted
differently and could lead to inconsistent results in determining when an attemptm or actual penetration should be reported.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Seminole does not agree with the inclusion of EACMs in R4. See comments above.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
SRP agrees with the 1 hour and 1 day for initial reporting. Reporting if attributes change within 5 days will add administration burden of having the
template attachment completed. SRP recommends an adjustment to when the investigation is complete so a complete investigation with all the facts
are presented in the template attachment. There is a concern with more reports of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents may dilute or mask
actual real reports.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
No mention of OE-417 reporting timeframes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
No mention of OE-417 reporting timeframes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
No mention of OE-417 reporting timeframes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Besides meeting CIP-008 reporting requirement, for the same event, an entity may also have EOP-004 and the Department of Energy (DOE) OE-417
reporting requirements to fulfill. These standards/regulation have different reporting requirements and reporting timeline. Please coordinate with EOP004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format. We recommend that an entity use CIP-008-6 proposed reporting
timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Requirement parts 4.2 and 4.4 reference 5 calendar days. We recommend replacing 5 calendar days with 7 calendar days so this can be a regularly
scheduled check for updated attribute information on the same day of the week, particularly if multiple updates are required.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Besides meeting CIP-008 reporting requirement, for the same event, an entity may also have EOP-004 and the Department of Energy (DOE) OE-417
reporting requirements to fulfill. These standards/regulation have different reporting requirements and reporting timeline. Please coordinate with EOP004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format. We recommend that an entity use CIP-008-6 proposed reporting
timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Updates within a prescriptive five calendar day or other period when attributes change or are known to E-ISAC present an unreasonable expectation on
an entity. Initial reporting and final reporting upon conclusion of analysis of determination of all attributes on the entity’s timeline should be the preferred
basis.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Based on our comments for question 1 to revise the existing Reportable Cyber Security Incident rather than creating an additional one, the timeline can
be the same as before.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The language, “And Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents” should be removed from R4.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
It is recommended that all reporting timelines fall in line with established Reporting Procedures established by current federal reporting guidelines see
US-CERT Federal Incident Notification Guidelines.. ALSO: Reclamation agrees with the proposed reporting timeframes.
Reclamation recommends the following language be deleted from R4 Part 4.1 when the definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is
modified to include PSPs: “Except for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter …”
Therefore, Reclamation recommends R4 Part 4.1 be changed
from:
Except for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter, initial notifications and updates shall include
the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
to:
Initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The one-hour timeframe for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents seems ressonable because they are critical events. However the “end of next calendar
day” requirement for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Indicents seems unnecessarily stringent. Because attempted incidents are not critical
events, changing the timeframe for them to “end of next business day” would allow Entites to meet the intention of the reporting requirement without the
need for additional resources to review, analyze, and report on non-cricital events that occur on weekends and holidays.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We strongly encourage NERC and the SDT to reconsider requiring each Responsible Entity (RE) to report to two different agencies (E-ISAC and ICSCERT). If NERC cannot coordinate with both agencies to have one central reporting mechanism, we would recommend expanding the timeframe to
allow for one hour per agency, which would change the R4.3 requirement to: “Timeline for initial notification: Two hours from the determination of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident. 48 hours after determination of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.” Rationale behind this
suggestion can be illustrated with the following example: If an RE decides to contact the E-ISAC as the first agency and makes a phone call for initial
notification, but is placed on hold for an extended time, it is possible that reporting to the ICS-CERT (as the second agency) may fall outside of the one
hour window. We believe that by doubling the reporting agencies REs should receive double the amount of time to report.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The timeframe for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents could extend to almost a 48 hr period. As a reportable attempted incident, 48 hours
is quite a long time and shortening this window could help EISAC increase responsiveness across regions or entities that could also be impacted. RF
recommends the SDT consider revising the timeframe to be the same as or within 24 hrs from determination of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
For example, if either event reaches the threshold of “reportable”, it is recommended to have the same notification window—for consistency, ease of
understanding and also to enable the industry to be proactive and prevent a potential incident from becoming an actual compromise.
Why have 2 different timeframes based on the definitions between “confirmed” and “attempted”?
Also, from a entity perspective, it would be easier for them to have “one” reportable notification process and timetable rather than splitting hairs based
on definitions. And, most entities would likely utilize a singular notification process and report it under the same time and conditions because they
wouldn’t want to wait or have to create and follow separate processes.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NRECA does not have comments on the timeframe at this time due to needing our concerns with Questions 1 and 2 being addressed first. Once the
EACMS concern we identified are addressed we will then provide feedback on the timeframes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Utility Services agree with APPA's comments. In addition, we are concerned with the formatting of the timeline list. Tyically, bullets indicate an "or"
statement, but the way the items are phrased indicates "and". If "or" is the intended phrasing, we propose the following change:
Timeline for initial notification:
•
•

One hour from the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident; or
By the end of the next calendar day after a determination of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

We do not have comments on the timeframe at this time due to needing our concerns with Questions 1 and 2 being addressed first. Once the EACMS
concern we identified are addressed we will then provide feedback on the timeframes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Section 4.3 – Next calendar day seems very aggressive. Would it be better to align this with the 15 day requirement currently used in other NERC CIP
documents
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
More time may be needed to support a more complete investigation. Complex incidents will probably require more than five calendar days
We request clarification on “attempt” in Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. Our answer to this question depends on the interpretation of
“attempt” in the new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. Attempt can be broadly interpreted so that an Entity could be constantly
submitting this notification.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
GSOC does not have comments on the timeframe at this time due to needing our concerns with Questions 1 and 2 being addressed first. Once the
EACMS concern we identified are addressed we will then provide feedback on the timeframes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
A reporting timeframe of one hour is unreasonably short due to the details requested and various organizations required to receive the reports.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Colby Bellville - Duke Energy - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,SERC,RF, Group Name Duke Energy
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Duke Energy suggests that 7 calendar days to submit any new or changes in attribute information is more reasonable. Having a full week to further
investigate and submit any new or changed attribute information could reduce the number of subsequest reports, as well as reduce hardships if an
attempted incident is discovered on or near a weekend. Also, the language used in R4 could likely create confusion or unnecessary work in order
to identify when to make subsequent reporting or when to stop reporting on any one incident. We suggest that there be some language in the
requirement that gives a responsible entity the ability to determine when there is sufficient information to file an update on an initial report. Example
language could include: “Once entity determines that there is sufficient information to make subsequent reporting, it should be reported within 7
calendar days.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Does the requirement for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident imply a need to maintain staff in the event an attempted attack occurs off
business hours? Perhaps this could be changed to “within 1 business day” rather than 24 hours.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
FMPA agrees with the following comments submitted by APPA:
Regarding timing, APPA is concerned that the “end of the next calendar day after a determination of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident,”
will not provide sufficient time in some instances. Many smaller public power utilities do not have extensive Subject Matter Experts available that can
analyze all attempts under such a time frame. Entities would make staff available for Reportable Cyber Security Events given that the BES Cyber
System would have been compromised or misused which would warrant the appropriate investigation but such redeployment may not always be
possible by the end of the next calendar day time frame.
We are also concerned by the stated timeframe in Part 4.4 of the requirement for updates if a Reportable Cyber Security Incident occurs. Appropriately
done investigations take time and there may not be new updated information that can be provided within the 5 day time frame.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

See comments in question 1.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer

No

Document Name

Revisions to R4.4.docx

Comment
AZPS is concerned that a timed obligation to update information could lead to the reporting of unverified information that could continue to change and
evolve as an investigation progresses. Such could result in regulators and the industry expending efforts that would later have little to no security or
reliability value or benefits. In addition to the limited and potentially detrimental value in which such updates could result, the timing requirements of R4
divert resources from more important tasks such as containment, remediation, and forensic investigation. This seems unduly burdensome and AZPS
recommends that the continuous update requirement be re-considered. Nonetheless, AZPS supports the maintenance of a reporting obligation until all
attributes have been completed and submitted.
To address the need for ongoing reporting until all attributes are complete, AZPS recommends that any attributes not originally reported in Attachment 1
pursuant to requirement R4.3 be reported within 5 calendar days of the conclusion of the Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incident. AZPS believes this timing is appropriate as it ensures that information that is reported and/or shared is actionable and accurate
and that resources remain focused on the Cyber Security Incident until its containment and remediation is completed.
Additionally, AZPS notes that attributes initially reported could change as the investigation progresses and therefore recommends that, if there is
change to an attribute that was previously reported, such updates should be reflected in the final report for notification. If the result of the Cyber Security
Incident investigation indicates that an attribute is unknown, such should be reported in the final report.
AZPS recommends the language change to R4.4 shown in the attached.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Stated in R4.2 & R4.4., suggested to update every seven (7) calendar days, not every five (5).

This can be a regularly scheduled check for updated attribute information on the same day of the week, particularly if multiple updates are required.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Luminant has concerns about the ability to meet the one-hour horizon for all three agencies that require reporting within an hour (E-ISAC, ICS-CERT
and DOE). Additionally, this activity distracts from actual response activities. We do understand the value of quick reporting, especially if there is a
coordinated attack that involves multiple entities. Reducing the reporting requirement back to a single report that is automatically disseminated to all
relevant agencies would resolve this concern.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Timeline for initial notification of attempted is unreasonable at next calendar day (ie Friday or Saturday evening event). Additional days should be
allowed to support a more complete investigation.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jack Cashin - American Public Power Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Regarding timing, APPA is concerned that the “end of the next calendar day after a determination of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident,” will
not provide sufficient time in all instances. Many smaller public power utilities do not have extensive Subject Matter Experts available that can analyze
all attempts under such a time frame. Entities would make staff available for Reportable Cyber Security Events given that the BES Cyber System would
have been compromised or misused which would warrant the appropriate investigation but such redeployment may not always be possible by the end
of the next calendar day timeframe.
We are also concerned by the stated timeframe in Part 4.4 of the requirement for updates if a Reportable Cyber Security Incident occurs. Appropriately
done investigations take time and there may not be new updated information that can be provided within the 5 day time frame.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ozan Ferrin - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power agrees with APPA comments:
"Regarding timing, APPA is concerned that the “end of the next calendar day after a determination of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident,”
will not provide sufficient time in some instances. Many smaller public power utilities do not have extensive Subject Matter Experts available that can
analyze all attempts under such a time frame. Entities would make staff available for Reportable Cyber Security Events given that the BES Cyber
System would have been compromised or misused which would warrant the appropriate investigation but such redeployment may not always be
possible by the end of the next calendar day time frame.

We are also concerned by the stated timeframe in Part 4.4 of the requirement for updates if a Reportable Cyber Security Incident occurs. Appropriately
done investigations take time and there may not be new updated information that can be provided within the 5 day time frame."
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Regarding timing, APPA is concerned with the “end of the next calendar day after a determination of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.”
Many smaller public power utilities do not have extensive Subject Matter Experts available that can analyze all attempts under such a time
frame. Entities would make staff available for Reportable Cyber Security Events given that the BES Cyber System would have been compromised or
misused which would warrant the appropriate investigation but such redeployment may not always fit in the end of the next calendar day time frame.
We are also concerned over the stated timeframe in Part 4.4 of the requirement for updates if a Reportable Cyber Security Incident
occurs. Appropriately done investigations take time and there may not be new updated information that can be provided within the 5 day time frame.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We believe that it is too difficult for the entity to report an Attempted Cyber Security Incident in the next calendar day without a more refined definition of
Attempted Cyber Security Incident. Furthermore, investigations into attempted cyber security incidents can span days or weeks. Notification in the
early stages of the investigation does not provide the level of detail that would make the notification valuable to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT or registered
entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

RoLynda Shumpert - SCANA - South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
FERC Order No. 848 Paragraph 89 contemplates three timeframes for reporting:, which are summarized below:
•
•
•

1 hour - Detected Malware within ESP or incident that disrupted reliability tasks
24 hours – Detected attempts at unauthorized access to an ESP or EACMS
Monthly –Other suspicious activity associated with an ESP or EACMS

The proposed language captures the 1 hour and 24 hour timelines, but omits the suggested monthly timeline. SCE&G recommends revising
R4.3 as follows:

“Timeline for initial notification:
•

One hour from the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

•

By the end of the next calendar day after a determination of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident that consisted of multiple
targeted attempts to access an ESP or EACMS or to disrupt a reliability task.

•

All other Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents shall be aggregated and reported once each calendar month.” (The SDT
should develop another attachment for this reporting.)

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ruida Shu - Northeast Power Coordinating Council - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - NPCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
More time may be needed to support a more complete investigation. Complex incidents will probably require more than five calendar days
We request clarification on “attempt” in Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. Our answer to this question depends on the interpretation of
“attempt” in the new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. Attempt can be broadly interpreted so that an Entity could be constantly
submitting this notification.
Likes

1

Hydro One Networks, Inc., 1, Farahbakhsh Payam

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Attempted CSI should have a reporting deadline not sooner than the end of the next business calendar day.
The proposed language of R4.1 excludes any CSI that includes a physical component, even if it also has a cyber component. This is likely not intended.
Also, the Reportable Cyber Security Incident term by definition does not include PSP attracts. Why does the language of R4.1 suggest it does?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The timeline for a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should not be the next calendar day. More time is often required for registered entities
to provide useful information to share for an attempt, and such sharing will still be timely even if not the next day. If the objective is to improve
registered entity situational awareness it would be prudent to allow for multiple days to support more complete investigation. Based on an interest in
complete information in the report and concern regarding needed resources to investigate attempted compromises there should be a longer timeline in
such cases.
The timelines for reporting to both the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT are overly complicated. The requirement of additional reporting for attempts and updates
do not provide significant value for the E-ISAC, the ICS-CERT or registered entities.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Exelon suggests increasing to a 4-hour reporting timeframe for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents to permit greater focus on incident response and
allow additional time to facilitate reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The one hour timeframe for initial notification is consistent with CIP-008-5. “End of the next business day” for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident seems reasonable and would allow for E-ISAC and and ICS-CERT to have reasonale awareness. As for the updates with 5 calendar days, this
seems like a reasonable timeframe, but recommend the SDT revisit the language in Part 4.1 and 4.4. The wording between the two Parts could use
further clarity.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
It is unrealistic to think that small entities have adequate staff on hand to continuously update multiple organizations about attempted cyber
attack. Furthermore, a lack of coordination between E-ISAC and ICS-CERT (DHS) is not the industry's fault. Reporting to one entity should be
sufficient for responsible entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company is concerned that the emphasis in these requirements is shifting from maintaining a reliable BES toward a focus on collecting and
reporting data. This detracts from registered entities’ obligation to maintain their focus on the reliable operation of the BES.
In reviewing R4, Southern Company the following clarification in the proposed Standard to more clearly address “who makes the determination.” That
said, we recommend in R4.3:
Timeline for initial notification:
•
•

One hour from the Responsible Entity’s determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
By the end of the next calendar day after a Responsible Entity’s determination of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.

And in 4.4:
Responsible Entities shall submit Attachment 1 updates for the attributes required in Part 4.1 within 7 calendar days of the Responsible Entity’s
determination of new or changed attribute information. Submissions must occur each time new attribute information is available until all attributes have
been reported.
As shown above, Southern Company also recommends the “update timeframe” in R4.4 to be expanded to 7 calendar days to facilitate regular and
timely reporting for issues of an extended duration. Doing so will facilitate the ability for a registered entity who experiences a need to update attribute
information to do so on a regular weekly schedule until all attributes have been reported.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends that all reporting timeframes align with reporting procedures established by federal reporting requirements, such as DHS/USCERT Federal Incident Notification Guidelines.

When the definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is modified to include PSPs (as stated in the response to Question 1), Reclamation
also recommends R4 Part 4.1 be changed
from:

Except for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter, initial notifications and updates shall include
the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
to:
Initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

4. The SDT created Attachment 1 to be used for consistent reporting and intentionally aligned the content with FERC Order No. 848
paragraphs 69 and 73. Do you agree with the content and use of Attachment 1?
Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Recommend a reference to the NERC Glossary for identifying the Incident Type.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Xcel Energy believes that it is unclear if the Responsible Entity also needs to be identified or just the name of the person submitting the notification in
Attachments 1 & 2
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Exelon agrees with the form, but offers suggestions for improvement. Some considerations for scenarios when considering revisions to the form:
•

Suggest addition of a field or explanation for indicating a report is the final.

•

Should the form include where the incident is occurring?

•

Should the time of the occurence be included on the form so other RE’s could potentially assess for potential threats, on their system, around
the same time as well?

•

Adding information to include how/where to submit the information (ie. Email, phone number).

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Reporting to multiple agencies using different forms/formats should be avoided to reduce redundancy and burden on the entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Entities currently have several agencies, each with their own form, to report to in the event of a Cyber Security Incident. Many states now also require
reporting with their own form, and more states are following suit. The SDT should consider coordinating with other agencies, such as the DoE, to
consolidate to a single form. Unique forms for each agency introduce considerable risk for meeting the reporting deadline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We suggest the following changes to the format and content of the form:
Attachment 1 appears to require the first and last names of the primary point of contact, but the form never requests the name of the Responsible Entity.
We would suggest including a box that asks for this information.
Additionally, the “Required Attribute Information” fields should parallel the order in the Standard for consistency. “Attack Vector” should be listed second,
and “Functional Impact” should be listed first.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No Comment
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Recommend Required Attribute Information should have more specificity. Expect the industry will want to see trending over time.
Does the Entity still need to submit an EOP-004 or 417 in addition to the Attachment 1?
Concerns regarding information protection when submitting Attachment 1
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
However, please reference BPA’s response to Question 1 regarding “attempt.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Colby Bellville - Duke Energy - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,SERC,RF, Group Name Duke Energy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name

Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Abstain. ATC agrees with the content of Attachment 1 will meet FERC directives, and understands the SDT labored about how to keep it both simple
and useful. ATC believes there may be opportunity to share better information and further minimize risk and exposure to the Bulk Electric System if this
included some mechanism for timely and secure sharing of additional pertinent (and optional) details as like indicators of compromise, detection
mechanism, and exploits used/vulnerabilities exploited. ATC requests the SDT reconsider whether the use of Attachment 1 must be a requirement.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Texas RE seeks clarification on whether or not Attachment 1 is required for reporting. Requirement Part 4.2 does not explicit say entities must submit
Attachment 1 for all notifications.

Texas RE recommends adding an additional comment box to Attachment 1 for the entity to provide any additional information that does not specifically
align to the three attributes.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NV Energy does not agree with the use of Attachment 1, as if NERC requires the use of the Attachment for notification, then it should be referenced in
the Requirement language.
NV Energy would request the SDT revise the language to allow any form of an electronic document/evidence by the notifying entity that includes 1) The
functional impact; 2. The attack vector used; and 3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted. This would be in lieu of making Attachment 1
a required submittal.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments of the ISO/RTO Council.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends that “Attachment 1” not be included in any requirement. Incident reporting should follow published methods already defined
by the DHS Federal Incident Notification Guidelines. Only one reporting form should be used for all incident reporting, including CIP-008 and EOP-004.
Multiple different forms (CIP-008 Attachments 1 and 2; EOP-004 OE-417 and Attachment 2, etc.) create confusion and provide opportunities for errors
and omissions.

Reclamation also recommends CIP-008 Requirement R4 Parts 4.2 and 4.4 be modified to include “or in a manner permitted by the E-ISAC” as an
additional acceptable E-ISAC notification mechanism. The language requiring submission of Attachment 1 within 5 days should be withdrawn because it
potentially creates an unnecessary paperwork burden on entities, especially if the E-ISAC provides a more efficient mechanism to maintain this
information in the future (e.g. a webpage, etc.).

Additionally, Reclamation recommends Requirement R4 Parts 4.2 and 4.4 include an exception for CIP Exceptional Circumstances and for situations
when E-ISAC is unable to accept notifications.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company disagrees with the proposed options for reporting, and recommends the SDT focus on the “what” and not the “how” of the
requirements. For example, the Standard does not currently allow for advancements in automated data processing where web reporting services could
be used to allow for automation of reporting and the updating of submitted information.
In FERC Order 848, FERC states[1],
“We also support the adoption of an online reporting tool to streamline reporting and reduce burdens on responsible entities”
Southern Company agrees with this statement as well as FERCs assertion that a Section 1600 data request is inappropriate for this type of information
reporting. Aligned with this belief, Southern Company contends the ultimate goal of “attempted incident reporting” is to share indicators of compromise
attempts at machine speed in the future. We do not agree with prescribing that this be must done by a particular form filled in by humans. While this

may work in the short term, the future goal should be to move beyond this manual process as technology allows, making the requirement obsolete due
to its overly prescriptive method.
Additionally, we affirm that the standard should be results-based and not prescribe a manual form be used. If something needs to be changed on the
form in the future, NERC will need to stand up a SDT, ballot the changes with industry, and file with FERC. Experience shows that it will take a year or
more to make any change to the form. The SDT should consider that any guidance on “how” the required elements may be reported is better covered
in Implementation Guidance. The recipients of the data may desire to design web interfaces or web services in the future for the submission of this
data. If E-ISAC or ICS-CERT design something within their portal for ease of submission and ingestion of this data, we believe the proposed
requirement to use a form is unwarranted and counterproductive.

[1] FERC Order No. 848, Cyber Security Incident Reporting Reliability Standards ¶ 61,033 (2018), Docket No. RM18-2-00, Page 58, Section 91
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Would strongly prefer to see it merged with OE-417.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The approach to reporting should be related to a reporting process agreed to by both E-ISAC/ICS-CERT as opposed to use of a form. We should try to
avoid specifying technology versus outcomes. Should this simply be left with notification to groups as opposed to specifying means – given an incident
may remove one or more means for reporting (i.e. internet access disconnect or similar measures during an incident)?
Regarding the form in Attachment 1, this could instead be specification of a schema for reporting that could be incorporated into a portal or similar
reporting process as determined by E-ISAC (and/or ICS-CERT). The standard should be technology independent as much as possible. The standard

should speak to responsible entity concerns regarding the information sharing classification of this sort of report for E-ISAC and ICS-CERT (TLP of
some sort, PCII, how does FOIA get involved?).
Regarding contact information required for the form in Attachment 1, there should be provision for an alternate contact to support operational
contacts. The standard should clarify whether this is meant to be a compliance contact or an operational (cyber) contact. The standard should address
expectations for access to a contact (24 by 7, next business day, etc.) by E-ISAC/ICS-CERT during an investigation so entities can select appropriate
contacts and ensure responsible parties provide reasonable response in such cases
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ruida Shu - Northeast Power Coordinating Council - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - NPCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We recommend “Required Attribute Information” should have more specificity. Expect the industry will want to see trending.
Does the Entity still need to submit an EOP-004 or 417?
What about information protection when submitting?
We recommend that directions to filling out Attachment 1 should point to Attachment 2.
We recommend that this form and the means to submit should be more technically agnostic.
Likes

1

Dislikes

Hydro One Networks, Inc., 1, Farahbakhsh Payam
0

Response

RoLynda Shumpert - SCANA - South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Overall, the reporting form provided in Attachment 1 is good and aligns with FERCs Order. However, the CIP-008 reporting requirements
need to be reviewed in concert with EOP-004 and OE-417. The overlap in these requirements creates multiple reporting thresholds and
multiple dissimilar reporting timeframes and forms. This overlap will create confusion and will be burdensome for entities to manage. There
will also be inconsistencies between what is reported by entities on the OE-417 form versus CIP-008 Attachment 1.

To address this overlap, SCE&G recommends EOP-004 be revised to omit CIP-008 Applicable Systems, since these assets are effectively be
covered by the CIP-008 Standard. NERC should work with the DOE to develop a process to share information provided by entities in CIP-008
reports.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
PSEG supports EEI's comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We agree with EEI's comments for this question.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

APPA believes that the new form should fit with other forms and existing reporting requirements to avoid duplication. The proposed form does not tie to
the reporting content specified in EOP-004-4 that syncs up with the Department of Energy’s OE-417. In addition, the E-ISAC already has a web-based
reporting mechanism which could be used to capture this information. The E-ISAC web-based reporting method also solves the concerns about
undefined process and encryption requirements.
The proposed form adds a new reporting requirement to notify the ICS-CERT that does not have its own reporting structure. ICS-CERT refers enities to
the NCCIC for reporting (including the US-CERT). The current notification form on the E-ISAC portal provided Entities with an option to notify a number
of different organizations. An option would be to incorporate any additional reporting requirements via the E-ISAC portal. Companies, especially
smaller utilities should not be encumbered with duplicative portals, email addresses and telephone numbers to track for reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The requirement (R4.4) to use Attachment 1 for reporting should be eliminated. Use of the form is a cumbersome manual process that will put
unnecessary constraints on the ability of entities to report. This is likely to be especially true in the case of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident
which, depending on interpretation, could number in the hundreds per day. No one has a good idea of how many reports will be necessary now or,
especially, in the future. Requiring use of Attachment 1 would put an administrative burden on reporting entities and hamper the ability of entities, EISAC and ICS-CERT to develop automated reporting tools and processes. The Standard should concentrate on the security objective and not specify
how it is met. Attachment 1 could be included in a guidance document as an optional way of complying. Alternatively, use of the form could be a
recommendation from E-ISAC and ICS-CERT.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Wagner - Santee Cooper - 1, Group Name Santee Cooper
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The standard is not clear on how to report an incident that was an attempt to compromise or a compromise to the PSP. The standard clearly
states not to use Attachment 1 for this. It’s easier for Registered Entities to use one form for all Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents. Recommend that Attachment 1 include information for reporting attempts to a PSP.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ozan Ferrin - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power agrees with APPA comments:
"APPA believes that the new form should fit with other forms and existing reporting requirements to avoid duplication. The proposed form does not tie to
the reporting content specified in EOP-004-4 that syncs up with the Department of Energy’s OE-417. In addition, the E-ISAC already has a web-based
reporting mechanism which could be used to capture this information. The E-ISAC web-based reporting method also solves the concerns about
undefined process and encryption requirements.
The proposed form adds a new reporting requirement to notify the ICS-CERT that does not have its own reporting structure. ICS-CERT refers enities to
the NCCIC for reporting (including the US-CERT). The current notification form on the E-ISAC portal provides entities with an option to notify a number
of different organizations. An option could be to incorporate any additional reporting requirements via the E-ISAC portal. Companies, especially smaller
utilities, should not be encumbered with duplicative portals, email addresses, and telephone numbers to track for reporting."
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jack Cashin - American Public Power Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
APPA appreciates the SDT’s efforts to ensure consistent reporting in compliance with FERC Order 848 and supports the identified information
contained in the Attachment 1 form; however, we have concerns about requiring the use of the Attachment 1 form in Requirement R4, Parts 4.2 and
4.4. Required use would unnecessarily constrain entities in the method and manner in which they convey qualifying Cyber Security Incident information
today to organizations such as E-ISAC and ICS-CERT. Moreover, duplication or restating existing reporting is not efficient and obligating the industry to
use the proposed form would obstruct the creation of more efficient reporting mechansims. Also, use of the proposed form would be complicated by
unintentional omissions or mistakes that could result in compliance violations, leading to inefficient use of resources by both entities and the ERO.
Because of these concerns, APPA recommends that Attachment 1 not be required, but rather be provided as an example or suggested method for
submitting Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents.
The requirement (R4.4) to use Attachment 1 for reporting is a cumbersome manual process that will put unnecessary constraints on the ability of
entities to report. Based on current reporting, Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents which, depending on the definition and its interpretation,

could be hundreds per day and could increase in the future. Requiring use of Attachment 1 would put an administrative burden on reporting entities and
as mentioned above, constrain complying entities, E-ISAC, and ICS-CERT from developing better automated reporting tools and processes. APPA
recommends that the Standard focus on the security objective without specifying a specific form. Attachment 1 can best be provided as a guidance
document, or as something that complements existing E-ISAC and ICS-CERT reporting.
APPA believes that any new form (required or not) should fit with other forms and existing reporting requirements to avoid duplication. The proposed
form does not tie to the reporting content specified in EOP-004-4 that syncs up with the Department of Energy’s OE-417. In addition, the E-ISAC
already has a web-based reporting mechanism which could be used to capture this information. The E-ISAC web-based reporting method also solves
the concerns about undefined process and encryption requirements.
The proposed form adds a new reporting requirement to notify the ICS-CERT that does not have its own reporting structure. ICS-CERT refers enities to
the NCCIC for reporting (including the US-CERT). The current notification form on the E-ISAC portal provides entities with an option to notify a number
of different organizations. An option could be to incorporate any additional reporting requirements via the E-ISAC portal. Companies, especially smaller
utilities, should not be encumbered with duplicative portals, email addresses, and telephone numbers to track for reporting.

Likes

1

Dislikes

Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, 5, Gordon David
0

Response

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The companies have three suggestions:
1. Add “BES Cyber System Information” to the Attachment 1 header and language addressing information protection;
2. Add language to the form that provides flexibility to E-ISAC and ICS-CERT to develop an alternative format for submission; and
3. Add an “incident identifier” field.
1. Adding “BES Cyber System Information” (BCSI) to Header
The companies recommend adding “BES Cyber System Information” to the Attachment 1 header and the following statement in the body of the form:
“The information contained in Attachment 1 may include BES Cyber System Information (BCSI) and FERC defined Critical energy infrastructure
information (CEII) (18 C.F.R. § 388.113). Registered Entities shall protect disclosure of Attachment 1 information except as required by FERC Order
848.
Disclosure of information contained in Attachment 1 is with limitation and shall not be disclosed except to E-ISAC and ICS-CERT in the manner as set
forth under [Add citation to FERC Order 848].”

Background
The information included on the form will fall under the NERC Glossary Term, BES Cyber System Information; specifically, Attack Vector, Functional
Impact, and Level of Intrusion.
Information about the BES Cyber System that could be used to gain unauthorized access or pose a security threat to the BES Cyber System. BES
Cyber System Information does not include individual pieces of information that by themselves do not pose a threat or could not be used to allow
unauthorized access to BES Cyber Systems, such as, but not limited to, device names, individual IP addresses without context, ESP names, or policy
statements. Examples of BES Cyber System Information may include, but are not limited to, security procedures or security information about BES
Cyber Systems, Physical Access Control Systems, and Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems that is not publicly available and could be used
to allow unauthorized access or unauthorized distribution; collections of network addresses; and network topology of the BES Cyber System.
Also, the nature of the Attachment 1 information easily falls within the FERC definition of Critical energy infrastructure information (CEII).
“Critical energy infrastructure information means specific engineering, vulnerability, or detailed design information about proposed or existing critical
infrastructure that:
[…]
(ii) Could be useful to a person in planning an attack on critical infrastructure;
[…]”
(Excerpt, 18 C.F.R. § 388.113 (c)(2))
In addition, the case can be made there will be instances the data reported will not explicitly fall within the BCSI Glossary Term; however, we consider
information regarding the volume of unsuccessful attacks “could be useful to a person in planning an attack on critical infrastructure” even in the case
the information is non BCSI.
Bad actors are informed of potential vulnerabilities by a high volume of attacks, that the vulnerability may be a rich target to breach security. Of equal
concern is an attacker’s strategy being informed by a low volume of attempts, suggesting to the attacker to look for viable vulnerabilities elsewhere.
Either way, any information that informs an attacker’s strategy “…could pose a security threat to the BES Cyber System…” and we believe treating
Attachment 1 as BCSI or CEII, for that matter, while not perfect solutions, will better protect the reliability of the BES.
2. Alternative Format Language
The companies take the position that E-ISAC and ICS-CERT should have flexibility in the format of how the information is received by these
organizations. It is our expectation E-ISAC and ICS-CERT would consult and agree on the same format for submitting data.
Attachment 1 is incorporated by reference into the Requirements and will be treated as required under the Standard. Since this is the case, flexibility in
the format of the submission would lend itself to efficiency by not requiring changes to Attachment 1 to go through the Standards Drafting Process every
time changes are needed.
The companies believe the intent of Attachment 1 and Order 848 us to provide clarity as to what information should be submitted to E-ISAC and ICSCERT, not the format as to how it’s submitted.
Accepting that as the case, we offer the following statement to be included on the form and / or other enforceable section of the Standard as the SDT
may see fit:
Attachment 1 represents the required data, if known, for submission to E-ISAC and ICS-CERT. The format of the form, not the specified content, may
be modified by agreement of E-ISAC and ICS-CERT.
3. Incident Identifier Field

The companies would not normally make a “process” suggestion, but should Attachment 1 be approved without an option for flexibility as to format, we
recommend adding a field that provides an incident identifier for each submission so to easily identify initial and any subsequent reporting as relating to
the same incident.
Though we believe E-ISAC and ICS-CERT would provide an incident identifier for each submission, we did not want to make that assumption and offer
it to the SDT for consideration on Attachment 1.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Luminant is concerned with the use of Attachment 1. Luminant understands that the SDT did not feel it was feasible to modify the OE-417, but Luminant
thinks this is the only reasonable path forward. Having to complete two separate forms with significant overlap related to cybersecurity incidents but
different overall objectives forces entities to focus on reporting an incident over responding to an incident. Additionally, the OE-417 has clear provisions
regarding confidential information, FOIA and CEII such that an entity understands how its contents are protected and shared. The standard as currently
written does not include any provisions regarding the protection of its contents or the circumstances under which it can be publicly or privately disclosed.
Given the media’s inclination for hyperbole regarding cybersecurity and the energy sector, clear provisions and strong protections are critical. At the
very least, Attachment 1 should be stamped CEII within the standard itself; however, Luminant is opposed to using Attachment 1 at all and prefers the
SDT pursue modifications to the OE-417. Additionally, while NERC and the E-ISAC are required to follow CEII handling and protections, we are
uncertain whether ICS-CERT as a division of DHS has the same constraints.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Agree that there should be minimum requirements for submission of reports and with the proposed form, but would

The suggested FORM, Attachment 1, should not be required in it’s present form. Request that you add check boxes: (e.g., unknown, EACMS) rather
than just a narrative piece that meet with the instructions/requirements.
Entity should be allowed to submit in ANY format, as long as the report contains the same specified fields of information. Standards should not be
technology-dependent. Forms tend to be revised over time. Having the Attachment 1 form as part of the standard would require another SAR to
tweak the form.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - 1,3,5 - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
EEI supports SDT efforts to ensure consistent reporting in conformance with FERC Order 848 and supports the identified information contained in the
Attachment 1 form; however, we are concerned about requiring the use of the Attachment 1 form in Requirement R4, Parts 4.2 and 4.4. Such an
obligation would unnecessarily constrain entities in the method and manner in which they convey qualifying Cyber Security Incident information to the EISAC and ICS-CERT. Over time more automated and efficient methods of submitting this information may be created. Obligating the industry to use the
proposed form would create a barrier to using such new, more efficient reporting mechansims. Moreover, any unintentional omission or mistake while
using the proposed form could result in compliance violations, leading to inefficient use of resources by both entities and the ERO. To resolve this
concern, EEI recommends that Attachment 1 be provided as an example or suggested method for submitting Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Based on AZPS’s recommended language in R4.4, we recommend changing the form to include an option for “complete” and remove the option for
“update”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Should not include “Reportable Attempted Cybersecurity Incident.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
FMPA agrees with the following comments submitted by APPA:
APPA believes that the new form should fit with other forms and existing reporting requirements to avoid duplication. The proposed form does not tie to
the reporting content specified in EOP-004-4 that syncs up with the Department of Energy’s OE-417. In addition, the E-ISAC already has a web-based

reporting mechanism which could be used to capture this information. The E-ISAC web-based reporting method also solves the concerns about
undefined process and encryption requirements.
The proposed form adds a new reporting requirement to notify the ICS-CERT that does not have its own reporting structure. ICS-CERT refers enities to
the NCCIC for reporting (including the US-CERT). The current notification form on the E-ISAC portal provides entities with an option to notify a number
of different organizations. An option could be to incorporate any additional reporting requirements via the E-ISAC portal. Companies, especially smaller
utilities, should not be encumbered with duplicative portals, email addresses, and telephone numbers to track for reporting
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Follow-on reporting in Requirement R4.4 requires repeated reporting until all attributes of the event are known, but determination of attack vector,
impact, or level of intrusion may be impossible to ascertain during or after the event. A qualifier needs to be added to Requirement R4.4 to only require
reporting of attributes that can be determined.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We recommend “Required Attribute Information” should have more specificity. Expect the industry will want to see trending.
Does the Entity still need to submit an EOP-004 or 417?
What about information protection when submitting?
We recommend that directions to filling out Attachment 1 should point to Attachment 2.
We recommend that this form and the means to submit should be more technically agnostic
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
As noted in question 1
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Utility Services agrees with APPA's comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The addition of specific information collection data points would be helpful in more quickly analyzing and providing useful information to the industry.
Additional information to consider collecting:
•

Entity’s Name, NERC ID and registered function(s)

•

Entity’s internal tracking number (e.g. IRT Case #, Change Record, etc.)

•

Timestamps including the timezone the report is being made from
o

Date/time of report

o

Date/time incident start

o

Date/timeincident detected

•

Discovery Method (malware detection, operator reported suspicious activity, etc.)

•

Identification of external organizations that have been notified or engaged (e.g. law enforcement, etc.)

•

Define and provide common “Functional Impact” categories (critical and non-critical) as part of the reporting form for consistent reporting
purposes (e.g. No impact | Minimal Impact | Significant Impact | Denial of Critical Services/Loss of Control, Destruction Impact)

•

Define and provide common “Attack Vectors” or use known taxonomy as part of the reporting form for consistent reporting purposes (e.g.
Unknown, Attrition, Web, e-mail/Phising, External/Removable Media, Web/IRA, Improper usage, loss or theft of equipment)

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
While we generally agree with the content and use of Attachment 1, we would ask that NERC and the SDT consider coordinating with E-ISAC and ICSCERT to implement an electronic version of the form for ease of initial reporting, updating, and tracking by the Responsible Entity (RE). Furthermore, if
upon submission, the form could automatically route the data to both agencies, that would save the RE the undue burden of submitting twice and
potentially encountering discrepancies between the two agencies during initial and updated submissions. If automation is not possible, consider adding
a check box on the form indicating that E-ISAC needs to forward the report to ICS-CERT. It is our understanding that E-ISAC already works with
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) of which ICS-CERT is one branch. This would cover the RE’s responsibility to

report to both agencies when necessary, but ensures E-ISAC and ICS-CERT are coordinating any response. The electronic submission should
incorporate encryption or other security measures to ensure the information remains confidential.
Also, it is unclear whether updates to the form can only include the required attribute that is being updated and all other attributes can be left blank, or if
it is intended that the RE re-submit attribute information which has not changed since the last update. If it is intended to be resubmitted, would an RE
check the “initial” box for that attribute, or “update” even if there was no update to that specific attribute? Depending on the intent, we ask that the SDT
consider whether it is redundant to include an “initial” and “update” checkbox for each individual attribute when it is already documented in
the “Reporting Category” section above. If it isn’t redundant then consider a “no update” checkbox to be added to each attribute.
In addition, in the event that the RE has reported a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, but later through additional investigation determines it
was a false positive, the form does not appear to have a way to retract or withdraw the report.
Finally, in Attachment 2, under the guidance for each required attribute, it states “If not know, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.” It is unclear if “unknown”
can be acceptable as a final report answer.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Automation and JSON or XML formats should be supported for reporting events. Completing a form manually will lead to errors that affect data
accuracy, which is crucial for analysis and trending.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
WAPA does not believe that “Attachment 1” should be included in any language of the requirement. Reporting of an incident should follow published
methods already defined by the US-CERT Federal Incident Notification Guidelines. The inclusion of Attachment 1 requires duplication in effort and
could require entities to provide two separate forms of reporting. The US-CERT Incident Reporting System is already established and provides the
necessary information and capability to report incidents.

ALSO: Reclamation recommends one reporting form be used for all incident reporting, including CIP-008, EOP-004. Multiple different forms (CIP-008
Attachments 1 and 2; EOP-004 OE-417 and Attachment 2, etc.) create confusion and provide opportunities for errors and omissions.
Reclamation also recommends Requirement 4 Part 4.2 and 4.4 be modified to include “or in a manner permitted by the E-ISAC” as an additional
acceptable E-ISAC notification mechanism. The language requiring submission of Attachment 1 within 5 days should be withdrawn because it
potentially creates an unnecessary paperwork burden on entities, especially if the E-ISAC provides a more efficient mechanism to maintain this
information in the future (e.g. a webpage, etc.).
Reclamation also recommends Requirement 4 Parts 4.2 and 4.4 include an exception for CIP Exceptional Circumstances and for situations when EISAC is unable to accept notifications.
Reclamation also recommends Requirement 4 Part 4.4 specify the allowable method(s) for submitting Attachment 1 updates.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

No

Document Name

Attachment 1A.DOCX

Comment
Recommend redesign of Attachment 1 to align with comments for updated language of proposed modified term Reportable Cyber Security Incident and
proposed new term Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. See Attachment 1A.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
WEC Energy Group supports SDT efforts to ensure consistent reporting in conformance with FERC Order 848 and supports the identified
information contained in the Attachment 1 form; however, we are concerned about requiring the use of the Attachment 1 form in
Requirement R4, Parts 4.2 and 4.4. Such an obligation would unnecessarily constrain entities in the method and manner in which they
convey qualifying Cyber Security Incident information to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT. Over time more automated and efficient methods of
submitting this information may be created. Obligating the industry to use the proposed form would create a barrier to using such new, more
efficient reporting mechansims. Moreover, any unintentional omission or mistake while using the proposed form could result in compliance

violations, leading to inefficient use of resources by both entities and the ERO. To resolve this concern, WEC Energy Group recommends
that Attachment 1 be provided as an example or suggested method for submitting Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incidents.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We do not believe that the reporting forms should be attachments to the standard, but rather should follow the BAL-003 model with FRS Forms 1 and
2. Using the attachment approach will require a revision to the standard in order to make minor information sharing improvements needed by the EISAC.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Besides meeting CIP-008 reporting requirement, for the same event, an entity may also have EOP-004 and OE-417 reporting requirements to fulfill.
These standards/regulation have different reporting requirements and reporting timeline. Please coordinate with EOP-004 and OE-417 regulators for a
standardize reporting timeline and reporting format. We recommend that an entity use CIP-008-6 proposed reporting timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
I do not believe that the reporting forms should be attachments to the standard, but rather should follow the BAL-003 model with FRS Forms 1 and
2. Using the attachment approach will require a revision to the standard in order to make minor information sharing improvements needed by the EISAC.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We agree with the content of Attachment 1, but entities should be allowed to submit reports in any format as long as the report contains the same
specified fields of information. Standards should not be technology-dependent. Forms tend to be revised over time. Having the Attachment 1 form as
part of the standard would require another SAR to tweak the form.
Likes

1

Dislikes

Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, 5, Gordon David
0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Besides meeting CIP-008 reporting requirement, for the same event, an entity may also have EOP-004 and OE-417 reporting requirements to fulfill.
These standards/regulation have different reporting requirements and reporting timeline. Please coordinate with EOP-004 and OE-417 regulators for a
standardize reporting timeline and reporting format. We recommend that an entity use CIP-008-6 proposed reporting timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
No discussion of overlap or hierarchy with regards to OE-417.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
No discussion of overlap or hierarchy with regards to the OE-417.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
No discussion of overlap or hierarchy with regards to the OE-417.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

SRP agrees with the form as an industry template for consistency. If reporting attributes change within 5 days adds administration burden of having the
template attachment completed. SRP recommends an adjustment to "when the investigation is complete" so an investigation with all the facts are
presented.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laura Nelson - IDACORP - Idaho Power Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The content seems to be sufficient, except the definition of “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” is still unclear. What does it mean to
attempt? What includes an attempt?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Entities should not be required to use a specific form through reference in a Requirement. Using a static form could preclude entities from providing
appropriate information as each actual or attempted cyber incident is different, requiring specific information to be provided to be of value, and the cyber
landscape continues to evolve, which may require different information to be provided in the future. The current form would be required to be used 'as is'
unless the Standard was modified. An additional concern is that any omissions or mistakes in using the form could result in unecessary compliance
activities, leading to an inefficient use of resources by both entities and the ERO. Dominion Energy is of the opinion that proposed Attachment 1 should
either be removed or be provided only as an example and not a requirement.
Likes

1

Dislikes
Response

Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, 5, Gordon David
0

5. Do you agree with the required methods of notification proposed by the SDT in Requirement R4, Part 4.2? If no, please explain and provide
comments.
Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NV Energy believes the listed methods of notification are sufficient. However, there is redundancy in the language, "electronic communication" and
"email", as email is a form of electronic communication. If the term "electronic communication" is preparation for an online submittal portal for E-ISAC
and ICS-CERT then NV Energy believes the language is sufficient.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
SRP agrees
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AEP supports the methods of notification as proposed by the SDT in R4 Part 4.2. In addition we would support the idea of reporting to the E-ISAC who
would then act as a conduit to other governmental agencies on behalf of the reporting entity. AEP feels this would streamline the reporting process,
lessen the reporting burden on members and ensure all necessary agencies are informed appropriately.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NO comment
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NRECA recommends that the drafting team add the following language to the end of the first bullet under 4.2 Requirements: “, or equivalent web for if
offered by the E-ISAC”.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We recommend that the drafting team add the following language to the end of the first bullet under 4.2 Requirements: “, or equivalent web for if offered
by the E-ISAC”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
GSOC recommends that the drafting team add the following language to the end of the first bullet under 4.2 Requirements: “, or equivalent web for if
offered by the E-ISAC”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
R4 VSL implies a preference for the use of the form for notification. If there is an order of preference for these methods, it should be clearly stated in the
standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
ATC requests consideration of adding a ‘catch all’ in an attempt to accomplish a technology agnostic approach, and ‘future proof’ it enough so it can
adapt/scale as E-ISAC and ICS-CERT processes mature and change without requiring modifications to the Standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NC
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Exelon supports the methods of notification, but asks the standard drafting team to include a note in the form to request receiving entities confirm
receipt or provide another method of ensuring entities receive such a confirmation.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Again, would rather not see a separate form created.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laura Nelson - IDACORP - Idaho Power Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Colby Bellville - Duke Energy - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,SERC,RF, Group Name Duke Energy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Wagner - Santee Cooper - 1, Group Name Santee Cooper
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

RoLynda Shumpert - SCANA - South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ruida Shu - Northeast Power Coordinating Council - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - NPCC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

1

Dislikes

Hydro One Networks, Inc., 1, Farahbakhsh Payam
0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments of the ISO/RTO Council. ERCOT also adds that it has concerns with the suggestion to email the form that may contain sensitive
information. A secure submission means should be used or encrypted email.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends reporting requirements be limited to a single destination and not duplicated between E-ISAC and DHS. Establishing
communication between those organizations is not the responsibility of the registered entity. The DHS Incident Reporting System is already established
and provides the necessary information and capability to report incidents.

Reclamation also recommends the SDT clarify what method of transmission is meant by “electronic submission of Attachment 1” (e.g., facsimile, webform, etc.). Requirement R4 Part 4.4 should specify the allowable method(s) for submitting Attachment 1 updates (e.g., electronic submission, facsimile,
email, etc.).

Requirement R4 Part 4.2 should be changed
from:
Responsible Entities shall use one of the following methods for initial notification:
Electronic submission of Attachment 1;
Phone; or
Email.
to:
Responsible Entities shall submit initial notification in a manner permitted by the E-ISAC, including electronic submittal, phone, or email.

Finally, Reclamation recommends Requirement R4 not require entities to notify the ICS-CERT. Replace “ICS-CERT” with the “U.S. Department of
Homeland Security” instead of any specific CERT entity within DHS.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
As discussed in the previous question, Dominion Energy is of the opinion that a static form should not be used for this type of reporting and requiring
Attachment 1 in both the Requirements and Measures is inappropriate. While certain information should continue to be required, the methods of
notification need to remain flexible.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Revise “Electronic submission of Attachment 1” to state “Electronic submission with the specified fields of information identified in Attachment 1 to the
extent known.” Remove the email option. It is redundant. Email is a form of electronic submission.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reporting requirements should be limited to a single destination and not duplicated between E-ISAC and ICS Cert. Establishing communication
between those organizations should occur to lessen the reporting obligations of entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reporting requirements should be limited to a single destination and not duplicated between E-ISAC and ICS Cert. Establishing communication
between those organizations should occur to lessen the reporting obligations of entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please note WEC Energy Group concerns regarding Attachment 1 as described in our response to question 4.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We agree with the required methods, but please describe how to make an electronic submission.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reporting requirements should be limited to a single destination and not duplicated between E-ISAC and ICS Cert. Establishing communication
between those organizations is not the responsibility of the registered entity. Additionally the US-CERT Incident Reporting System is already
established and provides the necessary information and capability to report incidents. ALSO: Reclamation recommends the SDT clarify what method of
transmission is meant by “electronic submission of Attachment 1” (e.g., facsimile, web-form, etc.).
Requirement 4.2 should be modified to include “or in a manner permitted by the E-ISAC” as an additional acceptable E-ISAC notification mechanism.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Submittal of the manually completed form is inefficient. A better solution, less prone to error is submittal of data in JSON or XML format.
Submittal via plan text email or uploading to an unsecure web site does not provide sufficient security for BCSI and other sensitive, proprietary data.
Secure transfer is needed.
The current proposal to submit the same data to two organizations is inefficient and redundant.
A more efficient, secure means of notification would be via an automated solution to a single secure web site

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We generally agree with the required methods outlined in R4.2, with a few caveats:
1. We believe there should only be one report necessary (and not two separate reports for E-ISAC and ICS-CERT). See previous comment for #4
regarding form modification to indicate that E-ISAC needs to forward the information to ICS-CERT.

2. It does not appear possible to submit R4.4 notification via phone (due to the use of the word “submission”). If this is not a feasible option for
R4.4, it should be specified in R4.4 what notification methods are allowable. The usage of phone as a method in general should be
reconsidered for practicality.
3. While electronic submission is one of the methods, we do not yet see instructions for how or where to execute this type of submission. Further
guidance on electronic submissions must be provided.
4. Consider adding CIP Exceptional Circumstance exception verbiage to the second paragraph of R4.2 and split out the “without attribute” clause
to be a separate sentence for clarity. This proposed modification would read “If Attachment 1 was not submitted for initial notification, it must be
submitted within 5 calendar days, except under CIP Exceptional Circumstances. Initial notification may be submitted without attribute
information if undetermined at the time of submittal.”
5. Consider moving the second paragraph of R4.2 to R4.4 for clarity.
6. R4.3 appears to be part of R4.2 and is a sentence fragment, which is inconsistent with the way other requirements are written. Consider
modifications to correct inconsistencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Utility Services agrees with APPA's comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Agree with NPCC comments
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
There is a conflict between required reporting of [successful] attack vectors and safe handling of BES Cyber System Information (BCSI), or information
that could be used to gain unauthorized access or pose a security threat to a BES Cyber System. CenterPoint Energy suggests that the details of how
E-ISAC and/or ICS-CERT will provide verifiable records of phone reports be outlined in the requirement or guidance. Assurances that phone
conversations with E-ISAC and/or ICS-CERT are confidential should also be noted in the components of this modification. CenterPoint Energy requests
provisions for the security and confidentiality of phone calls, email, and electronic submissions. The SDT may consider outlining the secure methods in
Implementation Guidance. For example, ICS-CERT has published a PGP public key for secure email communications. E-ISAC could consider similar
secure measures. Responsible Entities need a means and assurance for the secure and confidential transfer, storage, and use of BCSI.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

FMPA agrees with the following comments submitted by APPA:
The required methods of notification include the ICS-CERT, which does not have an official reporting structure. While we recognize that FERC indicated
that the Cyber Security Incident should be sent to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, we believe that the actual required notifications should meet current
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) practices. As a DHS agency, the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) has
protocols for reporting to ICS-CERT that could be substituted.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - 1,3,5 - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please note EEI concerns regarding Attachment 1 as described in our response to question 4.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
Hard NO on submitting our reports to E-ISAC, Homeland Security & ICS-Cert separately! That would be onerous during the response to a cyber
incident. Resources are needed to mitigate the incident and communicate to management. They should establish their own internal reporting much as
the DOE does with the OE-417. Revise the term: ‘Electronic submission,’ reporting medias are: phone, email, fax…all are forms of ‘electronic’
submissions.
Revise Standard language from, “Electronic submission of Attachment 1” and state, “Electronic submission with the specified fields of information
identified in Attachment 1 to the extent known.” Remove the email option. It is redundant. Email is a form of electronic submission.
Regisered entities should only be required to report ONLY to E-ISAC, then the burden is on E-ISAC to forward to ICS-CERT and are self accountable,
thus completing a truly confidential reporting system. This would serve to protect annionimity, and lessens the burden on the industry for reporting, thus
retaining continued continuity in the information being reported. Dual reporting and dual updtates and tracking opens up the industry and the nature of
the Standard, to miscommunications.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Luminant has significant concerns regarding the current notification language.
First, the bullets in 4.2 list electronic submission and email as two different methods. We are not aware of any mechanism to electronically submit the
incident report to either the E-ISAC or ICS-CERT and therefore would be limited to submitting via email which offers insufficient protection for
information of this nature.
Second, we are opposed to submitting this information to multiple agencies. At the minimum, we will be required to submit the same form to two
separate agencies and a different form to the DOE. This is administratively burdensome and focuses immediate activities on reporting rather than
resolving the incident. Additionally, there is opportunity to inadvertently report information inconsistently through Attachment 1 and the OE-417 or for the
information submitted to be interpreted inconsistently due to the different focus of the reports.
The OE-417 has an elegant submission process that allows entities to submit information through a private and encrypted portal and also allows us to
elect to send the submission to E-ISAC automatically. Anything less than this mechanism is a step backward and should be avoided. Perhaps the EISAC can implement a similar solution and convince the DOE to give up cybersecurity event reporting through the OE-417 in favor of receiving the EISAC submissions. Whatever solution is implemented, it should ensure that entities are not required to submit multiple forms to multiple agencies
through multiple mechanisms.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Ozan Ferrin - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power agrees with APPA comments:
"The required methods of notification include the ICS-CERT, which does not have an official reporting structure. While we recognize that FERC
indicated that the Cyber Security Incident should be sent to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, we believe that the actual required notifications should meet
current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) practices. As a DHS agency, the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
(NCCIC) has protocols for reporting to ICS-CERT that could be substituted."
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The flexibility of the options for making an initial report is good. However, entities should not be required to submit Attachment 1 within 5 days. Requiring
the use of a manual form for reporting cyber security incidents is an anachronism that will place expensive constraints on the development of more costeffective tools for timely reporting. Requiring use of the form also reduces opportunities for reporting methodologies that would enhance situational
awareness.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The required methods of notification include the ICS-CERT that do not have an official reporting structure. While we recognize that FERC indicated that
the Cyber Security Incident should be sent to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, we believe that the actual required notifications should meet current

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) practices. DHS agency, the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) has
protocols for reporting to ICS-CERT that could be substituted.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We agree with EEI's comments for this question.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
PSEG supports EEI's comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The standard should not limit the entity to these specific forms of communication, since during an incident, these methods may not be appropriate. In
addition, the standard should reflect that such information must be sent using the most secure mechanism available at the time. It may not be advisable

for an entity to send such information using traditional email. Further, since the standard is requiring that incidents be reported to multiple entities, it may
not be appropriate to limit the list of allowed contact methods.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please see the answer to Q4.
Furthermore, Southern Company is concerned with the recommended methods of initial notification. To submit the elements of Attachment 1 via e-mail
can potentially expose BCSI and other sensitive information as e-mail is inherently insecure and is plain text at the protocol level by design. Additionally,
if the e-mail system has been compromised as part of an event being responded to, this method of reporting could expose information to attackers that
can be used to further their agenda. The potential for disclosure of BCSI via e-mail traffic or the risk of having e-mail traffic sniffed in route makes this a
prohibitive option for use and is counterproductive to reducing risk.
Submission by phone requires those who can submit this information do so from a Company phone that logs and / or records to provide the required
evidence of submission, which can be costly and burdensome to entities in the wake of performing actual incident response. If this submission is
performed, for example, on a personal cell phone, company personnel could be unknowingly bringing their personal data into scope of the requirements
for audit purposes. This represents an undue compliance burden.
Southern reiterates its position that the requirements should focus on the “what” information is required to be reported and focus recommendations for
“how” to report that information in Implementation Guidance to avoid requiring cumbersome or risky reporting methods that also severely limits the
potential to develop and use an Application Programming Interface (API) for automated information submission.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

6. Although not balloted, do you agree with the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for Requirement R4? If no, please explain
and provide comments.
Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Yes, however for High VSL, consider adding an additional criteria that includes failure to notify E-ISAC or ICS-CERT.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NC
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
SRP agrees
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

David Maier - Intermountain REA - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

RoLynda Shumpert - SCANA - South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name

Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation does not agree with the High VSL for R4. Recommend changing the High VSL
from:
The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, but failed to notify or update E-ISAC or ICS-CERT, or their successors,
within the timeframes pursuant to Requirement R4, Part 4.3.
to:
The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and DHS, or their successors, but did not accomplish the initial notification within the timeframes included in
R4.3.

Reclamation also recommends adding the following as a third option to the Moderate VSL:
The Responsible Entity initially notified E-ISAC and DHS, or their successors, within the timeframes included in R4.3 but failed to update E-ISAC or
DHS, or their successors, within the timeframe included in R4.4.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

NV Energy believes the VSLs for Requirement R4 are too severe for ultimately, a "reporting requirement". We believe the severe VSL should be
removed for this Requirement and moved to High, thus shifting the VSL level for the other possible violations of the Requirement.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments of the ISO/RTO Council.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
VSL language should provide tiered severities that reflect the true severity. As written in the draft Standard, any failure to report is automatically a
Severe VSL regardless of the circumstances behind the failure.
Also, while it has been stated during the drafting process by the SDT that incorrectly reported information should not represent a violation, the language
in the current VSL does not make this intent clear. The R4 Lower VSL currently reads (emphasis added):
“The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and the attributes within the timeframes pursuant to Requirement R4, Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but failed to submit the form in Attachment
1.”
The inclusion of “and the attributes” appears to indicate that not including the attributes (plural) is a cause for violation.
Southern Company recommends:
“The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and the known attributes within the timeframes pursuant to Requirement R4, Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but failed to submit the form in
Attachment 1. (4.4)

OR
The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and the known attributes within the timeframes pursuant to Requirement R4, Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but failed to use one of the methods for
initial notification pursuant to Requirement R4, Part 4.2.”
As stated previously, Southern ultimately feels that using or not using one of the prescribed methods in the current draft should not be cause for a
violation if the required information is provided to the required named agencies within the required timeframes. Using a form, or an email, or a phone
call, or another more technically secure and sound method should be sufficient to have achieved FERC’s directives.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: For consistency, High VSL should contain identical explanatory language as Lower and Moderate VSL.
Ex: High VSL- The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident but failed…”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The VSLs as defined are too focused on minor administrative details and will generate needless possible violations. Suggest instead that VSLs focus on
having a process defined for reporting cyber incidents that aligns with the definition. With regard to notification methods, in a cyber incident, it is possible
that traditional contact mechanisms may not be available, so Registered Entities will need the flexibility to use alternative reporting means.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Ruida Shu - Northeast Power Coordinating Council - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - NPCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We request clarification. At the time of determination, some attributes may not be known. Should the Entity leave that attributes blank (empty) or
explicitly enter “unknown.”
We request clarification. ICS-CERT has its own process. Are Entities expected to add additional answers when submitting to ICS-CERT? If ICS-CERT
changes its process, are Entities expected to follow that new CERT process when this Standard has not been updated?
Likes

1

Dislikes

Hydro One Networks, Inc., 1, Farahbakhsh Payam
0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
In our opinion the prescriptive nature and detailed required reporting requirements along with the ambiguity around attempted cyber security incident
definition increases the risk of a violation without adding value to stakeholders. Furthermore, the required Attachment 1 form, or other contact methods
may not be available within the required reporting timeframes. Ameren recommends flexibility in both required attributes and reporting methods.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Should not include “Reportable Attempted Cybersecurity Incident.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
There are many issues with the language of the proposed definitions and requirements to be addressed before agreement upon VRFs and VSLs can be
reached.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The failure to notify information sharing organizations of an unsuccessful Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should result in a Severe VSL
determination. GSOC recommends a Medium VSL determination for this.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We request clarification. At the time of determination, some attributes may not be known. Should the Entity leave that attributes blank (empty) or
explicitly enter “unknown.”
We request clarification. ICS-CERT has its own process. Are Entities expected to add additional answers when submitting to ICS-CERT? If ICS-CERT
changes its process, are Entities expected to follow that new CERT process when this Standard has not been updated?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The failure to notify information sharing organizations of an unsuccessful Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should result in a Severe VSL
determination. We recommend a Medium VSL determination for this.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The failure to notify information sharing organizations of an unsuccessful Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should result in a Severe VSL
determination. NRECA recommends a Medium VSL determination for this.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation does not agree with the High VSL for R4. Reclamation recommends rewriting the High VSL as follows:
The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, but did not accomplish the initial notification within the timeframes included
in R4.3.
Reclamation also recommends the following be added to the Moderate VSL:
The Responsible Entity initially notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, within the timeframes included in R4.3 but failed to update E-ISAC
or ICS-CERT, or their successors, within the timeframe included in R4.4.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Given BC Hydro’s response and comments to Question #1, BC Hydro does not feel it is appropriate to comment on the associated VRF or VSL table
elements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
BPA believes the Severe VSL should read as follows:
The Responsible Entity failed to notify E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please modify the requirement to be aligned with the EOP-004 and OE-417 reporting requirements and reporting timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please modify the requirement to be aligned with the EOP-004 and OE-417 reporting requirements and reporting timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laura Nelson - IDACORP - Idaho Power Company - 1
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
The VSLs focus, in part, on the attributes that are reported. The attributes themselves are somewhat ambiguous and not well defined, so including the
attributes in determining the severity (which may lead to monetary penalties for a Responsible Entity) of a failure to report seems to be a poor
measurement for compliance.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The failure to notify information sharing organizations of an unsuccessful Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident should not result in a severe
penalty.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
In general, Dominion Energy supports the VRF and VSLs with the exception of the inclusion of the requirement to use Attachement 1. Dominion
Energy recommends removing all references to Attachement 1 from the VRF and VSLs.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

7. Do you agree with the 12-month Implementation Plan? If you think an alternate, shorter, or longer implementation time period is needed,
please propose an alternate implementation plan and time period, and provide a detailed explanation of actions planned to meet the
implementation deadline.
Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
SRP agrees
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
If the scope of the revisions to this standard doesn’t change significantly, 12 months is acceptable.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
12 months would be adequate, not shorter.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Texas RE inquires as to whether there should be an initial performance date for Requirement Part 2.1. As written, Responsible Entities would not be
required to do the first test until within 15 months after the effective date of the standard, or 27 months after the effective date of the government
authority’s order approving the standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comment
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
ATC requests the SDT consider tying the Implementation Plan and the CIP-008-6 Effective Date to the latter of 12 months or the publication of
Technical Rationale and Implementation Guidance. For example:
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the standard shall become effective on the latter of the first day of the first calendar
quarter that is 12 calendar months after the effective date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the standard, NERC’s publication
of Technical Rationale and Implementation Guidance, or as otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The agreement is per the understanding that this STD is further edited before issuance, and is completed correctly – then the timeine is acceptable.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NC
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
So long as an entity is in the position of defining attempts and the questions regarding reporting can be productively addressed, 12 months should be
sufficient to implement the changes involved in existing programs.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No additional comments. .
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Registered Entities who may not already have automated systems in place for alerting, logging, or detection of potential Cyber Security Incidents may
need more time than 12 months for implementation of these standard changes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laura Nelson - IDACORP - Idaho Power Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - 1,3,5 - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Wagner - Santee Cooper - 1, Group Name Santee Cooper
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

RoLynda Shumpert - SCANA - South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ruida Shu - Northeast Power Coordinating Council - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - NPCC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

1

Dislikes

Hydro One Networks, Inc., 1, Farahbakhsh Payam
0

Response

David Maier - Intermountain REA - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Any implementation timelines can only be evaluated with specific reporting requirements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends a 24-month Implementation Plan. This will allow entities time to determine the effects of the revised requirements and
definitions, develop adequate written processes, and train personnel appropriately.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Seminole prefers an 18-24 month implementation plan in order to implement filtering and notification processes used for alerting of attempted intrusions.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
To ensure a successful implementation of the revised standard, we recommend that the revised standard become effective the first day of the first
calendar quarter that is eighteen (18) calendar months after the effective date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the
standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
To ensure a successful implementation of the revised standard, we recommend that the revised standard become effective the first day of the first
calendar quarter that is eighteen (18) calendar months after the effective date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the
standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Given BC Hydro’s response and comments to Question #1, BC Hydro does not feel it is appropriate to comment.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends a 24-month Implementation Plan. This will allow entities time to determine the effects of the revised requirements and
definitions, develop adequate written processes, and train personnel appropriately.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The vagueness of the definition of a reportable event makes it difficult for Entities to determine what resources will be needed to review and analyze
data, how much automation to implement, etc. Entities may need more than 12 months to secure and implement the additional resources needed.
Another consideration is whether the two receiving organizations will ready to receive reports within 12 months of the effective date of the new standard.
What assurance that they will be ready can be given?

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
With the additional scrutiny that attempted Cyber Security Incidents will likely require due to the modifications to this standard and associated
definitions, Responsible Entities (REs) may consider modifying current network architecture for EACMS and/or Intermediate Systems for Interactive
Remote Access which may currently be used for multi-impact BCS (i.e., for High, Medium, and Low impact). Splitting impacts used for each EACMS
and IRA solutions may reduce investigation and reporting burden by decreasing the attack surface by taking Lows out of the equation. If this is the
chosen path, additional time may be necessary for REs to initiate the supply chain and procurement processes. In which case, an 18-month
implementation plan would alleviate this concern.
Additionally, with the upcoming CIP-003-7(8) Transient Cyber Asset and Removable Media malicious code risk mitigation for assets containing low
impact BES Cyber Systems, it appears that by the time this CIP-008 modification goes into effect, there will be a much larger scope of cyber assets
which will need to be investigated for potential Cyber Security Incidents. The impacts of this expansion may also warrant additional time for REs to
adequately assess staffing and resource requirements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
12 months is a very long period of time for implementation. The information and controls and processes for this standard should already be in place
and part of a strong incident response and reporting program. The only addition is updating internal processes to submit the information to EISAC for
which 12 months is a very long period of time. This should be achievable in 6 months.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NRECA recommend a 24 month implementation plan in order to provide entities adequate time to implement filtering and notification processes used for
alterting of attempted intrusions.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Utility Services agrees with APPA's comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We recommend a 24 month implementation plan in order to provide entities adequate time to implement filtering and notification processes used for
alterting of attempted intrusions.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
: GSOC recommend a 24 month implementation plan in order to provide entities adequate time to implement filtering and notification processes used for
alterting of attempted intrusions.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
With the proposed definition of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, a 12-month implementation is not reasonable. The proposed
definition will require an increase in staff resources. Given the technical nature involved with tracking and investigating potential “attempts
to compromise,” resources are presently limited. Staff would need to be hired and properly trained to implement the processes necessary to
meet the requirements. In addition, time is required to research and evaluate tools to be purchased and implemented. A minimal
implementation timeframe could result in budgetary constraints or a lack of adequate resources, technology and/or tools.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Without Technical Rationale or Implementation Guidance, entities do not have much guidance regarding classifying attempted incidents. If the
standards development timeframe does not allow for specific criteria for determining “attempted,” CenterPoint Energy recommends that the
implementation plan be extended or postponed until after NERC has performed sufficient pilot studies to publish actionable guidance on what an
attempted compromise of an EACMS looks like in comparison to normal operations of an EACMS. If the implementation plan is left as-is, entities will be
required to define “attempted” events as they deem appropriate given that not doing so could possibly result in millions of reports per day or year.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Colby Bellville - Duke Energy - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,SERC,RF, Group Name Duke Energy
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Duke Energy believes an Implmentation Plan of 24 months is more feasible. The proposed changes, particularly the reporting of “attempts” will bring
about significant process changes, requiring the re-writing of internal procedures. Also, depending on how “attempt” is defined, the amount of dedicated
workers needed to monitor and comb through large amounts of data will increase. Changes in procedures and hiring of additional workers will also
require training. With anticipated procedure re-writes and additional hiring and training we feel as though an Implementation Plan of 24 months is
necessary.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
FMPA agrees with the following comments submitted by APPA:
The current implementation plan will require entities to change their CIP-008, as well as EOP-004, reporting. These administrative changes will require
system and software changes and planning for the associated resource commitment. Developing the program, gaining consensus internally, training,
and testing will take more than 12 months for most entities. APPA recommends a minimum of 18 months for the Implementation Plan
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Changes to the standards require Responsible Entities to make programmatic changes. Implementation plans, unless significant risks need to be
mitigated in a timely manner, should allow for Responsible Entities to implement changes on their review cycle or actual events.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jack Cashin - American Public Power Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The current implementation plan will require entities to change their CIP-008, as well as EOP-004, reporting. These administrative changes will require
system and software changes and planning for the associated resource commitment. Developing the program, gaining consensus internally, training,
and testing will take more than 12 months for most entities. APPA recommends a minimum of 18 months for the Implementation Plan.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ozan Ferrin - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Tacoma Power agrees with APPA comments:
"The current implementation plan will require entities to change their CIP-008, as well as EOP-004, reporting. These administrative changes will require
system and software changes and planning for the associated resource commitment. Developing the program, gaining consensus internally, training,
and testing will take more than 12 months for most entities. APPA recommends a minimum of 18 months for the Implementation Plan."
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The current implementation plan will require entities to change their CIP-008 as well as EOP-004 reporting. These administrative changes will require
system and software changes and planning for the associated resource commitment. Developing the program, gaining consensus internally, training
and testing will take more than 12 months for most entities. APPA recommends a minimum of 18 months for the Implementation Plan.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: Given the interest of FERC in expediting the NERC filing, the SPP Standards Review Group believes 6 months is an appropriate timeframe
for implementation.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
If not altered, the revised version of CIP-008 is not likely acheivable in 12 months. Or 24 months. It may require additional staff or an outsourced
capability that requires longer look-aheads to address budget cycles.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
With the proposed definition of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, a 12-month implementation is not reasonable. The proposed definition
will require an increase in staff resources. Given the technical nature involved with tracking and investigating potential “attempts to compromise,”
resources are presently limited. Staff would need to be hired and properly trained to implement the processes necessary to meet the requirements. In
addition, time is required to research and evaluate tools to be purchased and implemented. A minimal implementation timeframe could result in
budgetary constraints or a lack of adequate resources, technology and/or tools.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Given that these changes will require Responsible Entities to deploy additional resources, modify many existing security processes, potentially
implement additional security controls and coordinate these changes across large enterprises, 24 months is a more reasonable timeframe for
successful implementation of the necessary changes. ICS-CERT and E-ISAC may also need this time to prepare to receive and act upon this additional
reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

8. The SDT proposes that the modifications in CIP-008-6 provide entities with flexibility to meet the reliability objectives in a cost effective
manner. Do you agree? If you do not agree, or if you agree but have suggestions for improvement to enable more cost effective approaches,
please provide your recommendation and, if appropriate, technical or procedural justification.
Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
These draft standard changes could require registered entities to install additional monitoring, logging, and alerting systems to be able to acheive the
necessary monitoring for adherence to this standard which would be an incremental cost.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No additional comments. .
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No comments.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AZPS agrees that the proposed revisions provide flexibility, but is concerned that the cost effectiveness and efficiency would be significantly reduced by
the continual update requirements proposed within the current draft. As discussed above, there is a potential for the reporting of unverified or uncertain
information or the potential taking of action by other utilities in response to non-actionable information. For this reason, AZPS has proposed its
comments above, which revisions should align with the SDT’s cost-effectiveness and efficiency objectives.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Sconce - EDF Renewable Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
This may depend upon the response to question 3.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO, Group Name SPP CIP-008
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Maier - Intermountain REA - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Wagner - Santee Cooper - 1, Group Name Santee Cooper
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrey Komissarov - Andrey Komissarov On Behalf of: Daniel Frank, Sempra - San Diego Gas and Electric, 3, 5, 1; - Andrey Komissarov
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Stephanie Burns - Stephanie Burns On Behalf of: Michael Moltane, International Transmission Company Holdings Corporation, 1; - Stephanie
Burns
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Silvia Mitchell - NextEra Energy - Florida Power and Light Co. - 1,6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
NC
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Abstain
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC

Answer
Document Name
Comment
The proposed changes have the potential to increase work load/overtime costs for those responsible for responding to and reporting attempted
incidents.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Prior to proposing additional modifications, Reclamation recommends each SDT take the necessary time to effectively define the scope of each
Standard Authorization Request to minimize the costs associated with the planning and adjustments required to achieve compliance with frequently
changing requirements. This will provide entities with economic relief by allowing technical compliance with current standards.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Any cost determinations can only be evaluated with specific reporting requirements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company encourages the SDT to consider modifying the language of M4 to reflect the following:
“Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined Reportable Cyber Security
Incident according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents or evidence of
active participation in an automated industry information sharing program.”
Southern Company asserts that active participation in an information sharing initiative such as the Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program
(CRISP) fully meets the spirit and intent of the reporting requirements outlined in FERC Order 848 and does so in an automated fashion. Technological
solutions (like CRISP, DoE CYOTE, etc.) and automation are much better suited for meeting the objectives stated by FERC, where the technology itself
is watching for potential incidents and sharing indicators of compromise (IOCs) across the industry in an automated fashion. These programs
automatically record Cyber Security Incidents that compromise or attempt to compromise a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS. In NERC’s
publication, Understanding Your E‑IS A C , they explain[1], “The [CRISP] program enables owners and operators to better protect their networks from
sophisticated cyber threats by facilitating the timely sharing of government-enhanced threat information, enhance situational awareness, and better
protect critical infrastructure.” Putting forth significant additional funding and effort in expanding and maintaining the scope of manual reporting required
for CIP-008 will significantly detract from our ability to fully engage in the other worthwhile information sharing projects like CRISP and CYOTE.

Southern Company would also like to reiterate that creating a double reporting burden (the requirement to file the same report to two different agencies)
is onerous and ineffective.

[1] Electricity - Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Understanding your E-ISAC, (2016)
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Identifying and investigating all potential Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents would be time consuming and costly due to the resources
required for these tasks. Additional staffing and tools would need to be added. With the present definition, all attempted connections at the EAP/ESP
would need to be investigated.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Regular reporting to multiple organizations is not cost effective for a small entity. A more cost effective approach might be a "RC" centric approach,
where entities must notify Reliability Coordinators, who are regularly responsible for updating appropriate industry entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments above.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
APPA believes the drafting team has made an effort to meet directives and be flexible, however, the definition for what constitutes a reportable cyber
security incident is not distinct, and the proposed reporting requirements are duplicative and will require significant resources to put in place.
Consequently the proposal is not cost effective. Suggestions on definition changes and changes to reporting and its implementation are provided in
earlier answers.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Requiring the use of a manual form (Attachment 1) for submitting reports does not provide flexibility and will lead to unnecessary administrative costs for
E-ISAC, ICS-CERT and the reporting entities. Including a required form as Attachment 1 in the Standard precludes E-ISAC, ICS-CERT and industry
stakeholders from collaborating to develop cost effective and timely reporting methods. In order to replace Attachment 1 with a better reporting tool, the
Standard would have to be revised in the future which would add additional ERO and stakeholder expense and time delays.
As an alternative, please include Attachment 1 within a guidance document as an option for use in the near term.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ozan Ferrin - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power agrees with APPA Comments:
"APPA believes the drafting team has made an effort to meet directives and be flexible. However, the definition for what constitutes a reportable cyber
security incident is not distinct, and the proposed reporting requirements are duplicative and will require significant resources to put in place.

Consequently, the proposal is not cost effective. Suggestions on definition changes and changes to reporting and its implementation are provided in
earlier answers.
Additionally, depending what constitutes an “attempt to compromise or diusrupt,” this may impose a significant forensic burden on enties, depending on
how the entity designed its ESP, and Interactive Remote Access solution. For example, if an entity implemented an Interactive Remote Access solution
that was accessible to the Internet, they would be exposed to a signigficant number of “attempts to compromise or disrupt.” While this can be done in a
secure manner, by design, the attempts could still reach the EACMS system providing remote access to the ESP, and therefore require a significant
effort to document and report."
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jack Cashin - American Public Power Association - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
APPA believes the drafting team has made an effort to meet directives and be flexible. However, the definition for what constitutes a reportable cyber
security incident is not distinct, and the proposed reporting requirements are duplicative and will require significant resources to put in place.
Consequently, the proposal is not cost effective. Suggestions on definition changes and changes to reporting and its implementation are provided in
earlier answers.
Additionally, depending what constitutes an “attempt to compromise or diusrupt,” this may impose a significant forensic burden on enties, depending on
how the entity designed its ESP, and Interactive Remote Access solution. For example, if an entity implemented an Interactive Remote Access solution
that was accessible to the Internet, they would be exposed to a signigficant number of “attempts to compromise or disrupt.” While this can be done in a
secure manner, by design, the attempts could still reach the EACMS system providing remote access to the ESP, and therefore require a significant
effort to document and report.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Heather Morgan - EDP Renewables North America LLC - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Without a clearer definition of attempts, an entity could be overly burdened with administrative and technical tasks associated with investigating, initial
reporting and continuous follow-up reporting for insignificant incidents.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please see the manor of flexabilty of reporting that has a direct correlation to this.
The use of Attachment 1 should not be mandatory because standards should be objective-based and not technology-dependent. Parts 4.2 and 4.4 Entities should be allowed to submit reports in any format as long as the report contains the same specified fields of information as described in
Attachment 1. We appreciate that the SDT confined the requirements for reporting to the three mandatory items identified in the FERC Order.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
The proposed changes would take a large number of skilled cybersecurity experts for each RE to investigate and report every attempted Cyber Incident,
which adds additional cost without a reduction of risk to the BES. A potential more efficient solution, could be to create an Energy Sector Security
Operations Center which aggregates logs from each RE. Creating a Security Opertaions Center, would allow direct reporting to ES-ISAC. It would be
more cost effective, provide better metrics with a marco view, allow more flexibility to what FERC wants in the future, and streamline interagency
communication processes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
FMPA agrees with the following comments submitted by APPA:
APPA believes the drafting team has made an effort to meet directives and be flexible. However, the definition for what constitutes a reportable cyber
security incident is not distinct, and the proposed reporting requirements are duplicative and will require significant resources to put in place.
Consequently, the proposal is not cost effective. Suggestions on definition changes and changes to reporting and its implementation are provided in
earlier answers.
Additionally, depending what constitutes an “attempt to compromise or diusrupt,” this may impose a significant forensic burden on enties, depending on
how the entity designed its ESP, and Interactive Remote Access solution. For example, if an entity implemented an Interactive Remote Access solution
that was accessible to the Internet, they would be exposed to a signigficant number of “attempts to compromise or disrupt.” While this can be done in a
secure manner, by design, the attempts could still reach the EACMS system providing remote access to the ESP, and therefore require a significant
effort to document and report.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
Entities have no technical basis for the classification of attempted incidents and are left with substantial risk and uncertainty with how to implement the
requirements and demonstrate compliance using cost effective approaches. Enforcing the proposed modifications in CIP-008-6 as currently drafted
could result in inconsistent implementation resulting in fines and penalties.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Identifying and investigating all potential Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents would be time consuming and costly due to the
resources required for these tasks. Additional staffing and tools would need to be added. With the present definition, all attempted
connections at the EAP/ESP would need to be investigated.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
Utility Services agrees with APPA's comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The additional resources required for data collection, analysis, and reporting could be significant and burdensome, if the proposed criteria for identifying
reportable incidents is not revised.
Automation seems to be an oversight. The manual process will require hiring additional employees to meet reporting deadlines.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
WAPA agrees that modifications to the standard provide flexibility but WAPA is concerned that there is too much flexibility for interpretation. Auditors
and entities will likely not agree on the definition of “attempt to compromise.” We suggest further guidance from the SDT. This should be explicitly
defined in the requirement and supported with language in the Guidelines and Technical Basis section. We would offer the following examples as a
starting point for a more complete list.
1.
An “attempt to compromise” could be defined as an act with malicious intent to gain electronic access or to cause harm to the normal operation of
a Cyber Asset.
a.
Actions that are not an attempt to compromise a Cyber Asset electronically include but are not limited to:
a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence.

An entity’s own equipment scanning

Broadcast traffic as part of normal network traffic. A firewall may block and log this traffic but it does not have malicious intent.

Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by user that fails due to human error.
b.

Actions that are an attempt to compromise a Cyber Asset electronically include but are not limited to:

Scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that is not approved by the entity’s management. This could be from an entity’s own
equipment due to an upstream compromise or malware.
Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by a user that fails due to not being authorized and intending to gain access where no approval has been given.
2. The word “determination” in Part 4.3 is used relevant to reporting timelines. The standard should require a process to define how this determination
is made and by whom. This will allow the entity to clearly define the starting point for the associated timelines.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
As drafted, the objectives cannot practically be met in a cost effective manner. For example, Tri-State receives around 912,800 attempts per hour on the
business network perimeter firewalls. The drafted language could require Tri-State to report on each of those "attempts" which would dramatically
increase personnel and record keeping obligations. Additionally, due to the nature of those we would only be able to provide limited information in
reporting, which would likely not be enough information for NERC to achieve their objectives.
However, if the modifications proposed in Comments 1 and 4 were incorporated, this would provide Tri-State with flexibility to meet the reliability
objectives in a cost effective manner.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Given thate the new definitions would create big amount of unnecessary reportable cyber security incidents, the compliance management cost will be
going up largely. See our comments in question 1.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The NSRF agrees the changes to the standard provide flexibility but we are concerned that there is too much flexibility for interpretation. Auditors and
entities may not agree on the definition of “attempt to compromise.” We suggest additional guidance from the SDT. This could be in the form of the
Guidelines and Technical Basis section or a technical rationale document. We would offer the following examples as a starting point for a more
complete list.
An “attempt to compromise” could be defined as an act with malicious intent to gain access or to cause harm to the normal operation of a Cyber
Asset or a PSP.
Actions that are not an attempt to compromise a Cyber Asset electronically:
An entity’s own equipment scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence.
Broadcast traffic as part of normal network traffic. A firewall may block and log this traffic but it does not have malicious intent.
Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by user that fails due to human error.
Actions that are an attempt to compromise a Cyber Asset electronically:
Scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that is not approved by the entity’s management. This could be
from an entity’s own equipment due to an upstream compromise or malware.
Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by a user that fails due to not being authorized and intending to gain access where no approval
has been given.
The word “determination” in Part 4.3 is used relevant to reporting timelines. The standard should require a process to define how this determination
is made and by whom. This will allow the entity to clearly define the starting point for the associated timelines.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
Although the proposed modifications provide flexibility, adding EACMS to the applicable assets can be cost intensive as the Responsible Entity will
need to additional resources to review events that maybe determined to be Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incidents
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Given BC Hydro’s response and comments to Question #1, BC Hydro does not feel it is appropriate to comment.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
I agree the changes to the standard provide flexibility but I am concerned that there is too much flexibility for interpretation. Auditors and entities may
not agree on the definition of “attempt to compromise.” I suggest additional guidance from the SDT. This could be in the form of the Guidelines and
Technical Basis section or a technical rationale document. I would offer the following examples as a starting point for a more complete list.
1. An “attempt to compromise” could be defined as an act with malicious intent to gain access or to cause harm to the normal operation of a Cyber
Asset or a PSP.
a.

Actions that are not an attempt to compromise a Cyber Asset electronically:

i.

An entity’s own equipment scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence.

ii.

Broadcast traffic as part of normal network traffic. A firewall may block and log this traffic but it does not have malicious intent.

iii.

Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by user that fails due to human error.

b.

Actions that are an attempt to compromise a Cyber Asset electronically:

i. Scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that is not approved by the entity’s management. This could be from an entity’s
own equipment due to an upstream compromise or malware.
ii.

Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by a user that fails due to not being authorized and intending to gain access where no approval has been given.

2. The word “determination” in Part 4.3 is used relevant to reporting timelines. The standard should require a process to define how this determination
is made and by whom. This will allow the entity to clearly define the starting point for the associated timelines.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The manner of reporting needs to be flexible. The use of Attachment 1 should not be mandatory because standards should be objective-based and not
technology-dependent. Parts 4.2 and 4.4 - Entities should be allowed to submit reports in any format as long as the report contains the same specified
fields of information as described in Attachment 1. We appreciate that the SDT confined the requirements for reporting to the three mandatory items
identified in the FERC Order.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Dependent on clarification of the term “attempted” as noted in Question 1, implementation of this Standard could be very cost prohibitive.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
SRP recommends providing additional guidance or define attempt. SRP agrees with the attachment form as an industry template for consistency. If
reporting attributes change within 5 days adds administration burden of having the template attachment completed. SRP recommends an adjustment to
"when the investigation is complete" so an investigation with all the facts are presented. There is a concern with more reports of Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incidents may dilute or mask actual real reports.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Oncor Electric Delivery - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The current broad nature of the required reporting could lead to excessive burdens in both reporting as well as analyzing the data. Narrowing the
definition of an attempt to only impactful attempts would result in a more cost effective Standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

9. Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.
Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
See comments of the ISO/RTO Council. Also, ERCOT thanks the SDT for their efforts on this revision.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Wendy Center - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends Requirement R1 Part 1.1 be changed

from:
One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

to:
One or more processes to identify, classify, handle, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

After the change to Requirement R1 Part 1.1 is made, change the measure in Requirement R1 Part 1.1

from:
An example of evidence may include, but is not limited to, dated documentation of Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that include the process to
identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
to:

An example of evidence may include, but is not limited to, dated documentation of Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that include the process to
identify, classify, handle, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents (e.g., containment, eradication, recovery/incident resolution).

When the change to Requirement R1 Part 1.1 measure is incorporated, remove Requirement R1 Part 1.4.

Reclamation also recommends changing the timeframe specified in Requirement R3 Part 3.2 to 90 days to align with the time allowed in Requirement
R3 Part 3.1.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,5,6, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports the comments provided by NRECA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer
Document Name
Comment
In Parts 4.3 and 4.4, Dominion Energy recommends clarifying that the determination is the entity's determination for the 5 day clock to begin.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC

Answer
Document Name
Comment
It is unrealistic to determine the intent of non-human surveillance and reconnaissance as these scans are not actual breach attempts against a
network. Port activity analysis using IDS/IPS monitors the potential malicious behavior above and beyond network noise.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
SRP recommends providing additional guidance or define attempt. Reporting if attributes change within 5 days will add administration burden of having
the template attachment completed. SRP recommends an adjustment to when the investigation is complete so a complete investigation with all the
facts are presented in the template attachment. There is a concern with more reports of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents may dilute or
mask actual real reports
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The new/updated standard must address overlap with the existing OE-417.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anton Vu - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 6

Answer
Document Name
Comment
The new/updated standard must address overlap with the existing OE-417.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Glenn Barry - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The new/updated Standard must address overlap with the existing OE-417.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The addition of EACMS functions creates a second definition of the term. If the five functions are what the SDT considers an EACMS to fulfill, the official
definition should be modified to include these to avoid differing interpretations of the term based on the Standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry Harbour - Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co. - 1
Answer
Document Name

Comment
Change terms to add “Successful” to Reportable “Successful” Cyber Security Incidents in each applicable Requirement/Measure and in CIP-003. Both
“Reportable” terms are a mouthful and inevitably will be abbreviated in discussions. This could cause confusion. Adding “Successful” to Reportable
Cyber Security Incident would more clearly delineate the difference and could simplify discussions about Cyber Security Incidents being described as
Successful or Attempts.
For Requirement part 1.2 (and its associated Measure), remove “and requires notification per Requirement R4.” This is redundant with R4. According to
the NERC webinar, the SDT’s intent was to remove “notification” from part 1.2
One stop approach – change Requirement 4 to require Registered Entities submit the Attachment 1 content to E-ISAC only. E-ISAC would anonymize
it, submit it to ICS-CERT and forward a copy of the submission to the reporting entity as evidence. This preserves confidentiality, simplifies reporting
and provides evidence. If Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents must be reported separately to
DHS’s ICS-CERT, what does NERC and the SDT propose to do to preserve confidentiality and to protect BES reliability from disclosed infrastructure
information when DHS is subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
For Requirement part 4.1, remove “Except for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter,.” This
requirement is about defining the content of the report, not defining which scenarios are reportable.
If Attachment 1 is mandatory and “unknown” is the only acceptable response when an attribute hasn’t been identified yet, please add an “Unknown”
checkbox to make it easier for entities who are dealing with an incident. References to “Click or tap here to enter text.” are out of place because they are
not functional and shouldn’t be there. It creates confusion. Attachment 2 Functional Impact examples should reference the reliability tasks referenced in
the NERC Functional Model. See footnote 19 on page 13 of the FERC order.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The proposed standard has the potential to create a significant auditing burden regarding “attempts to compromise,” which have no impact on reliability.
1. Similar to PRC-004 (normal operations vs. misoperations), there is a much larger population of negatives to prove out versus successful cyber
security attempts and incidents to report. PRC-004 audits have required entities to first show definitive documentation to prove a large number of
“operations” were classified correctly and were not “misoperations”. If a similar approach is used for this standard, entities will be required to prove the
much larger set of negatives before the regulator then audits the positives.

2. Similarly, clarity is needed as to what definitive documentation must be kept for how long for an entity to prove X number of CIP-008-6 “cyber
ventures or trials” were not successful CIP-008-6 cyber attempts or incidents.

Finally, the Guidelines and Technical Basis section needs to be updated to reflect the changes to the standard or the technical rationale document
needs to be available at the same time the standard is approved. Information in this area assists entities in understanding the intent of the limited
wording in the actual requirements. This information also aids entities and auditors when trying to resolve a difference of interpretation. Without this
information there is greater risk of an entity not obtaining compliance with the intent of the standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Adrian Andreoiu - BC Hydro and Power Authority - 1, Group Name BC Hydro
Answer
Document Name
Comment
BC Hydro requests explicit clarity on whether Physical Security Perimeter breaches alone without any established breach or compromise of any BES
Cyber Systems, ESPs, or EACMS would be considered a potential Reportable Cyber Security Incident. On the NERC led webinar on the CIP-008-6
proposed revisions of October 16, 2018, it was communicated that PSP breaches alone would not constitute a Reportable Cyber Security Incident,
however, Requirement 4.1 as written, implies that PSP breaches would constitute potential Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment
When an event is determined to be a Cyber Security Incident, the Responsible Entitiy needs to determine if it is a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or
a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. The SDT should consider retiring the term Cyber Security Incident. The modified Reportable Cyber
Security Incident and the proposed Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident definitions provide the identification and required notifications
required for the implementation of CIP-008-6.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The proposed standard has the potential to create a significant auditing burden regarding “attempts to compromise,” which have no impact on reliability.
1. Similar to PRC-004 (normal operations vs. misoperations), there is a much larger population of negatives to prove out versus successful cyber
security attempts and incidents to report. PRC-004 audits have required entities to first show definitive documentation to prove a large number of
“operations” were classified correctly and were not “misoperations”. If a similar approach is used for this standard, entities will be required to prove the
much larger set of negatives before the regulator then audits the positives.
2. Similarly, clarity is needed as to what definitive documentation must be kept for how long for an entity to prove X number of CIP-008-6 “cyber
ventures or trials” were not successful CIP-008-6 cyber attempts or incidents.
Finally, the Guidelines and Technical Basis section needs to be updated to reflect the changes to the standard or the technical rationale document
needs to be available at the same time the standard is approved. Information in this area assists entities in understanding the intent of the limited
wording in the actual requirements. This information also aids entities and auditors when trying to resolve a difference of interpretation. Without this
information there is greater risk of an entity not obtaining compliance with the intent of the standard.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
WEC Energy Group is concerned with information protection. The existing information protections that DHS ICS-CERT would use for
handling incidents reported to them are unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the reports submitted to DHS will be subject to FOIA
requests or whether DHS will make the information reported public. WEC Energy Group recommends clarifying how DHS will handle this
information prior to the enforcement date of the proposed Reliabiltiy Standard.

While WEC Energy Group recognizes that any decision regarding the approval of a Reliability Standard must be made on the clear language
of the standard, we also believe that having Implementation Guidance as developed by the SDT is an important element to the overall
standards development process. For this reason, we ask the SDT to post any Implementation Guidance they have developed with the next
ballot.

An additional area where we’d like to see further clarification is related to the definition of Cyber Security Incident. It includes compromise or
attempt to compromise (2) Physical Security Perimeter, yet PSPs aren’t mentioned anywhere else in the standard except to be explicitly
excluded in Requirement R4 part 4.1. We assume the linkage is to CIP-006 Requirement R1.5 and R1.7 which require generation of an alert to
Cyber Security Incident Response personnel in the event of detected unauthorized physical access to PSP or PACS. We would like the SDT
to spend more time on building and explaining the linkage, especially since CIP-006 only requires alert of an actual breach and the proposed
CIP-008 requires notification of breach attempts. Also, rationale for the exception in R4 part 4.1 would be helpful.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer
Document Name
Comment
1. It is difficult to determine attempts of compromise and SDT should clarify what constitutes an "attempt of compromise". Otherwise, registered entities
may have different interpretations resulting in the consistency issue.
2. The timeline statement in Part 4.2 should be moved to Part 4.3 since the Part 4.2 only addresses the notification methods. Also given that the
wording “responsible entities “never appears in the Parts, we suggest to remove “responsible entities “ from Part 4.2 and reword Part 4.2 as follows:
“One of the following methods for initial notification shall be used:
•

Electronic submission of Attachment 1;

•

Phone; or

•

Email. “

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ryan Walter - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Regarding Definitions and Reporting: For clarity on current-state reporting and direction for future unforeseen technology and methods, it would be
helpful if SDT could provide a list of examples of what would be considered a Reportable Cyber Security Incident versus an Attempt. The list would not

need to be all-inclusive of any potential threats, but would help with consistency and questions. For example, is phishing considered an attempt? The
list could be similar in format and methodology to EOP-004 Emergency Preparedness and Operations: Event Reporting.

Regarding R4 and Attachment 1: In order to effectuate recordkeeping, we suggest that after reporting has been submitted, the entity receives a
confirmation with a case number. In the event of future updates, the case number can be referenced to locate the records referenced and update the
corresponding information. This will also serve as a method to align recordkeeping and maintain evidence that submissions have been received.
Alternatively, and at a minimum, the reporting form should include some type of identifier that can be cross-referenced across updates, like a date field
(date of the incident, date it was identified, date it was originally reported, etc.)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer
Document Name
Comment
It would be useful if the implementation plan included several examples of instances where the SDT believe are reportable attemps to compromise or
disrupt the Electronic Access Control of Monitoring System or the operations of a BES Cyber System. Seattle City Light believes the possible
interpretation could be overly broad.
It was discussed on the SDT webinar that “anything out of the normal range of activity” should be considered an attempt. The example being discussed
was IP address scanning. One utility might receive random scans 10 times a day on average to a certain address and an other might experience 100
on average. A brighter line defining an attempt and/or examples would be helpful.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We suggest changing the language in “CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents” so that the wording is consistent
throughout its contents. Parts 4.2 and 4.4 use the terminology “Responsible Entities shall use…” in the “Requirements” column, whereas Parts 4.1 and
4.3 do not, nor do other standard requirements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Debra Boothe - Western Area Power Administration - NA - Not Applicable - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The proposed standard has the potential to create a significant burden on entities regarding “attempts to compromise,” which have no impact on
reliability and will hinder the entities ability to respond to real cyber incidents. The potential increase in investigation and reporting of incidents could
lead to a major compromise by allowing bad actors to feint attacks in one area to distract while simultaneously attacking in another area.
WAPA agrees with NSRFs additional comments and includes them with our own.
1. Similar to PRC-004 (normal operations vs. misoperations), there is a much larger population of negatives to prove out versus successful cyber
security attempts and incidents to report. PRC-004 audits have required entities to first show definitive documentation to prove a large number of
“operations” were classified correctly and were not “misoperations”. If a similar approach is used for this standard, entities will be required to prove the
much larger set of negatives before the regulator then audits the positives.
2. Similarly, clarity is needed as to what definitive documentation must be kept for how long for an entity to prove X number of CIP-008-6 “cyber
ventures or trials” were not successful CIP-008-6 cyber attempts or incidents.
Finally, the Guidelines and Technical Basis section needs to be updated to reflect the changes to the standard or the technical rationale document
needs to be available at the same time the standard is approved. Information in this area assists entities in understanding the intent of the limited
wording in the actual requirements. This information also aids entities and auditors when trying to resolve a difference of interpretation. Without this
information there is greater risk of an entity not obtaining compliance with the intent of the standard.
ALSO: Reclamation recommends the SDT provide clarifying information to distinguish between the requirements of R1 Part 1.1 and Part 1.4.
Therefore, Reclamation recommends Requirement R1 Part 1.1 be changed
From One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
to
One or more processes to:
·

Identify and classify Cyber Security Incidents.

·

Describe handling procedures related to Cyber Security Incidents.

When this change is incorporated, Reclamation also recommends removing requirement 1.4.
Reclamation also recommends specifying that records related to Requirement R2 Part 2.3 be maintained for 15 months following the initial date of
reporting the incident to the E-ISAC.
Reclamation also recommends the timeframes specified in Requirement 3 Part 3.2 coincide with the 90 days specified in Requirement R3 Part 3.1,
rather than 60 days.

Reclamation also recommends Requirement 4 not include a mandate for entities to notify the ISC-CERT. Replace “ISC-CERT” with the “U.S.
Department of Homeland Security” instead of any specific CERT entity within US DHS.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Our SMEs believe that responding to an attempted reportable incident should be included as way to test your plan once every 15 months in CIP-008-6
Table R2 2.1.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Where will reported data be stored?
How will the data be protected?
Who will be liable for a data breach at E-ISAC or ICS-Cert? Entities will have to spend much time and money to recover from a data breach and to resecure critical systems.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer
Document Name

Comment
While we believe this is a well-thought out modification to CIP-008, we still have concerns regarding the possibility of under or over-reporting as
compared to our peers and whether or not being outside of the normal reporting frequency (or bell curve) will create additional scrutiny from regulators.
While there is supposed to be a barrier between E-ISAC/ICS-CERT and auditing entities, NERC and the SDT should consider how this separation will
be enforced to reduce undue scrutiny for Responsible Entities (REs) who may have varying interpretations of what should and should not be reported.
Ensuring clear Implementation Guidance may address this concern.
The modification to R1.2 now includes a cross-reference to R4, which adds complexity to interpretation. We recommend this be a separate subrequirement or otherwise tied in to R4.
We noted that the main verbiage in Requirement 4 is structured differently than other CIP requirements which generally instruct REs to implement a
plan or process with more specific details included in a sub-part. That information (who to notify) should instead be incorporated into a sub-part for
consistency.
We are also concerned with information protection. The existing information protections that DHS ICS-CERT would use for handling incidents reported
to them are unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the reports submitted to DHS will be subject to FOIA requests or whether DHS will make the
information reported public. We recommend clarifying how DHS will handle this information prior to the enforcement date of the proposed Reliability
Standard.
While we recognize that any decision regarding the approval of a Reliability Standard must be made on the clear language of the standard, we also
believe that having Implementation Guidance as developed by the SDT is an important element to the overall standards development process. For this
reason, we ask the SDT to post any Implementation Guidance they have developed with the next ballot.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The Guidelines and Technical Basis in CIP-008-6 Draft 1 references a technical rationale document, but this has not been posted. While a technical
rationale is not enforceable and cannot change the language of the Standard, it can provide a context within which the understanding of the Standard
may change. This document needs to be posted for public review before comments on the revised language of CIP-008-6 Draft 1 will be meaningful.
CIP-008-6 R1 Part 1.2 requires the Incident Response Plan to include processes to determine whether an incident is reportable, but does not require a
documented process for notification. R4 does not require such a process either. However, the Measures for Part 1.2 reference “documented processes
for notification.” If the SDT intends that a process for notification be included in Part 1.2, this should be clearly stated in the Requirement language.
CIP-008-6 R4 Part 4.3’s Requirement section contains a parameter, not a Requirement. Suggested wording is, “Responsible Entities shall submit initial
notification in accordance with the following timeline: …”
The first sentence of the Requirement for CIP-008-6 R4 Part 4.4 requires submission of Attachment 1 updates for new or changed information. The
second sentence only requires submissions for new attribute information until all attributes have been reported. The second sentence is contradictory
and superfluous to the first sentence and should be deleted.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Texas RE recommends adding Attempted Reportable Cyber Security Incident to Requirement Parts 3.1 and 3.2 to be consistent with Requirement Part
2.2. If the Cyber Security Incident Response Plan(s) is to be used when responding to an Attempted Reportable Cyber Security Incident (Part 2.2), the
plan should also be reviewed and updated after responding (Parts 3.1 and 3.2).

With the addition of the definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident, Texas RE inquires as to whether that should be included in
Requirement Part 2.1. Is a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident considered a test of the entity’s plan?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer
Document Name
Comment
NRECA believes it’s unrealistic to determine the intent of non-human surveillance and reconnaissance as these scans are not actual breach attempts
against a networks. Port activity analysis using IDS/IPS monitors the potential malicious behavior above and beyond general network noise.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer
Document Name

Comment
Utility Services thinks that the not including "disrupt" in the definition of a Cyber Security Incident in the same way as it is included in the Reportable
Cyber Security Incident definition leaves the difference between "compromised" and "disrupted" open to interpretation. We poses that entity definitions
for "compromise" and "disrupt" should be included in the same way "programmable" is.
In R4, we are concerned with the phrase "or their successors", which could lead to required reporting to all companies or agencies that make a claim to
be successors to either E-ISAC or ICS-CERT. If ICS-CERT changes its name, it is still ICS-CERT. If needed, CIP-008 could be revised to reflect the
name change in its next update.
In M4, Utility Services is concerned that Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident is not included, only Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Since
R4 includes Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident , consistency would be better maintained if M4 included the term as well. On a different note,
the word “determined” within M4’s language seems superfluous since R1.2 uses “determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident ”.
We think the fact that, in R4.1, the exclusion of Physical Security Perimeter is confusing since the definition of Cyber Security Incident includes Physical
Security Perimeter but Reportable Cyber Security Incident does not. By this, a Cyber Security Incident including a compromise to a Physical Security
Perimeter and Electronic Security Perimeter would not need to be reported since it includes a Physical Security Perimeter. Additionally, in order to
maintain consistency with Attachment 1 and R4.2, we propose changing “attributes” to “attribute information”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We believe it’s unrealistic to determine the intent of non-human surveillance and reconnaissance as these scans are not actual breach attempts against
a networks. Port activity analysis using IDS/IPS monitors the potential malicious behavior above and beyond general network noise.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No comment
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Scott McGough - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
GSOC believes it’s unrealistic to determine the intent of non-human surveillance and reconnaissance as these scans are not actual breach attempts
against a networks. Port activity analysis using IDS/IPS monitors the potential malicious behavior above and beyond general network noise.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer
Document Name
Comment
See comments from the MRO NERC Standards Review Forum.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

E ISAC and ICS-CERT should provide incident reporting / information sharing portals for use by Responsible Entities that meet notification and attribute
submittal requirements in the proposed CIP 008-6 modifications.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steve Rawlinson - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Reporting should be simplified, such as the IP address and service or port that was blocked, and sent periodically (monthly or quarterly) for
use by E-ISAC and/or ICS-CERT for correlation across the industry. This simplified reporting would greatly reduce the burden on the entity
and still provide the reporting and data necessary to meet the intent of FERC Order No. 848.
Vectren is concerned with information protection. The existing information protections that DHS ICS-CERT would use for handling incidents
reported to them are unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the reports submitted to DHS will be subject to FOIA requests or whether
DHS will make the information reported public. Vectren recommends clarifying how DHS will handle this information prior to the enforcement
date of the proposed Reliabiltiy Standard.
Vectren is committed to the safety and reliability of the BES and committed to compliance excellence. We appreciate the efforts of the
Standard Drafting Team and will be glad to provide any additional detail upon request. Thank you for allowing Vectren the opportunity to
provide comments on this draft standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer
Document Name
Comment
CenterPoint Energy understands the objectives of the modifications and their alignment with the FERC directives. However, the concept of “Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident” is nebulous. There are past unsuccessful deliberations from attempting to require responsible entities to determine
intent as in the efforts to define and enforce “Sabotage Reporting.” The definitions and Requirement 4 have inconsistencies and concepts still to be
interpreted. The result of these modifications could be more reporting with little value.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Attempts to compromise connected systems happen thousands of times every second of every day. They are typically scripted, spoofed, and
performed by BOTNETs. BOTNETs can create thousands of attempts per second. Reporting these would be impossible and create significant burden
on the RE and NERC.
Thank you for allowing us to comment.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kelsi Rigby - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 5
Answer
Document Name

Revisions to R4.docx

Comment
AZPS recommends the change to R4 shown in the attached for clarity.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - 1,3,5 - NA - Not Applicable
Answer
Document Name
Comment
EEI is concerned with information protection. The existing information protections that DHS ICS-CERT would use for handling incidents reported to
them are unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the reports submitted to DHS will be subject to FOIA requests or whether DHS will make the

information reported public. EEI recommends clarifying how DHS will handle this information prior to the enforcement date of the proposed Reliabiltiy
Standard.
While EEI recognizes that any decision regarding the approval of a Reliability Standard must be made on the clear language of the standard, we also
believe that having Implementation Guidance as developed by the SDT is an important element to the overall standards development process. For this
reason, we ask the SDT to post any Implementation Guidance they have developed with the next ballot.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Douglas Johnson - American Transmission Company, LLC - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
ATC appreciates the SDT’s thoughtful approach to minimize, to the extent possible, modifications to existing language and the mindfulness of
unintended consequences. ATC requests that the SDT continue to focus on what, and not how to prevent CIP-008 from becoming overly prescriptive.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kenya Streeter - Edison International - Southern California Edison Company - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Please refer to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute on behalf of Southern California Edison
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer
Document Name

Comment
Part 1.2 – Remove: ‘…and requires notification per R4.4’ = redundant. You removed the 1 hour requirement in R1.2. Same things on the measures too.
*Section 215 INCLUDES PSP – NERC should not start to EXCLUDE it. Recommend striking the following statement from the language: “Except for
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter,” out of the language of the requirement.
Add a check box in the three fields for attributes, of “unknown” until all attributes have due to the term, “without attributes The ‘click or tap…’ section is
not listed in all three sections, as well as, it is not functional – suggest remove or repair.
Change terms to add “Successful” to Reportable “Successful” Cyber Security Incidents in each applicable Requirement/Measure and in CIP-003. Both
“Reportable” terms are a mouthful and inevitably will be abbreviated in discussions. This could cause confusion. Adding “Successful” to Reportable
Cyber Security Incident would more clearly delineate the difference and could simplify discussions about Cyber Security Incidents being described as
Successful or Attempts.
For Requirement part 1.2 (and its associated Measure), remove “and requires notification per Requirement R4.” This is redundant with R4. According to
the NERC webinar, the SDT’s intent was to remove “notification” from part 1.2.

reporting to the three mandatory items identified in the FERC Order.
{C}1.

Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.

Comments:
Part 1.2 – Remove: ‘…and requires notification per R4.4’ = redundant. You removed the 1 hour requirement in R1.2. Same things on the measures too.

*Section 215 INCLUDES PSP – NERC should not start to EXCLUDE it. Recommend striking the following statement from the language: “Except for
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter,” out of the language of the requirement.

Add a check box in the three fields for attributes, of “unknown” until all attributes have due to the term, “without attributes The ‘click or tap…’ section is
not listed in all three sections, as well as, it is not functional – suggest remove or repair.

Change terms to add “Successful” to Reportable “Successful” Cyber Security Incidents in each applicable Requirement/Measure and in CIP-003. Both
“Reportable” terms are a mouthful and inevitably will be abbreviated in discussions. This could cause confusion. Adding “Successful” to Reportable
Cyber Security Incident would more clearly delineate the difference and could simplify discussions about Cyber Security Incidents being described as
Successful or Attempts.

For Requirement part 1.2 (and its associated Measure), remove “and requires notification per Requirement R4.” This is redundant with R4. According to
the NERC webinar, the SDT’s intent was to remove “notification” from part 1.2

One stop approach – change Requirement 4 to require Registered Entities submit the Attachment 1 content to E-ISAC only. E-ISAC would
anonymize it, submit it to ICS-CERT and forward a copy of the submission to the reporting entity as evidence. This preserves confidentiality, simplifies

reporting and provides evidence. If Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents must be reported
separately to DHS’s ICS-CERT, what does NERC and the SDT propose to do to preserve confidentiality and to protect BES reliability from disclosed
infrastructure information when DHS is subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
For Requirement part 4.1, remove “Except for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents compromising or disrupting a Physical Security Perimeter,.” This
requirement is about defining the content of the report, not defining which scenarios are reportable.
If Attachment 1 is mandatory and “unknown” is the only acceptable response when an attribute hasn’t been identified yet, please add an “Unknown”
checkbox to make it easier for entities who are dealing with an incident. References to “Click or tap here to enter text.” are out of place because they are
not functional and shouldn’t be there. It creates confusion. Attachment 2 Functional Impact examples should reference the reliability tasks referenced in
the NERC Functional Model. See footnote 19 on page 13 of the FERC order.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brenda Hampton - Luminant Mining Company LLC - 7, Group Name Luminant
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We appreciate the hard work of this standard drafting team and the extra burden placed on the team by the accelerated timeline. Our comments are
intended to support the team in providing the best solution to this issue with a balance between focusing on a response to the immediate threat,
providing timely notification to the appropriate agencies, and addressing the concern of an unwarranted breach of confidential information. - Vistra
Energy / Luminant
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
E ISAC and ICS-CERT should provide incident reporting / information sharing portals for use by Responsible Entities that meet notification and attribute
submittal requirements in the proposed CIP 008-6 modifications.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Douglas Webb - Douglas Webb On Behalf of: Allen Klassen, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Bryan Taggart, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Derek Brown,
Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Grant Wilkerson, Westar Energy, 6, 3, 1, 5; Harold Wyble, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5,
1, 3, 6; James McBee, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; Jennifer Flandermeyer, Great Plains Energy - Kansas
City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; John Carlson, Great Plains Energy - Kansas City Power and Light Co., 5, 1, 3, 6; - Douglas Webb
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Single-Point of Data Reporting
The companies are aware of the SDT’s discussions and the industry’s input regarding: E-ISAC acting as a single point of data acceptance, and E-ISAC
forwarding the data to ICS-CERT.
We also have listened to the industry’s appeal for an electronic method to submit the required data—an idea that we support. Nevertheless, the
companies also recognize there is a limitation of FERC not having regulatory authority to require E-ISAC develop and accept the data through an
electronic portal, nor ICS-CERT, for that matter.
With that being the case, and beyond the likely efficiency offered by single-point of data reporting, we have identified a specific concern we believe
weakens the proposed CIP-008 revisions; specifically, in the event an electronic, single point of reporting is unavailable to the industry, the proposed
CIP-008 revisions will require reallocation of scarce cyber security personnel resources from high-value analysis, monitoring, mitigation, and protection
activities to manage inefficient data reporting.
With the potential to weaken security because of reassignment of personnel, we highlight our concern and encourage the SDT to continue its efforts to
bring E-ISAC and ICS-CERT into the data submission and reporting methodology discussion.
(Note: “Scarce cyber security personnel resources” refers to the limited pool of available professionals to fill cyber security positions; it is not necessarily
a question of expanding cyber security staffs but the competition between all industries to hire trained, experienced, cyber security professionals that
can pass background checks.)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jack Cashin - American Public Power Association - 4
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The information protections that DHS ICS-CERT would use for handling incidents reported to them is not clear and causes concern for APPA. It
remains unclear whether the reports submitted to DHS will be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or whether DHS will consider the

reports public information. APPA believes NERC needs to understand how DHS will classify the data and what confidentiality provisions will be in place,
prior to making this an enforceable standard.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dennis Sismaet - Northern California Power Agency - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment
NCPA is in agreement with APPA and USI's comments. Thank you.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Cavote - PSEG - 1,3,5,6 - FRCC,RF, Group Name PSEG REs
Answer
Document Name
Comment
PSEG supports EEI's comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment

The California ISO supports the comments of the ISO/RTO Council Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Measure 4 and Requirement R4.1 imply but appear to be missing the insertion of the term “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Quintin Lee - Eversource Energy - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
NC
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The SDT should consider whether adding CIP Exceptional Circumstances to CIP-008 reporting would make sense given some incidents may make
reporting difficult for the timelines currently under consideration.

4.3 High Impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated:
·

EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated:
·

EACMS

Except when operating under CIP Exceptional Circumstances, theTimeline for initial notification will be:
·

One hour from the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

·

By the end of the next calendar day after a determination of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.

Examples of evidence may include, but are not limited to, dated documentation of notices to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT in the form of phone records for
preliminary notice or submissions through the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT approved methods, or Attachment 1 submissions.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1, Group Name Exelon Utilities
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Like many of our peers, Exelon has concerns regarding the standard not officially defining “attempts”. The drafting team should define parameters
where its apparent certain controls have been misused, for example, if authentication credentials were compromised. As well, the drafting team could
modify the language to instruct organizations to develop a program or process based on their unqiue characteristics for determining or classifying what
the entity classifies an attempt.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Laurie Williams - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Agree with the comments made by Lynn Goldstein for PNMR.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Ensure references to "Version 5 CIP Cyber Security Standards" is updated similar to changes made in CIP-002-6.
Recommend the SDT consider adding Physical Security Perimeter or Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) into the applicable systems for CIP008-6 to ensure any attempts, successful or unsuccessful to compromise the responsible entities PSP or associated PACS are obtained to gain a better
understanding of the full scope of cyber-related threats facing the Bulk-Electric Power System(s).
Disagree that Part 4.1 shoulde exclude incidents involving PSPs. The listed items could be applicable to a compromise of a PSP and such incidents
should be considered applicable to the entirety of R4.
In Attachment 2 for “Reporting Category” – “Update” field, the reference is to Part 4.2 but appears to be incorrect and should perhaps reference Part 4.4
instead.
As it relates to the SDT not updating the Guidelines & Technical Basis narrative to reflect the changes in CIP-008-6 due to the Technical Ratinale
project, it should be considered for removal or updates should be made accordingly. These sections are frequently used by industry and failing to
update them could lead to greater confusion.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Fred Frederick - Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Reporting should be simplified, such as the IP address and service or port that was blocked, and sent periodically (monthly or quarterly) for use by EISAC and/or ICS-CERT for correlation across the industry. This simplified reporting would greatly reduce the burden on the entity and still provide the
reporting and data necessary to meet the intent of FERC Order No. 848.
Vectren is concerned with information protection. The existing information protections that DHS ICS-CERT would use for handling incidents reported to
them are unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the reports submitted to DHS will be subject to FOIA requests or whether DHS will make the

information reported public. Vectren recommends clarifying how DHS will handle this information prior to the enforcement date of the proposed
Reliabiltiy Standard.
Vectren is committed to the safety and reliability of the BES and committed to compliance excellence. We appreciate the efforts of the Standard
Drafting Team and will be glad to provide any additional detail upon request. Thank you for allowing Vectren the opportunity to provide comments on
this draft standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer
Document Name
Comment
In R4, Southern Company is unclear as to the meaning of “United States Responsible Entity.” Does this refer to where an entity is headquartered, or
does it refer to the location of the affected cyber systems? Additional clarification regarding the intent of this statement is requested in future revisions
of the draft.
Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for
ease of comparison by ensuring that each report includes specified fields of information. Southern Company is opposed to the SDT addressing the
“How” in the Standard. The requirements should dictate “What” information is required to be provided, and to whom, but not “How” entities provide
it. Examples of “How” should be deferred to implementation guidance, not imposed as requirements within the Standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

CIP-008-6
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber
Security Incident Reporting: Consideration of
Comments
November 2018

NERC | Report Title | Report Date
I

Table of Contents
Preface ...................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. iv
Background............................................................................................................................................................ iv
CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses ................................................................................ 5
Purpose................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Attachment 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Information Protection........................................................................................................................................... 6
Notification Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Attempts ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
PSPs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8
EACMS .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 10
VRF/VSLs for Requirement R4 .............................................................................................................................. 12
Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................................................................. 12
Other .................................................................................................................................................................... 13

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
ii

Preface
The vision for the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Enterprise, which is comprised of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the seven regional entities (REs), is a highly reliable and secure North American
Bulk-Power System (BPS). Our mission is to ensure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and
security of the grid.
The North American BPS is divided into seven RE boundaries, as shown below in the map and corresponding table.
The downward diagonal, multicolored area denotes overlap because some Load-Serving Entities participate in one
region while associated Transmission Owners/Operators participate in another.

FRCC

Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

MRO

Midwest Reliability Organization

NPCC

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

RF

ReliabilityFirst

SERC

SERC Reliability Corporation

Texas RE

Texas Reliability Entity

WECC

Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
iii

Introduction
Background
The Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting standards drafting team thanks all
commenters who submitted comments on the draft CIP-008-6 standard. This standard was posted for a 20-day public
comment period, ending Monday, October 22, 2018. Stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on the standards
and associated documents through a special electronic comment form. There were 86 sets of responses, including
comments from approximately 176 different people from approximately 116 companies, representing the 10
Industry Segments as shown in the table on the following pages.
All comments submitted may be reviewed in their original format on the standard’s project page.
If you feel that your comment has been overlooked, please let us know immediately. Our goal is to give every
comment serious consideration in this process. If you feel there has been an error or omission, you can contact the
NERC standards developer, Alison Oswald, at 404-446-9668 or at alison.oswald@nerc.net.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
iv

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses
Purpose
The Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting standards drafting team (SDT)
appreciates industry’s comments on the CIP-008-6 standard. The SDT reviewed all comments carefully and made
changes to the standard accordingly. The following pages are a summary of the comments received and the SDT’s
corresponding responses. If a specific comment was not addressed in the summary of comments, please contact the
NERC standards developer.

Definitions
Several commenters asked for clarity in the definitions for attempts to compromise, how BES Cyber Assets (BCAs)
are included, and the potential for having only one definition.
The SDT made changes to the requirements to clarify that the Responsible Entity determines attempt to compromise
through their processes for reporting. Verbiage has been added to CIP-008 R4, Part 4.2 that links the process to
determine reportability defined in CIP-008 R1, Part 1.2 to the obligation to report after the determination is made by
the Responsible Entity.
The SDT addressed BCAs by adding BCS to the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition. The team asserts that
the modification aligns with the intention of FERC Order 848 Paragraph 52 that describes BES Cyber Systems within
the ESP.
The SDT also reviewed the comments that addressed consolidating the definitions into one definition. The team
made the decision to remove the proposed Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident definition. Instead, CIP008 R4, Part 4.2 has been updated to include conditions for reporting Cyber Security Incidents that only attempt to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this part. The modification does not impact
the definitions of Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents that exist in both CIP-008 and CIP003, and eliminates the need for a standalone definition for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents.

Attachment 1
Many commenters expressed concern with requiring reporting to occur in the format of Attachment 1.
Based on comments received and consultation with representatives from the Electricity Information and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and the National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which is the successor
organization to the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT), the standard has been
updated such that Attachment 1, and the supporting instructions called Attachment 2 have been removed from the
standard and are no longer required. The form and instructions have been moved to draft Implementation Guidance
as an option for Responsible Entities to use at their discretion.
Many commenters expressed concern with the methods of submitting the three required attributes being
prescriptive and disagree with updates having to be submitted in only Attachment 1 form.
The SDT determined it was not necessary to define the method for notification, and the initial proposed Requirement
R4, Part 4.2 has been removed. Attachment 1 is no longer required, and has been moved into the draft
Implementation Guidance.
Some commenters mentioned that the new form should fit with other forms and existing reporting requirements
to avoid duplication (utilize EOP-004-4 and/or Department of Energy’s OE-417)
The SDT has removed the proposed requirement for utilizing the proposed Attachment 1. However, the SDT
determined not to modify existing reporting forms, such as OE-417, because Order No. 848 noted that this form did
not request information that FERC directed the SDT to require in CIP-008. Nonetheless the SDT notes that entities

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
5

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

may consider synchronizing their reporting processes as long as all information that is required to be reported is
submitted to appropriate agencies.
Some commenters would like to leverage reporting to a single agency as an intermediary to the other agency.
The SDT thanks you for your comment, however the SDT asserts that the proposed reliability standard is responsive
to FERC Order 848 and that this is outside of the scope of the SAR.

Information Protection
One initial point of clarification: ICS-CERT functions are now handled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
National Cybersecurity and Communication Integration Center (NCCIC) and incident reports will be submitted
through existing NCCIC incident reporting mechanism rather than anything specific to ICS-CERT. Any future
references will be to NCCIC, which is ICS-CERT’s successor organization.
Many commenters expressed concern over information protection once information is submitted to E-ISAC and
NCCIC.
During the meeting the SDT submitted these concerns to both the E-ISAC and NCCIC. Both organizations assured the
SDT that they have multiple ways to secure information that is submitted. Options include:
o
o

Utilizing a secure/encrypted portal; or
Encrypted e-mail (via Pretty Good Privacy – PGP)

Please note the following answers are directly from DHS.
Many commenters expressed concern if DHS will make the information reported public.
DHS will not attribute any information back to an entity but may incorporate the non-attributable and anonymized
information into publicly available products to enable stronger cybersecurity protections and response activities for
similarly situated entities. Such use or incorporation will only be done without attribution to the original entity and
with the removal of any contextual information that could enable an entity’s identification, unless the entity expressly
agrees otherwise in writing.
Many commenters expressed concern about what confidentiality provisions will be in place for information
submitted to DHS.
DHS will not attribute any information back to an entity and will use cover names for the entity within the NCCIC to
protect the entity’s identity. Information submitted through email can be done so with the DHS PGP key to keep
information confidential. In addition, the web-based portal has security in place to protect information submitted
through that option.
Many commenters wanted assurances that phone conversations with DHS are confidential.
Submissions by phone are added to the incident management system as tickets and are entitled to the same
protections as submissions provided through email or web form.
Many commenters expressed concern over where reported data will be stored at DHS.
Data will be handled and stored with other sensitive incident reporting data the NCCIC receives and triages from
various public and private sector entities.
Many commenters asked who will be liable for a data breach at NCCIC.
DHS has no comment regarding this issue.
Many commenters expressed concern that the reports submitted to DHS will be subject to Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
6

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

DHS has successfully exempted similar information from FOIA in the past under various FOIA exemptions defined at
5 U.S.C. § 552(b), to include Exemption (b)(3) as specifically exempt from disclosure by statute, Exemption (b)(4) as
trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and Exemption (b)(7)(A)-(F)
as records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes. To the extent incident reports contain cyber
threat indicators and defensive measures that meet the definition of cyber threat indicator or defensive measure as
defined in the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, 6 U.S.C. § 1501-1510 (“CISA”), and that is provided in
accordance with CISA’s requirements, such information will be protected as provided by CISA (including protection
from release under FOIA). See the Non-Federal Entity CISA Sharing Guidance published by the Department of
Homeland
Security
and
the
Department
of
Justice,
available
at
https://www.uscert.gov/sites/default/files/ais_files/Non-Federal_Entity_Sharing_Guidance_%28Sec%20105%28a%29%29.pdf
Many commenters inquired if entities will receive confirmation receipt or other methods to ensure DHS received
information.
DHS will provide entities with a ticket number upon receipt of information.

Notification Approach
Many commenters suggested increasing the initial notification timeframe for attempts to compromise (which was
defined in the first proposed draft as a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident) from the next calendar day
to the next business day.
The SDT asserts the end of the next calendar day is sufficient time for notification. The preliminary notification is not
triggered until a Responsible Entity has made a determination on classification of reportability and does not require
all of the attributes to be identified if undetermined at the time of notification. The determination defines the start
time for reporting. Business day is a difficult term to define, particularly in 24x7 business environments. However,
the SDT asserts that the end of a calendar day is understood to be 11:59pm local time.
Some commenters suggested increasing the initial notification timeframe for Reportable Cyber Security Incident
from 1 hour to 2 hours.
FERC Order No. 848 instructs the SDT to consider risk when developing timeframes. The SDT asserts that the 1 hour
timeline is in alignment with previous versions of CIP-008, other FERC orders, and severity of the incident. This
standard does not require a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is
reportable. It does require preliminary notification, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report. The SDT also asserts that
means exist to provide simultaneous notification. The time required to notify additional entities does not begin until
the entity has made a determination that aligns with a reportable classification.
Many commenters suggested increasing the timeframe for updates to the three required attributes to within 7
days instead of 5 days.
The SDT has adopted this recommendation.
Many commenters expressed confusion that initial notification and updates are not required until an incident is
“determined” by an entity to be reportable or reportable attempted.
The SDT has added clarifying language in Requirement R4, Part 4.2 that refers to Requirement R1, Part 1.2, where
Responsible Entities define their process(es) for determination of reportability.

Attempts
Several commenters expressed concern about the determination of “attempts” and requested the SDT either
define “attempts” or provide clear examples within Implementation Guidance to aid the industry.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
7

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

The SDT asserts that it is to the industry’s benefit that CIP-008 leaves it up to each Responsible Entity to document a
process to determine what constitutes an “attempt”. The SDT further asserts that no two Responsible Entities are
alike and the determination of “attempts” is contextual and dependent on what is normal within each unique
organization. To define “attempt” could create an overly prescriptive and less risk-based approach and may have the
unintended consequence of undue administrative burden or removal of needed discretion and professional judgment
from subject matter experts. The SDT has developed proposed Implementation Guidance inclusive of several
examples in an effort to address this issue.
Some commenters suggested monthly reporting for minimal risk attempts to the ERO and questioned the value of
proposed reporting timeframes.
Thank you for your comment. The SDT asserts that the reporting timeline for attempts to compromise is in alignment
with FERC Order No. 848 and is in the spirit of timely reporting for information sharing.

PSPs
Commenters expressed confusion on how the standard relates to Physical Security Perimeters (PSP) and in some
instances requested the removal of PSP from the Cyber Security Incident definition.
Regarding PSPs, the currently enforceable definition of Cyber Security Incident includes malicious acts or suspicious
events that compromise, or attempt to compromise, PSPs. The currently-enforceable Reportable Cyber Security
Incident definition includes Cyber Security Incidents that have compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks
of a functional entity. As such, compromises or attempts to compromise PSPs could be reportable under the currently
enforceable standard and definition. The SDT understands the concern but determined not to lessen the reporting
obligation from that of the currently enforceable standard. In addition, the SDT reviewed the directives from FERC
Order No. 706 that directed NERC to take into account in CIP-008 a breach that may occur through cyber or physical
means. As a result, the SDT will not remove PSP from Cyber Security Incident. As an example, this issue is also
addressed in CIP-006-6, Requirement R1, Part 1.5, among others, where Responsible Entities must issue an alarm or
alert in response to detected unauthorized access through a physical access point into a Physical Security Perimeter
to the personnel identified in the BES Cyber Security Incident response plan within 15 minutes of detection.
Some commenters wanted to understand the omission of Physical Access Control Systems in the Applicable
Systems column of the standard.
The SDT asserts the modifications proposed are in response to FERC Order No. 848.

EACMS
Multiple commenters were concerned that the inclusion of the five functions modified the definition of Electronic
Access or Monitoring Control Systems (EAMCS) and either narrowed or broadened the scope of that definition.
The SDT considered comments regarding the inclusion of the five EACMS functions within the proposed revised
definition for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and what had been a new proposed definition for Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incidents in the first draft. The industry was divided on this subject in that some entities
view the inclusion of these functions as an attempt to modify or expand the scope of the existing EACMS definition
and want it stricken, while others view the inclusion as a limiting factor and prefer to retain the language in the
definitions. The SDT concluded that neither the inclusion nor exclusion affects the current definition of EACMS.
The SDT asserts that the inclusion of these five functions within this proposed definition is unnecessary and not
appropriate at this time. The SDT discussed at length both sides of the issue and decided to remove the five functions
for the following reasons:
1. The team has adjusted the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident and the Applicable Systems
column and requirement language for attempts to compromise to align directly with the FERC Order

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
8

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

Paragraph 54 and believes these five functions are the essence of an EACMS by the current definition and to
restate them is redundant.
2. The inclusion of these functions may create a new sub-classification EACMS resulting in potential confusion
and undue administrative burden for Responsible Entities to establish and implement new processes to
reclassify. This may unnecessarily complicate, create confusion, or introduce delay in timely information
sharing.
3. Regional inconsistencies with interpretation should be referred to NERC staff for evaluation of and
submission through the alignment tool. NERC Project 2016-02 is also in the process of modifications to the
NERC Glossary of Terms definitions for Interactive Remote Access, Intermediate Systems, and Electronic
Access Control or Monitoring Systems. Additionally, the Project 2018-02 SDT has decided not to modify
these terms due to their pervasive use throughout CIP Reliability Standards and the abbreviated timeline for
filing of CIP-008-6 as directed in FERC Order No. 848.
4. In addition, while the SDT understands the potential for opposing interpretation, the use of the words “at a
minimum” in FERC Order No. 848 Paragraph 54 suggest an intention to limit scope, which the SDT will
address within Technical Rationale and Interpretation Guidance.

The SDT reevaluated FERC Order No. 848 and asserts that these five functions align with the directive in Paragraph
54 and are also are consistent with the EACMS definition. By definition, EACMS are, “Cyber Assets that perform
electronic access control or electronic access monitoring of the Electronic Security Perimeter(s) (ESP) or BES Cyber
Systems. This includes Intermediate Systems.” When analyzing these five functions against this definition, the SDT
determined each function is traceable to a component of the EACMS definition. The following list is a mapping of the
five EACMS functions from the FERC directive to the current enforceable definition in demonstration of this
alignment.
An EACMS associated to a High or Medium impact-rated BES Cyber System (H/M BCS):
(1) performing an authentication function, constitutes a Cyber Asset that performs electronic access control of
the ESP or BES Cyber Systems;
(2) performing a monitoring and logging function constitutes a Cyber Asset that performs electronic access
monitoring of the ESP or BES Cyber Systems;
(3) performing an access control function constitutes a Cyber Asset that performs electronic access control of
the ESP or BES Cyber Systems;
(4) performing an Interactive Remote Access function constitutes a Cyber Asset that performs electronic access
control of the ESP or BES Cyber Systems; and
(5) performing an alerting function constitutes a Cyber Asset that performs electronic access monitoring of the
ESP or BES Cyber Systems.
Some commenters asked that the five functions be put in the Applicable Systems column or the requirement
language.
The SDT concluded that neither the inclusion nor exclusion affect the current definition of EACMS and chose not to
include the five functions in the Applicable Systems column. Please see justification above to support this decision.
Some commenters asked the SDT to modify the EACMS definition.
The SDT evaluated the potential impact and unintended consequences due to its pervasive use throughout the
standards and elected not to modify the EACMS definition.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
9

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

Commenters were concerned that adding EACMS to the Applicable Systems column was pulling in new monitoring
or alerting systems and creating a “hall of mirrors.”
The SDT is not modifying the existing definition of EACMS. Adding EACMS to the Applicable Systems column does not
change which Cyber Assets are classified under the currently-enforceable standard as EACMS.
Commenters suggested EACMS does not need to be in the definition if it is in the Applicable Systems column.
The SDT asserts that the presence of EACMS in the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition and the Applicable
Systems column provides clarity and aligns with FERC Order No. 848 to expand reporting to EACMS.

Implementation Plan
Multiple commenters stated a 12-month implementation phase is not sufficient to accommodate the increased
workload associated with increased reporting requirements.
The SDT considered comments related to the amount of time needed for successful implementation of the
modifications to CIP-008 (Project 2018-02) and agrees with the need for additional time to make the necessary
adjustments. Consequently, the SDT assert that an 18-month implementation timeline is necessary and appropriate
for the reasons provided below.
Impact on Small Business Entities
The FERC Directive (Order No. 848) was intended “to result in a measured broadening of the existing reporting
requirement” in CIP-008-5, and not create a “wholesale change in cyber incident reporting”.1 While this may be
true for larger electric utilities, the SDT considered the impact of increased reporting requirements on all NERCregulated entities and has determined that small-business entities – those with a limited customer base, lower
annual revenue/mile of transmission line, and located in rural areas – have fewer resources available to meet
increasingly granular requirements, as well as zero-consequence incidents.
Small entities are more susceptible to problems in hiring a number of problems in hiring and retaining
cybersecurity staff, including competitive salary, progressive career path, retiring employees, and smaller
applicant pools. Lack of trained staff results in increased costs for consulting services for system design and
architecture, professional engineering, network design and integration, and technical support. The budget
request process to secure consulting services, as well as the resulting recommendations for equipment, requires
preparation and justification, and appropriate time is needed.
While the Commission states that entities are already required to perform system security monitoring (CIP-007
Requirement R4), there are certain considerations for smaller entities that may have been overlooked. The
difference between logging events (per BES Cyber System or Cyber Asset capability) and reviewing the logged
events is significant. Smaller entities may have older equipment (decreased capabilities) and lower-impact BES
Cyber Systems (not high-impact which requires review/sampling of logged events) and the new requirements
create an increased need for securing additional resources (including trained professionals). For many entities,
including not-for-profits, budget approval cycles may exceed 12 months, and the timing of the effective date may
make the requirement difficult to achieve for these entities.
New or modified compliance documentation
All NERC-registered entities will bear the burden of developing updated documentation necessary to prove that
specific actions, processes, and standards are met, vetted, and approved. The documentation may include
updated roles and responsibility matrices, flowcharts, development and implementation of internal controls,

1

2018, RTO Insider, FERC Orders Expanded Cybersecurity Reporting, July 18, 2018. https://www.rtoinsider.com/fercnerc-cybersecurity-96423/
NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
10

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

appropriate evidence generation and retention schedules, as well as impact assessment and modification to
other existing programs.
In addition, most entities subject to CIP-008 are also required to document processes and report related incidents
to NERC, under EOP-004, and to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Recently, DOE updated its primary
reporting tool to incorporate questions that are or will be included in the NERC EOP-004 Reliability Standard
Event Reporting Form. With the changes to Form OE–417 if a respondent elects to have the form submitted to
NERC, the entity does not need to file an EOP–004 Event Reporting Form. Form OE–417 will now collect the same
information as EOP–004. By incorporating the same information, and aligning language across these two forms,
entities will only be required to submit Form OE–417. This will reduce the reporting burden for the electric power
industry.2
Unfortunately, the Commission specifically stated that it does not support adopting the DOE Form OE-417 as the
primary reporting tool for reporting Cyber Security Incidents because the reporting criteria in its directive are
distinguishable and more aligned with a risk management approach than the information requested in the DOE
Form OE-417.3 In addition, the accelerated (6-month) timeframe required to develop modified CIP-008 reporting
requirements did not provide the time needed for the SDT to develop a more cohesive reporting approach that
would satisfy EOP-004, CIP-008, and DOE in a single report. Therefore, entities are required to develop,
document, and implement multiple processes to report similar information to multiple entities. Again, for smaller
entities with limited staff resources, this effort may require more than 12 months to successfully achieve.
Enhanced End-User Training
In conjunction with development of new processes and associated documentation, all entities will be required to
revise and augment their current training programs, as well as find the time to adequately train all personnel
with key roles and responsibilities. This task is further complicated for small entities where the same person(s)
may bear the responsibility to identify, report, handle, and respond to the same or similar incidents to multiple
entities under multiple timelines – all while preserving the reliability of the BES. Appropriate time is needed to
fully evaluate time demands, level of risk, defined roles, and reporting responsibilities and then training, as
necessary to provide a sufficient level of assurance.
Responsible Entities would be best served if they are allowed to align the newly developed incident reporting
and response training on the entity’s current annual training cycle (CIP-004, Requirement R2).
Alignment with existing CIP-008 requirements:
In addition to an established annual training schedule, entities are required under CIP-008 Requirement R2 Part
2.1, to test their Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) on a 15-month schedule. An increased implementation
timeframe affords entities the opportunity to embed the plan updates, resulting from the new reporting
requirements, into their existing test schedule to achieve maximum benefit.
Network Architecture Modifications
With the additional scrutiny that Cyber Security Incidents involving attempts to compromise will likely require
due to the modifications to this standard and associated definitions, entities may consider modifying current
network architecture for EACMS and/or Intermediate Systems for Interactive Remote Access which may currently
be used for multi-impact BES Cyber Systems (i.e., for High, Medium, and Low impact). Splitting impacts used for
each EACMS and Interactive Remote Access solutions may reduce investigation and reporting burden by
decreasing the attack surface by taking low-impact BES Cyber Systems out of the equation. These changes will
2

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Agency Information Collection Extension With Changes,
Federal Register /Vol. 83, No. 7 /Wednesday, January 10, 2018 /Notices.
3

FERC Order 848 at Paragraph 73.
NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
11

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

require deployment of additional resources, modification of many existing security processes, potential
implementation of additional security controls, and coordination across large enterprises. Again, due to
budgeting cycles, availability of resources, and the need for additional training, the SDT asserts that greater than
12 months is needed to successfully achieve compliance.
A few commenters stated a six-month implementation phase would be sufficient.
The SDT asserts that an 18-month implementation timeline is appropriate (see above). While in certain instances, it
may be possible for some entities to implement in a shorter timeframe, the SDT asserts that entities are able to
voluntarily share this information at any time, including presently.

VRF/VSLs for Requirement R4
Some commenters noted that the Violation Severity Levels (VSLs) are administrative in nature, could cause
unnecessary violations, or should not have a Severe VSL.
The SDT notes that VSLs are considered for penalty sanctions after a violation has been determined based on the
language of the requirement. Pursuant to the VSL Guidelines based on the 2008 FERC "VSL Order," Violation Severity
Levels must have a severe category as VSLs represent degrees of compliance, not risk to the BES. A severe VSL means
that an entity did not meet the performance of the requirement, whereas lesser VSLs show that an entity met some
performance of the requirement but not all of the requirement. The SDT agrees that Requirement R4 is administrative
in nature so it assigned a “Lower” Violation Risk Factor to reflect the requirement's impact to reliability if violated.
However, this consideration does not factor into how VSLs are drafted.
Some commenters suggested the SDT move performance requirements into different VSL categories, such as
assigning failure to report what had been previously defined in the first proposed draft as Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incidents in the Moderate category and assigning a High VSL to failure to notify one of the agencies.
Based on the comments received, the SDT made several changes to the VSLs to incorporate feedback. The SDT revised
the Severe VSL to be a failure to take any action under the requirement and added a High VSL to capture when an
entity notifies one applicable agency of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident but did not notify the other agency. The
SDT also moved failure to report attempts to compromise (formerly defined as Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents) to the Moderate VSL and moved other VSLs regarding Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents to
Lower VSL.
Other commenters recommended changes to the VSLs, such as removing Attachment 1 or Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incidents.
The SDT determined that these comments were more appropriately addressed through considerations to revise the
standard or definitions as VSLs are reflections of the requirements and must use language from the standard. In
addition to revisions made in response to comments, the SDT revised the VSLs to conform to changes made to the
requirements, such as deleting references to Attachment 1, and retracting the definition for Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incidents and replacing it with requirement language for attempts to compromise, among others.
One commenter suggested revising the VSL to say an entity “did not accomplish initial notification.”
The SDT determined that the "failed to notify" language is consistent with how VSLs are often structured.

Cost Effectiveness
Many commenters expressed concern over the definition of attempts and what would be required to be reported.
These commenters noted that this could dramatically increase the workload for these entities and require
additional personnel to deal with the reporting requirements and timeframes.
The SDT asserts that CIP-008 is written in a way to allow entities to write a process to define an attempt that is
suitable for their organization. The reporting obligations are triggered by a Responsible Entity’s determination of
NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
12

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

reportable classification so it is meant to align with the Responsible Entity’s timeline and process(es) that define
reportability. The SDT asserts that the proposed 18-month implementation plan could work with entities’ budget
cycles should they determine a need for additional resources.

Other
Several commenters requested the Technical Rationale and Implementation Guidance document be made
available at the same time the standard is balloted to provide additional information, intent, examples, and
context for a clearer understanding of the requirements.
The SDT plans to post both draft Technical Rationale and draft Implementation Guidance at the time of the second
ballot posting.
Several commenters expressed concern about specifying the agency name “ICS-CERT” and “or their successors,”
and recommended either DHS or the new agency name be used to prevent confusion.
The SDT has replaced references to “ICS-CERT” with the name of its successor entity, the “National Cybersecurity &
Communications Integration Center” or “NCCIC” throughout CIP-008. The SDT retained the “or their successors”
language to account for any future organization changes.
Several commenters requested clarity regarding required records retention timeframes, including types of
documentation needed to demonstrate the number of “cyber ventures or trials” that were not successful
reportable attempts or incidents.
As provided in Section C. Compliance, Part 1.2 Evidence Retention of CIP-008, the Responsible Entity is required to
keep data or evidence to show compliance for three (3) calendar years, unless its Compliance Enforcement Agency
directs a longer period of time as part of an investigation. The SDT asserts that the type of documents to retain are
contingent upon each entity’s incident plan and associated processes.
Several commenters requested clarity regarding use of “United States” prefacing Responsible Entity in
Requirement R4.
The SDT’s intent was to exempt Canadian entities from reporting to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and
Requirement R4 has been modified to address this concern.
One commenter urged that references to “Version 5 CIP Cyber Security Standards” are updated similar to CIP-0026.
The SDT elected to make minor revisions to the background section. Project 2016-02 will make these conforming
changes to the entire suite of CIP standards at a later date.
One commenter suggested including a CIP Exceptional Circumstance (CEC) in CIP-008 with regard to the reporting
timeframes.
A general review of CEC is ongoing as part of the scope of Project 2016-02.
Several commenters suggested changing the 60-day requirement for changes to roles/responsibilities,
groups/individuals, or technology in Requirement Part 3.2, to 90-days as specified in Part 3.1.
The SDT asserts that modifications of these timeframes are outside of the SDT’s scope of work. No changes were
made to Requirement R3, and FERC Order No. 848 was silent regarding these Requirement Parts.
Several commenters suggested merging the requirements in Part 1.1 (One or more processes to identify, classify,
and respond to Cyber Security Incidents) and Part 1.4 (Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents)
into a new cumulative version of Part 1.1.
The SDT asserts that the only changes proposed to these Parts was to the Applicable Systems column and has elected
to make no additional changes to the existing approved language.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
13

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

Several commenters suggested eliminating use of the term “Responsible Entities” from Table 4, in order to align
with language used in the other Tables.
Based on this comment the SDT has eliminated the use in Requirement R4, Part 4.3. The SDT asserts that the term
“Responsible Entity” as used in part 4.2 is to clarify that the determination is made by the Responsible Entity in the
same manner done in previously approved Table 3, Requirement R3, Part 3.2.
One commenter suggested structuring Requirement R4 similarly to other standards and removing the notifiable
entities to a subpart within the Table.
The SDT asserts that Requirement R4, in its totality, covers reporting and listing the agencies in the parent
Requirement helps provide clarity with regard to the requirements without the added clutter of repeating the
agencies in multiple locations. Any concerns about missing the agency names should be satisfied by language
incorporated into the Measures.
One commenter suggested adding “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents” to Requirement R3, Parts 3.1
and 3.2, requiring update of the entity’s plan if it is used in response to an attempted incident.
Based on industry concern and lack of measurable statistics on the number of attempts that would be reportable as
a result of the proposed modifications, as well as the exclusion of Responsible Entity determined attempts to
compromise (formerly defined as Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents in the first proposed draft)
satisfying the plan testing requirements, the SDT declines to expand the requirements in Parts 3.1 and 3.2.
A commenter supports the methods of notification, but asks the standard drafting team to include a note in the
form to request receiving entities confirm receipt or provide another method of ensuring entities receive such a
confirmation.
The SDT asserts that directing E-ISAC or NCCIC to provide such confirmation is not within our purview. The obligation
for capturing and documenting required evidence of reporting is on the Responsible Entity. The proposed
requirements do not preclude the Responsible Entity from incorporating steps into their process to request
confirmation at the time of notification.
One commenter asked whether an actual “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” would be considered a
test of the entity’s plan under Requirement Part 2.1.
Thank you for your comment, the SDT intentionally excluded attempts to compromise (formerly defined as
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents in the first proposed draft) from Requirement R2, Part 2.1. Please see
Technical Rationale for justification.
Several commenters requested removal of cross-references in Parts 1.2 and 4.2.
The SDT asserts the cross-referencing provides clarity and beneficial reinforcement.
One commenter suggested periodic reporting (monthly or quarterly) should be simplified, such as the IP address
and service or port that was blocked, which would still provide the reporting and data necessary to meet the intent
of FERC Order No. 848.
The SDT asserts that periodic reporting would not provide the timely information required by the Commission and
that automated reporting would not clearly provide the required attributes.
One commenter felt that the concept of “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident” is nebulous and the
modifications could result in reporting with little value.
The Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident definition has been removed by the Standards Drafting team.
Instead, the team leveraged the existing Cyber Security Incident definition, and modified the proposed CIP-008 R4,
Part 4.2 language to qualify that attempts to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems”, including
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and their

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
14

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

associated EACMS, are reportable after the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented
process(es) in Requirement R1, Part 1.2.
One commenter noted that CIP-008-6 Requirement R1, Part 1.2 requires the Incident Response Plan to include
processes to determine whether an incident is reportable, but does not require a documented process for
notification, even though the measures for Part 1.2 reference “documented processes for notification.”
The SDT addressed this comment by making modifications to the proposed standard language in Requirement R1,
Part 1.2
One commenter stated that the Draft 1: CIP-008-6 Requirement R4, Part 4.3 contained a parameter and not a
requirement.
The SDT agrees and modified the wording in Part 4.3 (which is now Part 4.2)
One commenter stated that the term “compromise” and “disrupt” should be included in the entity definitions that
same way “programmable” is.
The SDT asserts this is outside the scope of Project 2018-02.
Several commenters raised concerns about inconsistency with the use of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident and the words determined within the Measures associated with Requirement R4.
The SDT removed the proposed Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident definition. Instead, the team
leveraged the existing Cyber Security Incident definition, and modified the proposed CIP-008 R4, Part 4.2 language
to qualify that attempts to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems”, including High Impact BES
Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS, are
reportable after the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented process(es) in Requirement
R1, Part 1.2. As a result of these modifications, the M4 verbiage was modified to match.
Several commenters raised concerns that the proposed standard has the potential to create a significant auditing
burden regarding “attempts to compromise,” which have no impact on reliability.
The SDT asserts that the new requirement for reporting attempts to compromise (formerly defined as Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident in the first proposed draft) carries a similar evidence requirement for currently
existing Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | November 2018
15

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Standard Development Timeline
This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will
be removed when the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board).

Description of Current Draft
This is the second draft of proposed standard for formal 15-day comment period.
Completed Actions

Date

Standards Committee approved Standard Authorization Request
(SAR) for posting

August 9, 2018

SAR posted for comment

August 10 –
September 10, 2018

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

Anticipated Actions

Date

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

5-day final ballot

January 2019

Board adoption

February 2019

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 1 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards
This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms:

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the, (1)Electronic Security Perimeter,
(2) Physical Security Perimeter, (3) Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems for
High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems; or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 2 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-6

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner
4.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 3 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.6 Transmission Operator
4.1.7 Transmission Owner
4.2.

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-6:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 4 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.
5.

Effective Dates:
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems. CIP003, CIP-004, CIP-005, CIP-006, CIP-007, CIP-008, CIP-009, CIP-010, and CIP-011
require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural controls to
mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in its documented processes,
but must address the applicable requirements in the table.
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it is commonly understood. For example, documented processes describing a
response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident response plans and recovery
plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an approach involving multiple
procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a particular subject matter. Examples in
the standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel
training program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could
also be referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply
any additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 5 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.



High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization processes.
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 6 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation
Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process to identify, classify, and
respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

EACMS

Page 7 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

One or more processes to:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that is determined to be only
an attempt to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column including justification for
attempt determination criteria and
documented processes for
notification.

1.2.1 Establish criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 Determine if an identified
Cyber Security Incident is:


A Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or



Only an attempt to
compromise one or
more systems
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for this Part;
and

1.2.3 Provide notification per
Requirement R4.
1.3

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

EACMS

The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Page 8 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.4

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

EACMS

Requirements
Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Page 9 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R2.

Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time
Operations].

M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of
the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and
Testing.

CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan at least once every 15
calendar months:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.






Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Page 10 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, Cyber
Security Incident that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for the
Part, or performing an exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Document deviations from the plan(s)
taken during the response to the
incident or exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this
Part.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incident that is determined
to be only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column.

Page 11 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 12 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 13 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
that the Responsible Entity determines
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
their associated:


EACMS

3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 14 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R4.

Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) 1, or
their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was only an attempt to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk
Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.

CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Initial notifications and updates shall
include the following attributes, at a
minimum, to the extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial notifications
and updates to the E-ISAC and NCCIC.

4.1.2 The attack vector used; and
4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and integrated like functions previously
performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).
Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 15 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


4.3

EACMS

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in Requirement
R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification
within the following timelines:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and NCCIC.



One hour after the determination
of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.



By the end of the next calendar day
after determination that a Cyber
Security Incident was only an
attempt to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for this Part.

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


Requirements

Provide updates within 7 calendar days of
determination of new or changed attribute
information required in Part 4.1

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of submissions to the
E-ISAC and NCCIC.

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

EACMS

Page 16 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1.

Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the ERO
or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall serve as
the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period since
the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for three
calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent audit
records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:


Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

None

Page 17 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. Table of Compliance Elements

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

R1

Long Term
Planning

Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)
OR

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”

Page 18 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity column for Part 1.2.
has developed a Cyber (1.2)
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
to provide notification
per Requirement R4.
(1.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
to establish criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise. (1.2)
R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months

Page 19 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

R3

Operations
Assessment

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan within greater

Moderate VSL
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual

High VSL

Severe VSL

months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

between tests of the
plan. (2.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.2
occurs. (2.2)

The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Cyber Security
Incidents that were
only an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for 2.3. (2.3)

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident

Page 20 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

High VSL

Severe VSL
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 90 calendar
days of any of the
Page 21 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL
within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days
of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

R4

Operations
Assessment

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was only an attempt
to compromise a
system identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for
Part 4.2 but failed to
notify or update E-

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was only an attempt
to compromise a
system identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column. (R4)

High VSL

Severe VSL

following changes that
the responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident but
failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

Page 22 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.3
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes within 7
days after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.3)

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Moderate VSL

High VSL
Requirement R4, Part
4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

Page 23 of 27

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.1
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes after
determination
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.1)

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 24 of 27

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
D. Regional Variances

None.
E. Interpretations

None.
F. Associated Documents

None.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Page 25 of 27

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to
“control center.”

2

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the
requirements and to bring the
compliance elements into conformance
with the latest guidelines for developing
compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business
judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a
Responsible Entity.
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to
Compliance Enforcement Authority.

3

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the
sentence pertaining to removing
component or system from service in
order to perform testing, in response to
FERC order issued September 30, 2009.

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for
Critical Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Update

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

Update

Page 26 of 27

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving
VRFs and VSLs revisions to certain CIP
standards.

6

TBD

Modified to address directives in FERC
Order No. 848

Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

Page 27 of 27

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Standard Development Timeline
This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will
be removed when the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board).

Description of Current Draft
This is the first second draft of proposed standard for formal 1520-day comment period.
Completed Actions

Date

Standards Committee approved Standard Authorization Request
(SAR) for posting

August 9, 2018

SAR posted for comment

August 10 –
September 10, 2018

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

Anticipated Actions

Date

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

5-day final ballot

January 2019

Board adoption

February 2019

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
October November
2018

Page 1 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards
This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms:

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the, (1) Electronic Security Perimeter,
or (2) Physical Security Perimeter or, (3) Electronic Access Control orf Monitoring
Systems for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems;, or ;
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber Ssystem.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs oOne or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
or
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems. (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting.
Proposed New Term:

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that wasan attempt to compromise or disrupt:
 One or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter; or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) that provide any of the
following functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control;
(4) Interactive Remote Access; or (5) alerting

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
October November
2018

Page 2 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-6

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner
4.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
October November
2018

Page 3 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.6 Transmission Operator
4.1.7 Transmission Owner
4.2.

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-6:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
October November
2018

Page 4 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.
5.

Effective Dates:
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems. CIP003, CIP-004, CIP-005, CIP-006, CIP-007, CIP-008, CIP-009, CIP-010, and CIP-011
require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural controls to
mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems. This suite of CIP Standards is referred to as the
Version 5 CIP Cyber Security Standards.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in its documented
processes, , but must address the applicable requirements in the table.
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it is commonly understood. For example, documented processes describing a
response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident response plans and recovery
plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an approach involving multiple
procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a particular subject matter. Examples in
the standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel
training program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could
also be referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply
any additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
October November
2018

Page 5 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.



High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization processes.
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
October November
2018

Page 6 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation
Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 7 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process to identify, classify, and
respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

EACMS

Page 8 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

One or more processes to:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that involvesis determined to
be only an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column includinges
justification for attempt
determination criteria Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incidents
and documented processes for
notification.

1.2.1 Establish criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 Ddetermine if an
identified Cyber Security
Incident is:


A a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or



Only an attempt to
compromise one or
more systems
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for this Part; a
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incident
and requires
notification per
Requirement R4and

1.2.11.2.3 Provide notification per
Requirement R4.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 9 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.3

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:

1.4

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


R2.

EACMS

Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time
Operations].

M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of
the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and
Testing.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 10 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:




2.2

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

EACMS

Measures

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident
that attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part, or
performing an exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Document deviations from the plan(s)
taken during the response to the
incident or exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Page 11 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.3

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this
Part.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incidents that involves is determined
to be only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column.

Page 12 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 13 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 14 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
that the Responsible Entity determines
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
their associated:


EACMS

3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 15 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R4.

Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) 1, or
their successors, Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and each
United States Responsible Entity also shall notify the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT),
or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and a Cyber Security Incident that was only an attempt to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” columnReportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents, unless
prohibited by law, in accordance withing to each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and integrated like functions previously
performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).
Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 16 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems

Requirements

Measures

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

Except for Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents compromising or disrupting a
Physical Security Perimeter, Iinitial
notifications and updates shall include the
following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial notifications
and updates to the E-ISAC and ICSCERTNCCIC. in the form of
Attachment 1 submissions.



EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and
4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

4.2

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Responsible Entities shall use one of the
following methods for initial notification:
 Electronic submission of
Attachment 1;
 Phone; or
 Email.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and ICS-CERT in the form of
electronic submissions of Attachment
1, phone records or email.

If Attachment 1 was not submitted for
initial notification, it must be submitted
within 5 calendar days of initial
notification, without attribute information
if undetermined at the time of submittal.

Page 17 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.23

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


4.34

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Requirements

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in Requirement
R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification
within the following timelinesTimeline for
initial notification:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and ICS-CERTNCCIC. in the form
of phone records for preliminary
notice or submissions through the EISAC and ICS-CERT approved
methods, or Attachment 1
submissions.



One hour from after the
determination of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar day
after a determination that a of a
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident was only an
attempt to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for this Part.

Responsible Entities shall submit Provide
Attachment 1 updates for the attributes
required in Part 4.1 within 75 calendar
days of determination of new or changed
attribute information required in Part 4.1.
Submissions must occur each time new
attribute information is available until all
attributes have been reported.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Attachment 1
submissions to the E-ISAC and ICSCERTNCCIC.

Page 18 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1.

Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the ERO
or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall serve as
the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period since
the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for three
calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent audit
records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:


None

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 19 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. Table of Compliance Elements

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

R1

Long Term
Planning

Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)
OR

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Reportable Attempted
a Cyber Security
Incidents that was
only an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the

Page 20 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity “Applicable Systems”
has developed a Cyber column for Part 1.2.
Security Incident
(1.2)
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
to provide notification
per Requirement R4.
(1.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
to establish criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise. (1.2)

R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Securit y
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months

Page 21 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
exceeding 16 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

Moderate VSL
exceeding 17 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

High VSL
exceeding 18 calendar
months between tests
of the plan. (2.1)

between tests of the
plan. (2.1)

OR

The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incidents that were
only an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for 2.3. (2.3)

The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
a Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.2
occurs. (2.2)
R3

Operations
Assessment

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and

OR

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within

Page 22 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
Incident response
plan within greater
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

High VSL

Severe VSL
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
Page 23 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL
each person or group
with a defined role
within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days
of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

R4

Operations
Assessment

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was only an attempt
to compromise a
system identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was only an attempt
to compromise a
system identified in

High VSL

Severe VSL

within 90 calendar
days of any of the
following changes that
the responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERTNCCIC, or
their successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident but
failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or ICSCERTNCCIC, or their
successors, within the

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or and ICS-CERTNCCIC,
or their successors, of
a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident. (R4)

Page 24 of 39

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
Part 4.2 but failed to
notify or update EISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.3
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes within 7
days after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Moderate VSL
the “Applicable
Systems” column. (R4)
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident but failed to
report on one or more
of the attributes
within the timeframes
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.4 after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.4)

High VSL
timeframes timelines
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.23. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Page 25 of 39

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.3)

Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
OR
Incident but failed to
The Responsible Entity report on one or more
notified E-ISAC and
of the attributes after
NCCIC, or their
determination of the
successors, of a
attribute pursuant to
Reportable Cyber
Requirement R4, Part
Security Incident or a 4.1.
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.1
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes after
determination
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.1)
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 26 of 39

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident and the
attributes within the
timeframes pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but
failed to submit the
form in Attachment 1.
(4.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security
Incident and the
attributes within the
timeframes pursuant
to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but
failed to use one of
the methods for initial
notification pursuant
Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 27 of 39

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

to Requirement R4,
Part 4.2.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
NovemberOctober 2018

Page 28 of 39

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
D. Regional Variances

None.
E. Interpretations

None.
F. Associated Documents

None.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
October November 2018

Page 29 of 39

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Guidelines and Technical Basis
Note: The Guidelines and Technical Basis section has not been revised as part of Project 201802. A separate technical rationale document has been created to cover Project 2018-02
revisions. Future edits to this section will be conducted through the Technical Rationale for
Reliability Standards Project and the Standards Drafting Process.
Section 4 – Scope of Applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Standards
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible
Entities to determine the scope of the applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard
applies. If the entity is registered as one or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1,
then the NERC CIP Cyber Security Standards apply. Note that there is a qualification in Section
4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of Distribution Providers to only those that own
certain types of systems and equipment listed in 4.2. Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by
the Responsible Entity, as qualified in Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the
standard. As specified in the exemption section 4.2.3.5, this standard does not apply to
Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems under
CIP-002-5’s categorization. In addition to the set of BES Facilities, Control Centers, and other
systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and equipment owned by
Distribution Providers. While the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES
characteristic, the additional use of the term BES here is meant to reinforce the scope of
applicability of these Facilities where it is used, especially in this applicability scoping section.
This in effect sets the scope of Facilities, systems, and equipment that is subject to the
standards.
Requirement R1:
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a
Cyber Security Incident response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at
http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling
Guide, Special Publication 800-61 revision 1, March 2008, online at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61-rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has
compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to
distinguish Reportable Cyber Security Incidents as one resulting in a necessary response action.
A response action can fall into one of two categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing
Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 30 of 39

Guidelines and Technical Basis
characteristic is whether or not action was taken in response to an event. Precautionary
measures that are not in response to any persistent damage or effects may be designated as
elective. All other response actions to avoid any persistent damage or adverse effects, which
include the activation of redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary
notice to the ES-ISAC within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is
reportable (not within one hour of the Cyber Security Incident, an important distinction). This
addition is in response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs
673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not require
a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable,
but at least preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan.
This includes the requirement in Part 2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The
testing requirements are specifically for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for
exercising the plan annually. Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill,
tabletop exercise, or full operational exercise. For more specific types of exercises, refer to the
FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four
types of discussion-based exercises: seminar, workshop, tabletop, and games. In particular, it
defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key personnel discussing simulated scenarios in an
informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans, policies, and
procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional
exercise, and full-scale exercise. It defines that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multijurisdictional, multi-discipline exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office, Emergency
operation centers, etc.) and ‘boots on the ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating
mock victims).”
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must
retain relevant records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of
specific types of evidence listed in the measure. Entities should refer to their handling
procedures to determine the types of evidence to retain and how to transport and store the
evidence. For further information in retaining incident records, refer to the NIST Guide to
Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response (SP800-86). The NIST guideline includes
a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing forensics.
Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are
two requirement parts that trigger plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2)
organizational or technology changes from Part 3.2.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 31 of 39

Guidelines and Technical Basis
The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber
Security Incident and involves the activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to
document lessons learned starts after the completion of the incident in recognition that
complex incidents on complex systems can take a few days or weeks to complete response
activities. The process of conducting lessons learned can involve the response team discussing
the incident to determine gaps or areas of improvement within the plan. Any documented
deviations from the plan from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible
to have a Reportable Cyber Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such
cases, the entity must retain documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated
with the Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)

1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and
distributing those updates. Entities should consider meeting with all of the individuals involved
in the incident and documenting the lessons learned as soon after the incident as possible. This
allows more time for making effective updates to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals,
and distributing those updates to the incident response team.
The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology
changes referenced in the plan and involves the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below.
Organizational changes include changes to the roles and responsibilities people have in the plan
or changes to the response groups or individuals. This may include changes to the names or
contact information listed in the plan. Technology changes affecting the plan may include
referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing systems.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 32 of 39

Guidelines and Technical Basis
1/1
Organization and
Technology Changes

3/1
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/1 - 3/1
Update Plan and Distribute Updates

1/1

3/1

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2

Rationale:
During the development of this standard, references to prior versions of the CIP standards and
rationale for the requirements and their parts were embedded within the standard. Upon BOT
approval, that information was moved to this section.
Rationale for R1:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to
the reliable operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides
feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber
Systems. Preventative activities can lower the number of incidents, but not all incidents can be
prevented. A preplanned incident response capability is therefore necessary for rapidly
detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction, mitigating the weaknesses that were
exploited, and restoring computing services. An enterprise or single incident response plan for
all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the Requirement. An organization may have a
common plan for multiple registered entities it owns.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry
feedback to more specifically describe required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed
to “respond to” for clarity.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part
only obligates entities to have a process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Also addresses the directive in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676 to report within
one hour (at least preliminarily).
Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 33 of 39

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the
interpretation that roles and responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming change to reference new defined term Cyber Security Incidents.

Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to
the reliable operation of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides
feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber
Systems. This requirement ensures implementation of the response plans. Requirement Part
2.3 ensures the retention of incident documentation for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an
incident occurs or when testing, but does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations
from the plan. It ensures the plan represents the actual response and does not exist for
documentation only. If a plan is written at a high enough level, then every action during the
response should not be subject to scrutiny. The plan will likely allow for the appropriate
variance in tactical decisions made by incident responders. Deviations from the plan can be
documented during the incident response or afterward as part of the review.
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response
plan’s effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s)
impacting a BES Cyber System.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for
review.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 34 of 39

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in
the Compliance Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s
response plan’s effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security
Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System. A separate plan is not required for those requirement
parts of the table applicable to High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems. If an entity has a
single Cyber Security Incident response plan and High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems,
then the additional requirements would apply to the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which
includes a directive to perform after-action review for tests or actual incidents and update the
plan based on lessons learned. Additional changes include specification of what it means to
review the plan and specification of changes that would require an update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons
learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to
update the plan in response to any changes. The modifications make clear the changes that
would require an update.
Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to
“control center.”

2

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the
requirements and to bring the
compliance elements into conformance
with the latest guidelines for developing
compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business
judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a
Responsible Entity.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Page 35 of 39

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to
Compliance Enforcement Authority.
3

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the
sentence pertaining to removing
component or system from service in
order to perform testing, in response to
FERC order issued September 30, 2009.

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for
Critical Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Update

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving
VRFs and VSLs revisions to certain CIP
standards.

6

10/4/18TBD

Modified to address directives in FERC
Order No. 848

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Update

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

Page 36 of 39

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

CIP-008-6 - Attachment 1
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form
Use this form to report Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incidents in accordance with CIP-008-6, Requirement R4.

Contact Information
Name:
Phone Number:

Incident Type
☐ Reportable Cyber Security Incident
☐ Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident

Reporting Category
☐ Initial Notification
☐

Update

Required Attribute Information
1. Attack Vector

☐

Initial

☐ Update

2. Functional Impact

☐ Initial

☐ Update

3. Level of Intrusion

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 37 of 39

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 - Attachment 2
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Attachment 2 provides instructions to aid in the completion of Attachment 1.
CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Contact
Information

Incident Type

Reporting
Category

Required
Attribute
Information

Field Name

Instructions

Name

Enter the First and Last Name of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Phone Number

Enter the Phone Number(s) of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if Attachment 1 includes information for a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

Reportable
Attempted Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if Attachment 1 includes information for a
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.

Initial
Notification

Check this box if Attachment 1 is being submitted to satisfy
initial notification obligations of Requirement R4 Part 4.2.

Update

Check this box if Attachment 1 is being submitted to satisfy
subsequent follow-up or update obligations of Requirement
R4 Part 4.2.

Attack Vector



If known, enter a narrative description of the Attack
Vector for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Attack Vector
fields)

Note: Do not check this box for incidents related solely to a
PSP(s).

Examples include, but are not limited to, malware, use of
stolen credentials, etc.
Attack Vector
Initial Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Attack Vector
If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
Update Checkbox select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 38 of 39

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Required
Attribute
Information

Field Name
Functional
Impact

(Functional
Impact fields)

Required
Attribute
Information

Instructions


If known, enter a narrative description of the functional
impact for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Examples include, but are not limited to, situational
awareness, dynamic response, ability to perform Real-time
Assessments, or Real-time monitoring etc.
Functional
Impact Initial
Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Functional
Impact Update
Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion



If known, enter a narrative description of the level of
intrusion for the compromise or attempt to compromise
to satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement
R4 Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Level of
Intrusion fields)

Examples include, but are not limited to, whether the
compromise or attempt to compromise occurred on
Applicable Systems outside the Electronic Security Perimeter
(ESP), at the ESP, or inside the ESP. Additionally, level of
intrusion may include the Applicable System impact level and
Cyber Asset classification level.
Level of Intrusion
Initial Checkbox

If Attachment 1 is being used to provide the preliminary
report, select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion If Attachment 1 is being used to provide an update report,
Update Checkbox select the ‘Update’ checkbox.

Draft 21 of CIP-008-6
OctoberNovember 2018

Page 39 of 39

Implementation Plan
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting | Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Applicable Standard


CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Requested Retirement


CIP-008-5 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Prerequisite Standard(s)
These standard(s) or definitions must be approved before the Applicable Standard becomes
effective: None
Applicable Entities


Balancing Authority



Distribution Provider



Generator Operator



Generator Owner



Reliability Coordinator



Transmission Operator



Transmission Owner

New Terms in the NERC Glossary of Terms
This section includes all newly defined, revised, or retired terms used or eliminated in the NERC
Reliability Standard. New or revised definitions listed below become approved when the proposed
standard is approved. When the standard becomes effective, these defined terms will be removed
from the individual standard and added to the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards.

Proposed Modified Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the, (1) Electronic Security Perimeter, (2)
Physical Security Perimeter, (3) Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems for High or
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems; or



Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.
Proposed Retirements of Approved Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, the Electronic Security Perimeter or
Physical Security Perimeter or,
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a
functional entity.
Background
The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 to augment
mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempted Cyber Security Incidents that
might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the Reliable Operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES).
FERC directed NERC to develop and submit modifications that would “require the reporting of
Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s
Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems
(EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the 4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by
ensuring that each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control
Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).
Effective Date

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | November 2018

2

Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the standard, or as otherwise
provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the date the
standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise provided for in that jurisdiction.
Definition
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the definition shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, or
as otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the definition shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the
date that Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise
provided for in that jurisdiction.
Retirement Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability
Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming effective.
Definition
The definitions proposed for retirement shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming
effective.

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | November 2018

3

Implementation Plan
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting | Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Applicable Standard


CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Requested Retirement


CIP-008-5 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Prerequisite Standard(s)
These standard(s) or definitions must be approved before the Applicable Standard becomes
effective: None
Applicable Entities


Balancing Authority



Distribution Provider



Generator Operator



Generator Owner



Reliability Coordinator



Transmission Operator



Transmission Owner

New Terms in the NERC Glossary of Terms
This section includes all newly defined, revised, or retired terms used or eliminated in the NERC
Reliability Standard. New or revised definitions listed below become approved when the proposed
standard is approved. When the standard becomes effective, these defined terms will be removed
from the individual standard and added to the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability
Standards.Glossary.
Proposed New Definition:
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that was determined by the Responsible Entity to be an attempt to
compromise or disrupt:
 A BES Cyber Asset(s) that perform Oone or more reliability tasks of a functional entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or



Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems. (EACMS) that provide any of the following
functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive
Remote Access; or (5) alerting

Proposed Modified Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter,
or (2) Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems for
High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems;, or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System Asset(s) that performs Oone or more reliability tasks of a functional
entity; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems. (EACMS) that provide any of the following
functions: (1) authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4) Interactive
Remote Access; or (5) alerting
Proposed Retirements of Approved Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, the Electronic Security Perimeter or
Physical Security Perimeter or,
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a
functional entity.
Background
The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 to augment
mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempted Cyber Security Incidents that
might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the Rreliable Ooperation of the Bulk Electric System
(BES). FERC directed NERC to develop and submit modifications that would “require the reporting
of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s
Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems
(EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the 4 elements outlined by FERC:

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | OctoberNovember 2018

2

1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by
ensuring that each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control
Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).
Effective Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 1812 calendar months after the
effective date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the standard, or as
otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 1812 calendar months after the date
the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise provided for in that
jurisdiction.
Definition
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the definition shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 1812 calendar months after the
effective date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving Reliability Standard CIP008-6, or as otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the definition shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 1812 calendar months after the
date that Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise
provided for in that jurisdiction.
Retirement Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability
Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming effective.

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | OctoberNovember 2018

3

Definition
The definitions proposed for retirement shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming
effective.

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | OctoberNovember 2018

4

Unofficial Comment Form

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting
Please note that this comment period is 15 days, with the ballot conducted the final 10 days.
Do not use this form for submitting comments. Use the Standards Balloting and Commenting System
(SBS) to submit comments on CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning by
8 p.m. Eastern, Thursday, November 29, 2018.
m. Eastern, Thursday, August 20, 2015
Additional information is available on the project page. If you have questions, contact Senior Standards
Developer, Alison Oswald (via email), or at 404-446-9668.
Background Information

The purpose of this project is to address the directives issued by FERC in Order No. 848 in order to
augment mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempts that might facilitate
subsequent efforts to harm the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC
to develop and submit modifications that would “require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or
associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the 4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber
Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).

Questions

1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) has an updated approach regarding new and modified terms. The
SDT is no longer proposing a new definition for reportable attempted cyber security incidents. The
defining concepts describing this event have been incorporated in proposed modifications to
Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1 and Part 1.2.2. The Responsible Entity will be required to establish criteria
to evaluate and define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to
compromise one or more applicable systems. The SDT is proposing modifications to Cyber Security
Incident as well as Reportable Cyber Security Incident. For Reportable Cyber Security Incident, the
SDT has determined it is prudent to include BES Cyber Systems (BCS) because of their criticality in
relation to ESPs. By including BCS in the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition, it shows that
Protected Cyber Assets (PCA) are not in scope for the proposed modification. Do you agree with the
proposed modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security
Incident? Please provide comments and alternate language, if possible.
Yes
No
Comments:
2. The SDT has added language in Requirement R1 Part 1.2. for the Responsible Entity to establish and
document criteria to evaluate and define attempts in their Cyber Security Incident response plan(s).
Do you agree with this approach to allow the entity to define attempts for their unique situation?
Yes
No
Comments:
3. Do the changes clarify that the Responsible Entity must have a process to determine what is an
attempt to compromise and provide notification as stated in Requirement R1 Part 1.2 and
Requirement R4 Part 4.2? Please explain and provide comments.
Yes
No
Comments:
4. The SDT added Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) to applicable systems as
opposed to modifying the NERC Glossary EACMS definition to ensure the FERC Order No. 848
paragraph 54 directive to expand reporting requirements to EACMS was met without expanding the
scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that use the existing EACMS NERC
Glossary definition. Do you agree with the addition of EACMS to the applicable systems column in the
tables in CIP-008-6? Please provide comments and an alternate approach to addressing the directive,
if possible.
Yes
No
Comments:
Unofficial Comment Form
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 | November 2018

2

5. Do you agree with reporting timeframes included Requirement R4 Part 4.2 and Part 4.3 which include
an increase in reporting timeframe from 5 to 7 calendar days in Part 4.3? Please explain and provide
comments.
Yes
No
Comments:
6. Do you agree with the SDT’s decision to give the responsible entity the flexibility to determine
notification methods in their process? Please explain and provide comments.
Yes
No
Comments:
7. Based on feedback the SDT has adjusted the Implementation Plan timeframe from 12 to 18 months. In
the Consideration of Comments Summary Report the SDT justified this change. Do you support the
rationale to move to an 18-month Implementation Plan? Please explain and provide comments.
Yes
No
Comments:
8. Although not balloted, do you agree with the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for
Requirement R1 and R4? Please explain and provide comments.
Yes
No
Comments:
9. The SDT proposes that the modifications in CIP-008-6 provide entities with flexibility to meet the
reliability objectives in a cost effective manner. Do you agree? If you do not agree, or if you agree but
have suggestions for improvement to enable more cost effective approaches, please provide your
recommendation and, if appropriate, technical or procedural justification.
Yes
No
Comments:
10. Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.
Comments:

Unofficial Comment Form
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 | November 2018

3

Violation Risk Factor and Violation Severity Level Justification
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

This document provides the standard drafting team’s (SDT’s) justification for assignment of violation risk factors (VRFs) and violation severity
levels (VSLs) for each requirement in CIP-008-6. Each requirement is assigned a VRF and a VSL. These elements support the determination of
an initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of requirements in FERC-approved Reliability Standards, as defined in
the Electric Reliability Organizations (ERO) Sanction Guidelines. The SDT applied the following NERC criteria and FERC Guidelines when
developing the VRFs and VSLs for the requirements.

NERC Criteria for Violation Risk Factors
High Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of
failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a
planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly
cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System
at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition.
Medium Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively
monitor and control the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is unlikely to lead to Bulk Electric System
instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal,
or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly and adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is
unlikely, under emergency, abnormal, or restoration conditions anticipated by the preparations, to lead to Bulk Electric System instability,
separation, or cascading failures, nor to hinder restoration to a normal condition.

Lower Risk Requirement

A requirement that is administrative in nature and a requirement that, if violated, would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical
state or capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk Electric System; or, a requirement that
is administrative in nature and a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, would not, under the emergency, abnormal, or
restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

FERC Guidelines for Violation Risk Factors
Guideline (1) – Consistency with the Conclusions of the Final Blackout Report

FERC seeks to ensure that VRFs assigned to Requirements of Reliability Standards in these identified areas appropriately reflect their historical
critical impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. In the VSL Order, FERC listed critical areas (from the Final Blackout Report) where
violations could severely affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System:


Emergency operations



Vegetation management



Operator personnel training



Protection systems and their coordination



Operating tools and backup facilities



Reactive power and voltage control



System modeling and data exchange



Communication protocol and facilities



Requirements to determine equipment ratings



Synchronized data recorders



Clearer criteria for operationally critical facilities



Appropriate use of transmission loading relief.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

2

Guideline (2) – Consistency within a Reliability Standard

FERC expects a rational connection between the sub-Requirement VRF assignments and the main Requirement VRF assignment.
Guideline (3) – Consistency among Reliability Standards

FERC expects the assignment of VRFs corresponding to Requirements that address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.
Guideline (4) – Consistency with NERC’s Definition of the Violation Risk Factor Level

Guideline (4) was developed to evaluate whether the assignment of a particular VRF level conforms to NERC’s definition of that risk level.
Guideline (5) – Treatment of Requirements that Co-mingle More Than One Obligation

Where a single Requirement co-mingles a higher risk reliability objective and a lesser risk reliability objective, the VRF assignment for such
Requirements must not be watered down to reflect the lower risk level associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

3

NERC Criteria for Violation Severity Levels
VSLs define the degree to which compliance with a requirement was not achieved. Each requirement must have at least one VSL. While it is
preferable to have four VSLs for each requirement, some requirements do not have multiple “degrees” of noncompliant performance and
may have only one, two, or three VSLs.
VSLs should be based on NERC’s overarching criteria shown in the table below:
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

The performance or product
measured almost meets the full
intent of the requirement.

The performance or product
measured meets the majority of
the intent of the requirement.

High VSL

The performance or product
measured does not meet the
majority of the intent of the
requirement, but does meet
some of the intent.

Severe VSL

The performance or product
measured does not
substantively meet the intent of
the requirement.

FERC Order of Violation Severity Levels
The FERC VSL guidelines are presented below, followed by an analysis of whether the VSLs proposed for each requirement in the standard
meet the FERC Guidelines for assessing VSLs:
Guideline (1) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Not Have the Unintended Consequence of Lowering the Current
Level of Compliance

Compare the VSLs to any prior levels of non-compliance and avoid significant changes that may encourage a lower level of compliance than
was required when levels of non-compliance were used.
Guideline (2) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Ensure Uniformity and Consistency in the Determination of
Penalties

A violation of a “binary” type requirement must be a “Severe” VSL.
Do not use ambiguous terms such as “minor” and “significant” to describe noncompliant performance.
Guideline (3) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Consistent with the Corresponding Requirement

VSLs should not expand on what is required in the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

4

Guideline (4) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Based on A Single Violation, Not on A Cumulative Number of
Violations

Unless otherwise stated in the requirement, each instance of non-compliance with a requirement is a separate violation. Section 4 of the
Sanction Guidelines states that assessing penalties on a per violation per day basis is the “default” for penalty calculations.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

5

VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VSL did not substantively change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard. Only minor revisions were made.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VSL did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

6

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

Lower
N/A

Moderate
N/A

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include the
roles and responsibilities of
Cyber Security Incident response
groups or individuals. (1.3)

The Responsible Entity has not
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan with one
or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include
incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents. (1.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to provide
notification per Requirement
R4. (1.2)
OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to identify
Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 1.2. (1.2)

OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to establish
VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

7

criteria to evaluate and define
attempts to compromise. (1.2)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

8

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The proposed VSLs retain the VSLs from FERC-approved CIP-008-5 and add two VSLs to the High and
Severe categories to reflect new subparts 1.2.1 and 1.2.3. The two new VSLs are similar to currentlyapproved VSLs. As a result, the proposed VSLs do not lower the current level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

9

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

NERC VRF Discussion

A VRF of Lower is being proposed for this requirement.
A VRF of lower is appropriate due to the fact that the requirement is associated with reporting obligations,
not response to Cyber Security Incident(s), Reportable Cyber Security Incident(s), or Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident(s). If violated, is administrative and would not be expected to
adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the bulk electric system.

FERC VRF G1 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 1- Consistency
with Blackout Report
FERC VRF G2 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 2- Consistency
within a Reliability Standard
FERC VRF G3 Discussion

The proposed VRF is consistent among other FERC approved VRF’s within the standard.

Guideline 3- Consistency
among Reliability Standards

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

10

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

FERC VRF G4 Discussion

The team relied on NERC’s definition of lower risk requirement.

Guideline 4- Consistency
with NERC Definitions of
VRFs
FERC VRF G5 Discussion
Guideline 5- Treatment of
Requirements that Comingle More than One
Obligation

Failure to report would not, under Emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the
preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric System,
or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.2 but failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, within the timelines
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column.
(R4)

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident but
failed to notify or update E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their successors,
within the timelines pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

11

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower
OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.3 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
within 7 days after
determination of the attribute(s)
not reported pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1. (4.3)

Moderate

High

Severe

successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.1 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
after determination pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1. (4.1)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

12

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

High

Severe

13

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The requirement is new. Therefore, the proposed VSLs do not have the unintended consequence of
lowering the level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

14

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018

15

Violation Risk Factor and Violation Severity Level Justification
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

This document provides the standard drafting team’s (SDT’s) justification for assignment of violation risk factors (VRFs) and violation severity
levels (VSLs) for each requirement in CIP-008-6[Project Number and Name or Standard Number]. Each requirement is assigned a VRF and a
VSL. These elements support the determination of an initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of requirements in
FERC-approved Reliability Standards, as defined in the Electric Reliability Organizations (ERO) Sanction Guidelines. The SDT applied the
following NERC criteria and FERC Guidelines when developing the VRFs and VSLs for the requirements.

NERC Criteria for Violation Risk Factors
High Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of
failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a
planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly
cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System
at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition.
Medium Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively
monitor and control the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is unlikely to lead to Bulk Electric System
instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal,
or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly and adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is
unlikely, under emergency, abnormal, or restoration conditions anticipated by the preparations, to lead to Bulk Electric System instability,
separation, or cascading failures, nor to hinder restoration to a normal condition.

Lower Risk Requirement

A requirement that is administrative in nature and a requirement that, if violated, would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical
state or capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk Electric System; or, a requirement that
is administrative in nature and a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, would not, under the emergency, abnormal, or
restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

FERC Guidelines for Violation Risk Factors
Guideline (1) – Consistency with the Conclusions of the Final Blackout Report

FERC seeks to ensure that VRFs assigned to Requirements of Reliability Standards in these identified areas appropriately reflect their historical
critical impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. In the VSL Order, FERC listed critical areas (from the Final Blackout Report) where
violations could severely affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System:


Emergency operations



Vegetation management



Operator personnel training



Protection systems and their coordination



Operating tools and backup facilities



Reactive power and voltage control



System modeling and data exchange



Communication protocol and facilities



Requirements to determine equipment ratings



Synchronized data recorders



Clearer criteria for operationally critical facilities



Appropriate use of transmission loading relief.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

2

Guideline (2) – Consistency within a Reliability Standard

FERC expects a rational connection between the sub-Requirement VRF assignments and the main Requirement VRF assignment.
Guideline (3) – Consistency among Reliability Standards

FERC expects the assignment of VRFs corresponding to Requirements that address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.
Guideline (4) – Consistency with NERC’s Definition of the Violation Risk Factor Level

Guideline (4) was developed to evaluate whether the assignment of a particular VRF level conforms to NERC’s definition of that risk level.
Guideline (5) – Treatment of Requirements that Co-mingle More Than One Obligation

Where a single Requirement co-mingles a higher risk reliability objective and a lesser risk reliability objective, the VRF assignment for such
Requirements must not be watered down to reflect the lower risk level associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

3

NERC Criteria for Violation Severity Levels
VSLs define the degree to which compliance with a requirement was not achieved. Each requirement must have at least one VSL. While it is
preferable to have four VSLs for each requirement, some requirements do not have multiple “degrees” of noncompliant performance and
may have only one, two, or three VSLs.
VSLs should be based on NERC’s overarching criteria shown in the table below:
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

The performance or product
measured almost meets the full
intent of the requirement.

The performance or product
measured meets the majority of
the intent of the requirement.

High VSL

The performance or product
measured does not meet the
majority of the intent of the
requirement, but does meet
some of the intent.

Severe VSL

The performance or product
measured does not
substantively meet the intent of
the requirement.

FERC Order of Violation Severity Levels
The FERC VSL guidelines are presented below, followed by an analysis of whether the VSLs proposed for each requirement in the standard
meet the FERC Guidelines for assessing VSLs:
Guideline (1) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Not Have the Unintended Consequence of Lowering the Current
Level of Compliance

Compare the VSLs to any prior levels of non-compliance and avoid significant changes that may encourage a lower level of compliance than
was required when levels of non-compliance were used.
Guideline (2) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Ensure Uniformity and Consistency in the Determination of
Penalties

A violation of a “binary” type requirement must be a “Severe” VSL.
Do not use ambiguous terms such as “minor” and “significant” to describe noncompliant performance.
Guideline (3) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Consistent with the Corresponding Requirement

VSLs should not expand on what is required in the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

4

Guideline (4) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Based on A Single Violation, Not on A Cumulative Number of
Violations

Unless otherwise stated in the requirement, each instance of non-compliance with a requirement is a separate violation. Section 4 of the
Sanction Guidelines states that assessing penalties on a per violation per day basis is the “default” for penalty calculations.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

5

VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VSL did not substantively change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard. Only minor revisions were made.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VSL did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

6

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

Lower
N/A

Moderate
N/A

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include the
roles and responsibilities of
Cyber Security Incident response
groups or individuals. (1.3)

The Responsible Entity has not
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan with one
or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include
incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents. (1.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to provide
notification per Requirement
R4. (1.2)
OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to identify
Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 1.2. (1.2)

OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to establish
VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

7

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

criteria to evaluate and define
attempts to compromise. (1.2)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

8

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

9

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The proposed VSLs retain the VSLs from FERC-approved CIP-008-5 and add two VSLs to the High and
Severe categories to reflect new subparts 1.2.1 and 1.2.3. The two new VSLs are similar to currentlyapproved VSLs. As a result, the proposed VSLs do not lower the current level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

10

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

NERC VRF Discussion

A VRF of Lower is being proposed for this requirement.
The VRF is being established for this requirement. A VRF of lower is appropriate due to the fact that the
requirement is associated with reporting obligations, not response to Cyber Security Incident(s),
Reportable Cyber Security Incident(s), or Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident(s). If violated, is
administrative and would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the bulk
electric system.

FERC VRF G1 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 1- Consistency
with Blackout Report
FERC VRF G2 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 2- Consistency
within a Reliability Standard
FERC VRF G3 Discussion

The proposed VRF is consistent among other FERC approved VRF’s within the standard.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

11

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

Guideline 3- Consistency
among Reliability Standards
FERC VRF G4 Discussion

The team relied on NERC’s definition of lower risk requirement.

Guideline 4- Consistency
with NERC Definitions of
VRFs
FERC VRF G5 Discussion
Guideline 5- Treatment of
Requirements that Comingle More than One
Obligation

Failure to report would not, under Emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the
preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric System,
or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.2 but failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, within the timelines

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column.
(R4)

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERTNCCIC, or
their successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident but
failed to notify or update E-ISAC
or ICS-CERTNCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timeframes timelines pursuant

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or and ICSCERTNCCIC, or their successors,
of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident or Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security
Incident. (R4)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

12

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.3 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
within 7 days after
determination of the attribute(s)
not reported pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1. (4.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.1 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes

Moderate
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident but failed to
report on one or more of the
attributes within the timeframes
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Part 4.4 after determination of
the attribute(s) not reported
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Part 4.1. (4.4)

High

Severe

to Requirement R4, Part 4.23.
(4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident but failed to
report on one or more of the
attributes after determination of
the attribute pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

13

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

after determination pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1. (4.1)
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and the
attributes within the timeframes
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but failed to
submit the form in Attachment
1. (4.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or
Reportable Attempted Cyber
Security Incident and the
attributes within the timeframes
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Parts 4.1 and 4.3 but failed to
use one of the methods for
initial notification pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.2.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

14

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The requirement is new. Therefore, the proposed VSLs does not have the unintended consequence of
lowering the level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs uses the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and isare, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

15

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | October November 2018

16

DRAFT
Cyber Security –
Incident Reporting
Technical Rationale and Justification for
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
November 2018

Table of Contents
Preface..................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................1
New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards ....................................................................................2
Proposed Modified Terms:.....................................................................................................................................2
Cyber Security Incident ......................................................................................................................................2
Reportable Cyber Security Incident ....................................................................................................................2
EACMS ...............................................................................................................................................................2
Requirements R1, R2, and R3 ....................................................................................................................................2
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and Requirement R3 .............................................2
Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4 .............................................................................................3
Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts ............................................................3
Requirement R4 ........................................................................................................................................................3
General Considerations for Requirement R4 ..........................................................................................................3
Required Reportable Incident Attributes................................................................................................................3
Methods for Submitting Notifications ....................................................................................................................3
Notification Timing ................................................................................................................................................4
Notification Updates ..............................................................................................................................................5
CIP-008 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis ....................................................................................6

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| November 2018
ii

Preface
The vision for the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Enterprise, which is comprised of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the seven Regional Entities (REs), is a highly reliable and secure North American
bulk power system (BPS). Our mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and
security of the grid.
The North American BPS is divided into seven RE boundaries as shown in the map and corresponding table below.
The multicolored area denotes overlap as some load-serving entities participate in one Region while associated
Transmission Owners/Operators participate in another.

FRCC

Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

MRO

Midwest Reliability Organization

NPCC

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

RF

ReliabilityFirst

SERC

SERC Reliability Corporation

Texas RE

Texas Reliability Entity

WECC

Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| November 2018
iii

Introduction
This document explains the technical rationale and justification for the proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6. It
provides stakeholders and the ERO Enterprise with an understanding of the technology and technical requirements
in the Reliability Standard. It also contains information on the Standard Drafting Team’s (SDT’s) intent in drafting the
requirements. This Technical Rationale and Justification for CIP-008-6 is not a Reliability Standard and should not be
considered mandatory and enforceable.
On July 19, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 848. In this
Order FERC directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to “develop and submit modifications
to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access and Control or
Monitoring System (EACMS).” (Order 848, Paragraph 1)
In response to the directive in Order No. 848, the Project 2018-02 SDT drafted Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to
require Responsible Entities to implement methods augmenting the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents
to include: “(1) responsible entities must report Cyber Security incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP; (2) required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include
certain minimum information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report included specified fields of information; (3) filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be
established once a compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption,
is identified by a responsible entity; and (4) Cyber Security Incident reports should continue to be sent to the
Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), rather than the Commission, but the reports should also
be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control System Cyber Emergency Response Team
(ICS-CERT).” (Order 848, Paragraph 3)

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| November 2018
1

New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
Proposed Modified Terms:
Cyber Security Incident
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) Physical
Security Perimeter, (3) Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems or;
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.
In response to FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, the SDT modified the Cyber Security Incident definition to included
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS) in response to the Order.
The addition of High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems considers the potential unintended consequences with
the use of the existing definition in CIP-003-7. It also assures clarity and the intent to exclude Low Impact from the
definition.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System.
The Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition was modified to comply with FERC Order 848. In response to
Paragraph 54 of the Order, the SDT modified the definition to include incidents that compromised or disrupted an
ESP or an EACMS. The team also added the qualifying clause for A BES Cyber System “that performs one or more
reliability tasks of a functional entity” to clarify what was compromised or disrupted, thus not extending the scope to
Protected Cyber Assets (PCAs).
EACMS
The drafting team spent significant time discussing this topic through industry outreach, among the team, and with
FERC staff. The team believes by not specifically referencing the 5 functions in the Order, we have reduced complexity
and made compliance with the Standard achievable. The drafting team asserts that the five functions are equivalent
to the current definition of EACMS in the NERC Glossary of Terms. If entities have questions about application of the
EACMS definition, the drafting team advises that entities please discuss those questions directly with NERC.

Requirements R1, R2, and R3
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and Requirement R3
FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, directs modifications to Reliability Standards to require reporting of incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS. The intent of the SDT was

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| November 2018
2

to minimize the changes within CIP-008 and address the required changes. To do this, the SDT added “and their
associated EACMS” to the “Applicable Systems” column for Requirements R1, R2, and R3.
To add clarity to “attempts to compromise,” the drafting team created Part 1.2.1 to require entities to establish and
document their process for defining attempts to compromise. This requirement maps to Requirement 4 Part 4.2,
which requires entities to use that entity-defined criteria for determining which incidents entities must report.
The use of the language regarding Cyber Security Incident(s) being “only an attempt to compromise one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part is meant to clarify the assets for which entities
are required to report attempts. This language is used throughout the standard.
Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4
To minimize the changes to Requirement R1, the SDT created Requirement R4 and consolidated all the CIP-008-6
reporting requirements. The SDT deleted the Requirement R1 Part 1.2 reporting requirements and moved them to
Requirement R4 for this purpose.
Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts
The SDT recognizes that organizations are constantly evolving to meet emerging needs, and may re-organize or
change their names over time. The ICS-CERT has completed its name change to the National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) Industrial Control Systems. The E-ISAC previously re-branded its name
and may again in the future. By following Requirement R4 references to E-ISAC and NCCIC with “or their successors”
the SDT is ensuring that Requirement R4 can be implemented even if the names of E-ISAC and NCCIC change or a
different agency takes over their current role.

Requirement R4
General Considerations for Requirement R4
Requirement R4 is a new requirement focused on mandatory reporting of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and
newly-defined Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents (refer to Proposed New Term, above). Previously, CIP008-5 defined reporting requirements for Reportable Cyber Security Requirements (Requirement R1 Part 1.2) only.
Required Reportable Incident Attributes
Requirement R4.1 specifies that initial notifications and updates must include three attributes: 1) functional impact,
2) attack vector used, and 3) level of intrusion achieved or attempted. These attributes are taken directly from the
Order. (FERC Order No. 848, paragraph 89).
The SDT understands that some or all of these attributes may be unknown at time of initial notification. To address
that, it added “to the extent known” to account for this scenario. There is an expectation that update reporting will
be done as new information is determined by the entity to fill-in unknown attributes.
Methods for Submitting Notifications
Requirement R4 Part 4.2 allows responsible entities to submit notification using any approved method supported by
E-ISAC and NCCIC. The SDT provided some latitude in reporting methods and format to allow responsible entities’
personnel to focus on incident response itself and not the methods and format of reporting. It is important to note
the report must contain the three attributes required in Requirement R4 Part 4.1 as they are known.

Notification Timing
Requirement R4 Part 4.2 specifies two timelines for initial notification submission; one hour for Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents; and end of next calendar day for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents. Paragraph 3 of
FERC Order No 848 directly states that reporting deadlines must be established. Paragraph 89 further states that
“timelines that are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES that loss, compromise, or misuse of those BES
Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.”




Reportable Cyber Security Incidents – The SDT wrote Requirement R4 Part R4.2 to use a one hour deadline
for reporting of these events because incidents in this category include successful penetrations of ESP(s),
EACMS, or BES Cyber Asset(s). One hour is referenced directly in FERC Order No 848 paragraph 89 and is also
the current reporting requirement in CIP-008-5.
Cyber Security Incident that was only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column - Due to the lower severity of these unsuccessful attempts at penetrating
ESP(s), EACMS, or BES Cyber Asset(s), the SDT proposed a longer reporting timeframe. The intent behind the
decision to add “By the end of the next calendar day (11:59 pm local time)” was to give responsible entities
additional time to gather facts prior to notifications for the less severe attempts to compromise Applicable
Systems.

The SDT understands initial notification may not have all the details when first submitted. It is expected, however,
that information that has been determined is reported within the notification deadlines. Additionally, it is important
to note the wording in Requirement R4 Part 4.2. The intent was for the timing of reporting to begin after the
Responsible Entity has determined that the incident meets the reporting threshold.
Technical rationale taken from the Guidelines and Technical Basis (GTB) CIP-008-5 Requirement 1 provides additional
justification for the SDT to maintain the one hour timeframe for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary notice to the
ES-ISAC within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable (not within one hour of
the Cyber Security Incident, an important distinction). This addition is in response to the directive addressing
this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily).
This standard does not require a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident
is reportable, but at least preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Back in 2007, the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) was known as the Electricity Sector
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). Its voluntary procedures required the reporting of a cyberincident within one hour of an incident. CIP-008-1 required entities to report to the ES-ISAC.
In FERC Order No. 7061 (July 18, 2008), the Commission concluded that the one-hour reporting limit was reasonable
[P 663]. The Commission further stated that it was leaving the details to NERC, but it wanted the reporting timeframe
to run from the “discovery” of the incident by the entity, and not the actual “occurrence” of the incident [P 664].
CIP-008-2 and CIP-008-3 were silent regarding the required timeframe for reporting, but it was specifically addressed
in CIP-008-5. In the October 26, 2012, redlined version of CIP-008-5, the proposed language for initial notification
originally specified “one hour from identification” of an incident. This aligned with the Commission’s decision in Order
No. 706, for the clock to start with the discovery of an incident. However, the Standard Drafting Team changed “one
1

2008, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection,
Order No. 706.

hour from identification” to “one hour from the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident”. This
language was subsequently approved and incorporated into CIP-008-5.
These changes, from “occurrence” to “discovery” to “determination,” provide the additional time needed for the
entity to apply its specifically created process(es) for determining whether a Cyber Security Incident rises to the level
of required reporting. This determination timeframe may include a preliminary investigation of the incident which
will provide useful information to other entities to help defend against similar attacks.

Notification Updates
Requirement R4 Part 4.3 requires that Responsible Entities submit updates for the required attributes upon
determination of new or changed attribute information. The SDT added this language to provide entities sufficient
time to determine attribute information, which may be unknown at the time of initial notification, and which may
change as more information is gathered. The intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.3 is to provide a method for responsible
entities to report new information over time as investigations progress. NOTE: The SDT does not intend updates
specified in Requirement R4. Part 4.3 to expose responsible entities to potential violations if, for example, initial and
updated notification on the same attribute have different information. This is expected since knowledge of attributes
may change as investigations proceed. Rather, the intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.3 is to have a mechanism to
report incident information to E-ISAC and NCCIC (ICS-CERT), or their successors, (and industry) upon determination
of each required attribute.
The entity’s process for reporting should contain a step to report until such time the entity has determined the
investigation process has concluded. This allows a “closure” of this incident. At this time there is a possibility that
because of circumstances, i.e. a Cyber Asset was restored completely, removing all forensic evidence in order to
restore operations, which caused the entity to conclude its investigation without having a complete knowledge of
the three required attributes. In this circumstance the intent is that the entity report what is known and document
the reason not all attributes could be reported.
The SDT asserts that nothing included in the new reporting Requirement R4, precludes the entity from continuing to
provide any voluntary sharing they may already be conducting today.

CIP-008 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible Entities to determine the
scope of the applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard applies. If the entity is
registered as one or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1, then the NERC CIP Cyber Security Standards
apply. Note that there is a qualification in Section 4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of Distribution
Providers to only those that own certain types of systems and equipment listed in 4.2. Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by the Responsible Entity,
as qualified in Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the standard. As specified in the exemption section
4.2.3.5, this standard does not apply to Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact or Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems under CIP-002-5’s categorization. In addition to the set of BES Facilities, Control Centers, and other
systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and equipment owned by Distribution Providers. While
the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES characteristic, the additional use of the term BES here is
meant to reinforce the scope of applicability of these Facilities where it is used, especially in this applicability scoping
section. This in effect sets the scope of Facilities, systems, and equipment that is subject to the standards.

Requirement R1:
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary notice to the ES-ISAC
within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable (not within one hour of the Cyber
Security Incident, an important distinction). This addition is in response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC
Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not
require a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable, but at least
preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based notice. The standard does not
require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.

Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan. This includes the
requirement in Part 2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The testing requirements are specifically
for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for exercising the plan
annually. Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill, tabletop exercise, or full operational exercise.
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain relevant
records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of evidence listed in
the measure.

Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are two
requirement parts that trigger plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2) organizational or
technology changes from Part 3.2.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6| November 2018
6

The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber Security
Incident and involves the activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to document lessons
learned starts after the completion of the incident in recognition that complex incidents on complex
systems can take a few days or weeks to complete response activities. It is possible to have a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such cases, the entity must retain
documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated with the Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)

1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents
The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and distributing those updates.
The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology changes referenced in the
plan and involves the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below. Organizational changes include changes to the roles
and responsibilities people have in the plan or changes to the response groups or individuals.

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2

Rationale for R1:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation
of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for
improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. Preventative activities can lower the number of
incidents, but not all incidents can be prevented. A preplanned incident response capability is therefore necessary
for rapidly detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction, mitigating the weaknesses that were exploited, and
restoring computing services.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry feedback to more
specifically describe required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed to “respond to” for
clarity.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part only obligates entities
to have a process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. Also addresses the directive in FERC Order No.
706, paragraphs 673 and 676 to report within one hour (at least preliminarily).
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the interpretation that roles
and responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming
change
to
reference

new

defined

term

Cyber

Security

Incidents.

Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation
of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for
improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. This requirement ensures implementation of the
response plans. Requirement Part 2.3 ensures the retention of incident documentation for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an incident occurs or
when testing, but does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations from the plan. It ensures the plan
represents the actual response and does not exist for documentation only.
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s effectiveness
and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for review.

Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in the Compliance Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s
effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System.
A separate plan is not required for those requirement parts of the table applicable to High or Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems. If an entity has a single Cyber Security Incident response plan and High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems, then the additional requirements would apply to the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which includes a directive to
perform after-action review for tests or actual incidents and update the plan based on lessons learned. Additional
changes include specification of what it means to review the plan and specification of changes that would require an
update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to update the plan in
response to any changes. The modifications make clear the changes that would require an update

DRAFT Implementation Guidance Pending
Submittal for ERO Enterprise Endorsement

DRAFT
Cyber Security –
Incident Reporting and
Response Planning
Implementation Guidance for
CIP-008-6

NERC | Report Title | Report Date
I

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Determination and Classification of Cyber Security Incidents .................................................................................. 7
Example of a Cyber Incident Classification Process ........................................................................................... 9
Sample Classification Schema ........................................................................................................................ 10
Examples of the use of the Sample Classification Schema .............................................................................. 12
Attempts to Compromise and Cyber Security Incidents......................................................................................... 18
Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Example of Sample Criteria to Evaluate and Define Attempts to Compromise ................................................ 21
Requirement R1.................................................................................................................................................... 23
General Considerations for R1 ....................................................................................................................... 23
Implementation Guidance for R1 ................................................................................................................... 24
Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2) ........................................ 24
Supporting Narrative Description of Sample Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security
Incidents (R1.1, R1.2) ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Roles and Responsibilities (R1.3) .................................................................................................................... 28
Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents (R1.4) ................................................................... 30
Requirement R2.................................................................................................................................................... 32
General Considerations for R2 ....................................................................................................................... 32
Implementation Guidance for R2 ................................................................................................................... 33
Acceptable Testing Methods .......................................................................................................................... 33
Requirement R3.................................................................................................................................................... 34
General Considerations for R3 ....................................................................................................................... 34
Implementation Guidance for R3 ................................................................................................................... 34
Requirement R4.................................................................................................................................................... 35
General Considerations for R4 ....................................................................................................................... 35
Implementation Guidance for R4 ................................................................................................................... 36
NCCIC Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Example of a Reporting Form ......................................................................................................................... 37
Instructions for Example of a Reporting Form ................................................................................................ 39

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
2

List of Figures
Figure 1 Relationship of Cyber Security Incidents....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Potential Approach Tool ............................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 Flow Diagram for Cyber Security Incidents ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4 Typical Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5 Example of Classification Schema .............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 6 Examples of the Use of the Classification Schema ...................................................................................... 15
Figure 7 Examples of Non-Reportable Cyber Incidents ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 8 Examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempt to compromise one or more applicable
systems ................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9 Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 10 Sample Process to Identify, Classify and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents .......................................... 25
Figure 11 NCCIC Reporting Attributes ..................................................................................................................... 36

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
3

Introduction
The Standards Project 2018-02 – Modifications to CIP-008 Standard Drafting Team (SDT) prepared this
Implementation Guidance to provide example approaches for compliance with the modifications to CIP008-6. Implementation Guidance does not prescribe the only approach, but highlights one or more
approaches that would be effective in achieving compliance with the standard. Because Implementation
Guidance only provides examples, entities may choose alternative approaches that better fit their
individual situations. 1
Responsible entities may find it useful to consider this Implementation Guidance document along with
the additional context and background provided in the SDT-developed Technical Rationale and
Justification for the modifications to CIP- 008-6.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) issued Order No. 848 on July 19, 2018,
calling for modifications to the NERC Reliability Standards to augment the mandatory reporting of Cyber
Security Incidents, including incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the reliable
operation of the BES.2 The Commission directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber
Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security
Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).3
The Commission’s directive consisted of four elements intended to augment the current Cyber Security
Incident reporting requirement: (1) responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS; (2) required
information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum information to improve
the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that each report includes specified
fields of information; (3) filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be established once a
compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption, is
identified by a responsible entity; and (4) Cyber Security Incident reports should continue to be sent to
the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), rather than the Commission, but the
reports should also be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) now known as NCCIC4. Further, NERC must file an annual,
public, and anonymized summary of the reports with the Commission.
The minimum attributes to be reported should include: (1) the functional impact, where possible to
determine, that the Cyber Security Incident achieved or attempted to achieve; (2) the attack vector that
was used to achieve or attempted to achieve the Cyber Security Incident; and (3) the level of intrusion
that was achieved or attempted as a result of the Cyber Security Incident.
The Project 2018-02 SDT drafted Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to require responsible entities to meet the
directives set forth in the Commission’s Order No. 848.
1

NERC’s Compliance Guidance Policy
16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5). The NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (June 12, 2018) (NERC Glossary) defines a Cyber
Security Incident as “A malicious act or suspicious event that: Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, the Electronic Security
Perimeter or Physical Security Perimeter or, Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.”
3 The NERC Glossary defines “ESP” as “[t]he logical border surrounding a network to which BES Cyber Systems are connected using a routable
protocol.” The NERC Glossary defines “EACMS” as “Cyber Assets that perform electronic access control or electronic access monitoring of the
Electronic Security Perimeter(s) or BES Cyber Systems. This includes Intermediate Systems.”
4 The DHS ICS-CERT underwent a reorganization and rebranding effort and is now known as the National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center (NCCIC).
2

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
4

Definitions
CIP-008-6 has two related definitions, as well as language for “attempts to compromise” that is specific to
CIP-008-6 within Requirement R1 Part 1.2.2. Cyber Security Incidents are not reportable until the
Responsible Entity determines one rises to the level of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or meets the
Responsible Entity’s established criteria pursuant to Requirement R1 Part 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. When these
thresholds are reached reporting to both E-ISAC and NCCIC (Formerly DHS’s ICS-CERT) is required. These
definitions and requirement language are cited below for reference when reading the implementation
guidance that follows.
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the (1) Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) Physical
Security Perimeter, (3) Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems for High or Medium Impact
BES Cyber Systems; or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.

CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable
Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES
One or more processes to:
Cyber Systems and
1.2.1 Establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise;
their associated:
1.2.2 Determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
 EACMS
 A Reportable Cyber Security Incident, or
Medium Impact
 Only an attempt to compromise one or more systems
BES Cyber Systems
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part;
and their
and
associated:


EACMS

1.2.3 Provide notification per Requirement R4.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
5

The determination of reportability for compromises or disruptions (by definition), or for attempts to
compromise (pursuant to the requirement language), becomes a function of applying criteria that builds
upon the parent definition of Cyber Security Incident.
The below Venn diagram illustrates the relationships between the elements of each definition, and the
Requirement R1 Part 1.2.2 requirement language. In this example, one potential option could be to
leverage the EACMS function descriptors noted in FERC Order 848 Paragraph 54 as criteria. This could
serve as an approach to assess operational impact and/or functionality of cybersecurity controls that
cause a Cyber Security Incident to rise to either level of reportability:

Figure 1 Relationship of Cyber Security Incidents

As shown in the above diagram, there is a progression from identification through assessment and
response before a detected event or condition elevates to a reportable level.
First, the Registered Entity must determine the condition meets the criteria for a Cyber Security Incident.
Once the response and assessment has led to a Registered Entity’s determination that events or
conditions meet the definition of Cyber Security Incident, additional evaluation occurs to establish if
established criteria or thresholds have been met for the Registered Entity to determine the Cyber Security
Incident qualifies for one of the two reportable conditions:
1. Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
2. Only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for Requirement R4 Part 4.2 (pursuant to Responsible Entity processes and established
attempt criteria documented in accordance with Requirement R1 Part 1.2)
Once the response and investigation has led to a Registered Entity’s determination that the Cyber Security
Incident has targeted or impacted the BCS performing reliability tasks and/or cybersecurity functions of
the Applicable Systems, associated Cyber Assets, and/or perimeters, the notification and reporting
timeframes and obligations begin. Note: Initial (or preliminary) notification is needed within the specified
timeframe after this determination, even if required attributes (functional impact, level or intrusion,
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
6

attack vector) are not yet known.
Once this initial notification is made, if all attribute were known, they should have been included in the
initial notification and the reporting obligation ends.
If all attributes were not known by the time the initial notification had to be made, the update timeframes
trigger from the time the next attribute(s) is learned/known.
A Registered Entity’s reporting obligations are met once known information for the three required
attributes is reported to E-ISAC and NCCIC, either during the initial notification or subsequently through
one or more updates made commensurate with the reporting timeframes.

Determination and Classification of Cyber Security Incidents
Registered Entities may want to consider developing tools illustrating established process criteria that must be met,
by definition, as well as the impacted/targeted operational task/cybersecurity functions considered to reach each
incident classification and reporting threshold. The below decision tree is one potential approach Registered
Entities could employ as a tool to assess events and make the Registered Entity determinations according to
process(es) and established criteria documented pursuant to Requirement R1 Parts 1.1 and 1.2.

Figure 2 Potential Approach Tool

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
7

A second potential approach could be a flow diagram illustrating an entity’s criteria and determination process as
depicted in the example below:

Figure 3 Flow Diagram for Cyber Security Incidents
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
8

Example of a Cyber Incident Classification Process
Entities may use a risk analysis-based method for the classification of cyber incidents and determination of Cyber
Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or, Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. The risk analysis-based approach allows entities
the flexibility to customize the appropriate response actions for their situation without being administratively
burdened by a one size fits all solution. Entities also have the flexibility to incorporate their existing incident
management processes which may already define how they classify and determine cyber incidents.
A risk-based approach considers the number of cyber security related event occurrences, the probability that the
events will have an impact on their facilities, and severity of the impact of the event. This allows the entity to decide
when cyber events should be investigated as cyber incidents, the classification of cyber incidents and the
determination of when a cyber incident should be reported; either as part of a voluntary action, as part of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.
Entities should also consider that appropriate reporting of cyber incidents helps other entities in similar situations.
The reporting of the details of an incident serves to alert other entities so they may increase their vigilance and take
timely preventive or mitigating actions. All entities stand to benefit from such shared information in the long run.

As an example, a typical infrastructure installation is depicted in Figure below.

Internet

Corporate
Firewall

Corporate
Zone

EACMS
Corporate
Assets

EACMS
IRA
Corporate
Assets

ESP
BCS

SCADA
Zone

Figure 4 Typical Infrastructure

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
9



A SCADA security zone consists of BES Cyber System (BCS), behind an Electronic Security
Perimeter (ESP). The Electronic Access Point (EAP) is an interface of the SCADA firewall which is
an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS).



A Corporate security zone consists of regular corporate assets and other EACMS such as
Intermediate Remote Access (IRA) systems. A corporate firewall protects the corporate assets
against intrusions from the Internet. The SCADA security zone is nested inside the Corporate
security zone.

Sample Classification Schema

A risk analysis could produce the incident categories below:


Regular cyber events that represent a normal level of events where no further investigation is
required such as random port-scans.



Low risk incidents may be cyber events that become cyber incidents because they are beyond the
normal level of events and require some type of investigation. Cyber incidents that are blocked at
a firewall and found not to be malicious or suspicious could fall into this category.



Medium risk incidents may be those cyber incidents that the entity has determined were
malicious or suspicious and required mitigation activities.
Note that while these cyber incidents were malicious or suspicious, they might not meet the
definition of a Cyber Security Incident because the entity investigated and determined that the
target was not a BCS, ESP, PSP or EACMS.
For example, a corporate asset infected with well-known corporate malware and, as a result, is
scanning the network to find other corporate assets. Although this activity is also being seen at
the SCADA firewall (EACMS), the entity investigated and determined that this activity was not a
Cyber Security Incident.



High risk incidents may be those cyber incidents that the entity has determined were malicious or
suspicious and did meet the definition of Cyber Security Incidents. For example, malicious
malware on a corporate asset that repeatedly attempts to log into a SCADA IRA Intermediate
System but is unsuccessful. This would be a Cyber Security Incident and should also fall into the
entity’s definition of a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part with the target being an EACMS (SCADA IRA
Intermediate System).



Severe risk incidents may be those Cyber Security Incidents that involves successful compromise
of an ESP or EACMS and hence meet the criteria for Reportable Cyber Security Incident. These
may also escalate into Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part such as the BCS.



Emergency risk incidents may be those Cyber Security Incidents that compromised or disrupted a
BCS that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. These incidents may represent an
immediate threat to BES reliability and may require emergency actions such as external
assistance.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
10

These incident categories can be mapped into a standard incident classification and reporting schema like
the NCCIC Cyber Incident Scoring System5. This is a common schema used by the United States Federal
Cybersecurity Centers for describing the severity of cyber incidents and is available to industry to leverage.
Utilizing the NCCIC schema as a basis for identification and classification of Cyber Security Incidents could
produce the schema below for application to CIP-008-6:
General Definition
Level 5
Emergency
Black

Level 4
Severe

A Cyber Security Incident that has
compromised or disrupted a BCS
that performs one or more
reliability tasks of a functional
entity.
A Cyber Security Incident involving
a compromise or disruption of an
ESP or EACMS;
OR

Observed
Actions
Effect

Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise an
EACMS.

Incidents that result in imminent threat to public
safety and BES reliability.
REPORTABLE

Presence or
Possible
Effect

Cyber Security Incidents that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column
for the Part such as a BCS.
Level 3
High
Orange

Consequences

Cyber Security Incidents that have the potential
to result in a threat to public safety and BES
reliability if malicious or suspicious activity
continues or escalates. Immediate mitigation is
required.
REPORTABLE

Presence

An attempt to compromise an EACMS does not

result in a threat to public safety or BES
reliability, but still requires mitigation.
REPORTABLE

Level 2
Medium
Yellow

Level 1
Low
Green
Level 0
Baseline

A cyber incident that investigation
found was malicious or suspicious
but was not a Cyber Security
Incident because it did not target
an Applicable System or
perimeter.
A cyber incident that investigation
found was not malicious or
suspicious.
Inconsequential cyber events.

Engagement

A cyber incident that does not represent a
threat to public safety or BES reliability, even
though it is malicious or suspicious and required
mitigation.

Engagement

A cyber incident that does not represent a
threat to public safety.

Preparation

Cyber events that require no investigation and
are not cyber incidents. These do not represent
a threat to public safety.

Figure 5 Example of Classification Schema

Reliability tasks may be those tasks that a Responsible Entity determines are associated with the BES Reliability
Operating Services (BROS) listed in the NERC Functional Model within Attachment 1 of CIP-002.

5

https://www.us-cert.gov/NCCIC-Cyber-Incident-Scoring-System
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
11

Examples of the use of the Sample Classification Schema
Some examples of the use of the classification schema are listed below. The event number corresponds to the events depicted in the subsequent figures

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Mitigation

External
firewall scan
(N1)

External IPS log

External IPS

Review of F/W
log

Corporate
F/W rules

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone internal
scan by nonmalicious
source
(existing
network
monitoring
Tool) (N2)

Review of
EACMS – IRA
host F/W Log
(CIP-007 R4)

Corporate
IPS

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone internal
scan by
unknown
source (N3)

Review of
EACMS IRA host IRA EACMS
F/W Log
Host F/W

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

No

No

No

Determined by entity as
regular background
activity

No

No

No

Determined by entity as
regular background
activity – previously
investigated and
determined to be known
source

Yes

No

No

Investigation found new
network monitoring tool.
Added to regular
background activity

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part

EACMS IRA
Host F/W

Corporate
IPS

Comments

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
12

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source (N4)

Corporate
Antivirus

Mitigation

Corporate
IPS

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part

IRA EACMS
Host F/W

Review of
EACMS IRA host Corporate
F/W Log
Anti-virus
Review of
EACMS SCADA
F/W Log

SCADA F/W
EACMS

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source
followed by
EACMS IRA
login
attempts (N5)

Corporate
IPS

Review of
EACMS IRA host EACMS host
F/W Log
F/W
Review of
EACMS IRA
failed Logins
(CIP-007 R4)

EACMS
login 2
factor

EACMS –
IRA
targeted

Comments

Investigation by entity
determined malware in
Corporate zone that was
targeting other
corporate assets and not
the applicable systems.
(via the entity’s criteria
to evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise)

Investigation found
malware in Corporate
Cyber Security Incidents that
zone that was an
attempted to compromise a
attempt to compromise
system identified in the “Applicable
one or more applicable
Systems” column for the Part
systems - IRA
Intermediate System EACMS (via the entity’s
criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to
compromise)
REPORTABLE

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
13

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Corporate
Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source
followed by
successful
EACMS IRA
login and
attempted
BCS logins
(N6)

Detection
method

SCADA IPS log

Mitigation

SCADA IPS
(CIP-005
Review of
EACMS IRA host R1.5)
Logins (CIP-007 BCS user/
R4)
password
login
Review of BCS
failed Logins
(CIP-007 R4)

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
EACMS – IRA host compromised or
disrupted
Reportable Cyber Security Incident

Investigation found
malware that
compromised or
disrupted EACMS IRA.
REPORTABLE

BCS host failed logins
Cyber Security Incidents that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part such Attempt to compromise
as BCS
a BCS (via the entity’s
criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to
compromise)
REPORTABLE

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
14

Type of Event
(Event
number)

BCS – SCADA
system failure
following
Corporate
Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source,
successful
EACMS IRA
login and
successful
BCS login (N7)

Detection
method

SCADA system
log
Review of
EACMS IRA host
Logins (CIP-007
R4)

Mitigation

None

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
Comprise or disruption of a BCS
performing one or more reliability
tasks of a functional entity
Reportable Cyber Security Incident

Review of BCS
Logins (CIP-007
R4)

Investigation found
malware that
compromised a BCS
performing one or
reliability tasks of a
functional entity
REPORTABLE

Figure 6 Examples of the Use of the Classification Schema

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
15

Corporate
Firewall

Internet

Corp
Asset

Corporate
Zone

Malware
Corp
Asset

New Network
Monitoring
Tool

EACMS

N2

EACMS
IRA

ESP

Existing Network
Monitoring Tool

BCS

Corporate
Assets

SCADA
Zone

Figure 7 Examples of Non-Reportable Cyber Incidents

The figure above depicts examples of non-reportable cyber incidents using the sample classification
schema and examples in Figure 6.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
16

Corporate
Firewall

Corp
Asset

N5

EACMS
IRA

Malware
Corp
Asset

N6

Malware
Corp
Asset

Malware
Corp
Asset

Corporate
Zone

EACMS
EACMS
IRA

Corporate
Assets

N6

ESP

BCS

SCADA
Zone

N7

Internet

EACMS
IRA
N7

BCS

Figure 8 Examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems

The figure above depicts examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempts to compromise one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part using the sample classification schema and

examples in Figure 6.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
17

Attempts to Compromise and Cyber Security Incidents
Registered Entities may want to evaluate and document what is normal within their environment to help scope and
define network communications and activity that may constitute ‘an attempt to compromise’ in the context of CIP008. This can help aid Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in identifying deviations from normal, and could significantly
assist a Registered Entity in timely and effective Incident determination, response, and vital information sharing.
Since no two Registered Entities are alike, it stands to reason that interpretations and perspectives may vary.
Registered Entities are encouraged to explore options and tools designed to that take the guess work out of the
process without being so overly prescriptive as to create undue administrative burden or remove needed discretion
and professional judgment from the SMEs.
It is up to the Registered Entity to determine what constitutes and ‘attempt to compromise’, and this should be
documented through the establishment of criteria that is incorporated into the Registered Entity’s process. Once
established, Registered Entities may want to consider incorporating a checklist to apply the defined set of criteria
for SMEs to leverage as a part of the process to determine reportability.
As an example, a Registered Entity could define an “attempt to compromise” as an act with malicious intent to gain
access or to cause harm to the normal operation of a Cyber Asset in the “Applicable Systems” column. Using this
sample definition:
a. Actions that are not an attempt to compromise an applicable Cyber Asset/System electronically are:
i. A Registered Entity’s own equipment scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its
existence that is performed expected on demand or on an approved periodic schedule.
ii. Broadcast traffic as part of normal network traffic. A firewall may block and log this traffic, but it
does not have malicious intent.
iii. Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by an authorized user that have been determined to fail due to
human error.
b. Actions that are an attempt to compromise an applicable Cyber Asset/System electronically are:
i. Scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that is not approved by the
Registered Entity’s management nor process(es). This could be from an entity’s own equipment
due to an upstream compromise or malware.
ii. Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by a user that fails due to not being authorized and intending to
gain access where no approval has been given.
iii. Attempts to escalate privileges on a Cyber Asset by an authorized user that has been determined
to fail due to not being authorize for that privilege level.
Registered Entities may also want to evaluate system architecture for ways to limit exposure for ‘attempts to
compromise’. Techniques like the implementation of security zones and/or network segmentation can minimize the
level of traffic that can get to applicable Cyber Assets and help minimize the attack surface.
Registered Entities with implementations that involve an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS)
containing both an Electronic Access Point (EAP) and a public internet facing interface are strongly encouraged to
change this configuration in favor of architectures that offer layers of safeguards and a defense in depth approach.
Similarly, Registered Entities with implementations that involve an EACMS containing both an EAP and a corporate
facing interface to their business networks may also want to consider options to re-architect to reduce cyber events
from the corporate environment such as broadcast storms from causing extra administrative workload.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
18

Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents
The table below contains examples of various degrees of events or conditions at varied levels of determination:
Event
PSP
breach

Port
Scanning

Normal or Benign
 Unauthorized user compromises the PSP to
steal copper and the Registered Entity
determines cybersecurity controls were not
targeted and remain in place.

Malicious / Confirmed Suspicious
 Unauthorized user breaks into a Substation control house (CIP-006-6 R1.5 activates
BES Cyber Security Incident response plan within 15 minutes of detection.)

 An equipment operator loses control of a
backhoe and crashes into a control house,
breaching the PSP and the Registered Entity
determines it was accidental, cybersecurity
controls were not targeted and remain in
place.

 Registered Entity determines the unauthorized Removable Media contains malware
(determination of only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)

 Unauthorized user breaks into a Substation control house and inserts unauthorized
Removable Media into an EACMS or BCS and the Registered Entity determines no
interaction between the USB and the EACMS or BCS occurred. (Cyber Security
Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)

 Registered Entity determines the malware has harvested the credentials of a BCS,
gained unauthorized access and disrupted a reliability task. (Reportable Cyber
Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)



Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that
runs scheduled periodic scans to detect
deviations from baseline is scanning an
EACMS or BCS at the expected time.

 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans
to detect deviations from baseline is scanning an EACMS or BCS at an unexpected
time and the Registered Entity has determined this as suspicious. (Cyber Security
Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)



A Registered Entity performs a port scan of
an EACMS or BCS during a scheduled Cyber
Vulnerability Assessment activity.

 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans
to detect deviations from baseline is repeatedly scanning an EACMS or BCS and the
Registered Entity determines it is targeting specific ports relevant to the BCS.
(determination of only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)
 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans
to detect deviations from baseline is repeatedly scanning an EACMS or BCS and the
Registered Entity determines it gained unauthorized access to the EACMS or BCS.
(Reportable Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
19

Event
Detected
malware

Normal or Benign
 A corporate machine infected by a known
Enterprise Windows-specific vulnerability is
scanning all local hosts including a nonWindows-based EACMS or BCS and is
determined by the Registered Entity to be an
SMB exploit applicable to only Windowsbased machines.

Malicious / Confirmed Suspicious
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS
for well-known ports and determined to be a suspicious event by the Registered
Entity. (Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS
for specific known ICS ports. (determination of only an attempt to compromise one
or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS
for specific known ICS ports and has attempted to gain unauthorized access to the
EACMS or BCS. (determination of only an attempt to compromise one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS
for specific known ICS ports and exploited/compromised specified ICS ports that
perform command and control functions of a BCS. (Reportable Cyber Security
Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)

Login
activity

Authorized user exceeded the Registered
Entity defined threshold (CIP-007-6 R5.7) for
unsuccessful login attempts against an EACMS
or BCS and the Registered Entity confirmed
the user incorrectly entered his/her password
after performing annual password changes.
A system exceeds the Registered Entity

defined threshold (CIP-007-6 R5.7) for
unsuccessful login against an EACMS or BCS
and locks out a system account and the
Registered Entity confirmed the system
account’s password had changed but the
accessing application/service had not yet
been updated to use the new password.


 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or
BCS with a publicly known default password, and the Registered Entity investigates
that activity as a Cyber Security Incident deems suspicious. (Cyber Security Incident
pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination).

 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or
BCS with a publicly known default password, and the Registered Entity’s investigation
determines that activity is being initiated from an external IP address and it continues
aggressively with additional passwords and failed login attempts. (determination of
only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2).
 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or
BCS with a publicly known default password, and the Registered Entity’s investigation
determines that activity is being initiated from an external IP address and it continues
aggressively with additional passwords and successfully gains unauthorized access to
an EACMS or BCS. (Reportable Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2
determination).

Figure 9 Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
20

Example of Sample Criteria to Evaluate and Define Attempts to Compromise
An entity may establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise based on their existing capabilities
and facilities associated with the other CIP Standards.
The sample criteria listed below are examples and are not intended to be exhaustive.
CIP-005 R1.5:
Have one or more methods for detecting known or suspected malicious communications for both inbound
and outbound communications.

Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:


Detected known malicious or suspected malicious communications for both inbound and
outbound communications.

CIP-005 R2.1:
Require multi-factor authentication for all Interactive Remote Access sessions.

Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:


Repeated attempts to authenticate using multi-factor authentication

CIP-007 R4.1:
Log events at the BES Cyber System level (per BES Cyber System capability) or at the Cyber Asset level (per
Cyber Asset capability) for identification of, and after-the-fact investigations of, Cyber Security Incidents that
includes, as a minimum, each of the following types of events:
4.1.1. Detected successful login attempts;
4.1.2. Detected failed access attempts and failed login attempts;

4.1.3. Detected malicious code.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:


Successful login attempts outside of normal business hours



Successful login attempts from unexpected personnel such as those who are on vacation or medical
leave



Detected failed access attempts from unexpected network sources



Detected failed login attempts to default accounts



Detected failed login attempts from authorized personnel accounts exceeding X per day
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
21



Detected failed login attempts from authorized personnel accounts where the account owner was
not the source



Detected malicious code on applicable systems

CIP-007 R5.7:

Where technically feasible, either:


Limit the number of unsuccessful authentication attempts; or



Generate alerts after a threshold of unsuccessful authentication attempts.

Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/ or malicious:


Account locked due to limit of unsuccessful authentication attempts exceeded more than
X times per day



Threshold of unsuccessful authentication attempts exceeds more than X every Y minutes

CIP-010 R2.1:
Monitor at least once every 35 calendar days for changes to the baseline configuration (as described in
Requirement R1, Part 1.1). Document and investigate detected unauthorized changes.

Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/ or malicious:


Detected unauthorized changes to the baseline configuration

An entity may establish additional criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise based on their
infrastructure configuration:

Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity determines that the specific activity, while malicious or/and
suspicious:


Attempt to compromise was not intended to target the “Applicable Systems”

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
22

Requirement R1
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that
collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber
Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long
Term Planning].
1.1. One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
1.2. One or more processes:
1.2.1.

Establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise;



Determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is A Reportable Cyber Security
Incident or



Only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for this Part; and

1.2.2.

Provide notification per Requirement R4.

1.3. The roles and responsibilities of Cyber Security Incident response groups or individuals.
1.4. Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents.
General Considerations for R1
Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis
An enterprise or single incident response plan for all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the Requirement.
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an Industrial
Control Systems Cyber Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at http://www.uscert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, Special
Publication 800-61 revision 1, March 2008, online at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61-rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted
one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to distinguish Reportable Cyber Security Incidents
as one resulting in a necessary response action.

A response action can fall into one of two categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing characteristic is
whether or not action was taken in response to an event. Precautionary measures that are not in response to any
persistent damage or effects may be designated as elective. All other response actions to avoid any persistent
damage or adverse effects, which include the activation of redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
23

Implementation Guidance for R1
Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2)

The figure below is an example of a process that is used to identify, classify and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents. This process uses the sample classification schema shown earlier that the entity uses to identify
and classify Cyber Security Incidents as well as the sample criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
compromise, if they are Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.
This process is adapted from those related to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). ITIL
is a set of detailed practices for IT service management (ITSM) that focuses on aligning IT services with the
needs of business.
Note: There is recognition that the organizational structure and resource composition is unique to each
entity and that roles and responsibilities may vary. The process diagram to follow is no intended to be
prescriptive, and instead constitutes merely one potential approach where the assignments/functions in
the cross functional swim lanes could be tailored to meet the unique needs of any entity.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
24

Incident Management
Service Desk

Issue Date: November 9, 2018

CIP-008 Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Triggers: Cyber Events
 External notifications
 Reports by Security desk
 Internal notifications
Create incident
ticket (SD1)

Close ticket when
incident investigation
completed (SD5)

Escalate due
to BCS, ESP
EACMS or
PSP? (SD3)
Yes

Incident Management
Coordinator

Monitor Ticket Status
Escalate if needed
(SD4)

Assess incident (SD2)

No

Potential
Cyber
Security
Incident ?
(IC2)

Assess if incident is a
potential Cyber
Security Incident
Update Ticket (IC1)

Start Timer
1 Hr Reportable
End Next Day – attempted
7 Days – Updates
Update Ticket (IC4)

Review Information
and forward to
Reporting Coordinator
Update Ticket (IC3)

No

Stop Incident Timer
Update Ticket (IC5)

Yes

E-ISAC / NCCIC
Reporting Coordinator

Reportable or
attempted? (R3)
Yes

Incident Determination
and Classification for
CIP
(R2)

Review preliminary
Information and track
ticket updates (R1)

Report to E-ISAC and
NCCIC (R4)

No

Yellow Tasks = Classification, Determination
and Reporting
Potential
Cyber Security
Incident ? (SME2)

Investigating Subject
Matter Experts

Yes

Yes

Investigate incident
Update Ticket (SME1)
No

Draft of incident
information
including updates
to three
reportable
attributes (SME5)

Draft of incident
information
including three
reportable
attributes (SME3)

Continue to investigate to
determine root cause and
record findings in original
ticket (SME4)

Figure 10 Sample Process to Identify, Classify and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
25

Conclude incident
Complete Lessons Leaned
Update procedures
Inform stakeholders (IC6)

Supporting Narrative Description of Sample Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber
Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2)

1.

The Incident Management Service Desk identifies that a cyber event that requires investigation has
occurred.

2.

Incident Management Service Desk creates an incident ticket to log the suspected cyber incident
(SD1).
Incident Management Service Desk performs initial assessment of the suspected cyber incident and
performs any initial triage or service restoration as needed (SD2).

3.
4.

If the suspected cyber incident involves BES Cyber Systems (BCS), Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring Systems (EACMS), Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or Physical Security Perimeters
(PSP), the Incident Management Service Desk will escalate the incident to an Incident Management
Coordinator whom will act as the coordinator until the incident is closed (SD3)

5.

The Incident Management Coordinator performs a secondary initial assessment to determine if the
incident has the potential to be a Cyber Security Incident, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, or a
Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part.
They update the incident ticket, assigning the appropriate Investigating Subject Matter Experts (IC1).

6.

If the Incident Management Coordinator determines that the incident has the potential to be
reportable, the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator is alerted and copied on the information
contained in the incident ticket. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator continues to monitor the
updates to the incident ticket (IC2)

7.

The Incident Management Service Desk ensures the assigned Investigating SMEs are notified, and the
incident ticket information is updated (SD2, SD4)

8.

The assigned SMEs investigate the incident ticket updating with the Incident Management
Coordinator as appropriate (SME1). The Incident Management Coordinator will monitor the progress
of the investigation and assign additional SMEs or escalate as needed.

9.

If initial investigation by SMEs finds that the incident may be a Cyber Security Incident and has the
potential to be reportable (SME2), the SMEs will inform the Incident Management Coordinator and
forward the known information including the required three attributes (SME3). Attributes which are
unknown at the current time will be reported as “unknown”.

10. The SMEs will continue their investigation to determine the root cause of the incident, performing
triage or service restoration as needed, continue to investigate the three required attributes and
update incident ticket information (SME4).
11. If the incident is found to be potentially reportable, the Incident Management Coordinator reviews
the information, adds any details collected by other investigating SMEs and resolves any missing
information as needed. The information is forwarded to the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator
(IC3)
12. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator reviews the information received, performs classification of
the incident (R2). They determine if the incident is a Cyber Security Incident and determine if it is
either a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
26

a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. The information to be reported
is finalized (R3).
13. Upon determination that the incident is reportable, E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs
the Incident Management Coordinator to begin a clock timer set to the appropriate time frame
(IC4) and performs the required notification including the three required attributes. The incident
ticket is updated with the incident classification and determination time for compliance evidence
purposes:


Within 1 hour for initial notification of Reportable Cyber Security Incident,



By end of the next day for a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part,



Within 7 calendar days of determination of new or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1

14. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the Incident Management Coordinator when
notification is completed and time that the notifications occurred at. The Incident Management
Coordinator will stop the appropriate timer and updates the incident ticket with the appropriate
information for compliance evidence purposes (IC5)
15. If Incident Management Coordinator that has not received confirmation of notification, they may
escalate, as needed, prior to expiry of the applicable timer. Upon expiry of the timer, the Incident
Management Coordinator must inform the CIP Senior Manager (IC4)
16. During the continued investigation of the incident (SME4), the SMEs may find that an update of any
of the three required attributes is potentially required. The SMEs will inform the Incident
Management Coordinator and forward a draft of the updated information (SME5)
17. The Incident Management Coordinator reviews the draft update information including adding other
details, and then informs E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator, forwarding the potential update
information (IC3)
18. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator reviews the potential updated information and determines
if the update to any of the three required attributes is reportable (R3).
19. Upon determination that the update is reportable, E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the
Incident Management Coordinator to begin a timer set to the appropriate time frame (i.e. 7 calendar
days). The incident ticket is updated with the determination time for compliance evidence purposes
(IC4)
20. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator updates both E-ISAC and NCCIC with the information
associated with any of the three required attributes (R4)
21. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the Incident Management Coordinator that the
update to E-ISAC and NCCIC is completed and times that the updates occurred at. The Incident
Management Coordinator will stop the appropriate timer and update the incident ticket with the
appropriate information for compliance purposes (IC5)

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
27

22. If the Incident Management Coordinator that has not received confirmation of the update being
completed, prior to the expiration of the timer, they may escalate as needed. Upon expiry of the
timer, the Incident Management Coordinator must inform the CIP Senior Manager (IC4)
23. Upon closure of the incident, the Incident Management Coordinator will ensure that the last
reportable update to the three required attributes accurately reflects the closure information. If a
further update of the three required attributes is required, the Incident Management Coordinator
will inform the appropriate Subject Matter Expert to initiate an update (SME5).
24. The Incident Management Coordinator informs the Incident Management Service Desk that the
incident ticket may be closed (SD5).
25. The Incident Management Coordinator will initiate a “Lessons Leaned” session and update to the
Cyber Incident Reporting and Response Plan and any other documentation, procedures, etc. within
90 days (IC6). They will inform all stakeholders of any updates to the Cyber Incident Reporting and
Response Plan and any other applicable documentation
Roles and Responsibilities (R1.3)

In the example process, the defined Roles and Responsibilities are as follows, but can be tailored by any
entity to align with their unique organization:


Incident Management Service Desk is responsible for initial activities, incident ticketing and
incident logging:
o Initial identification, categorization and prioritization,
o Initial diagnosis and triage/service restoration,
o Initial assignment of incident tickets to Investigating Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
o Initial escalation to an Incident Management Coordinator upon assessment (if needed)
o Monitoring incident ticket status and initiating further escalation (if needed)
o Incident ticket resolution and closure
o General incident status communication with the user community



Incident Management Coordinator is responsible for the over-all coordination of activities related
to an assigned incident:
o Detailed assignment of tasks to Investigating SMEs
o Ensure that all assigned activities are being performed in a timely manner
o Ensuring regulatory reporting time limits are met and initiating escalation if needed
o Communicating incident status with major affected stakeholders
o Coordinating with the Incident Management Service Desk to update incident tickets with
status and the logging of required details and assisting them to perform general incident
status communications with the user community

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
28

o Coordinating with the E-ISAC/NCCIC Reporting Coordinator for cyber incidents with the
potential of being Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part. Assisting the E-ISAC/NCCIC Reporting Coordinator with
information to aid in the classification of the cyber incident.
o Escalation as needed according to the priority and severity of the issue
o Coordination of service restoration and incident closure
o Coordination of incident review following closure of incidents, identification of potential
problems and documenting the “Lessons Learned”
o Initiating update of processes or procedures as needed and communicating the updates
to stakeholders


E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator is responsible for the coordination of regulatory reporting
activities such as those related to E-ISAC and NCCIC:
o Review of completeness incident information for classification and reporting purposes
o Incident classification for reporting purposes
o Determination if this incident is a Cyber Security Incident, Reportable Cyber Security
Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part
o Completeness of the required three attributes to be reported
o Notification to E-ISAC and NCCIC and submission of the three required attributes
o Coordinating with Incident Management Coordinator to ensure timing is in accordance
with regulatory requirements and that incident logging is complete for compliance
evidence purposes



Investigating Subject Matter Experts are responsible for detailed technical tasks related to the
investigation of the incident and performing the needed recovery actions:
o Perform investigation tasks related to the incident as assigned by the Incident
Management Coordinator to determine the root cause of the incident
o Perform service restoration tasks related to the incident as assigned
o Update incident ticket and ensure all required details are logged
o

Obtaining information on the three required attributes for both initial notification and
updates

o

After incident closure, participate in “Lessons Learned” sessions and update procedures as needed

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
29

Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents (R1.4)
Each of the defined roles in the example process may have specific procedures covering various aspects of their
tasks being accomplished within the process. The sample process documents “what” the overall required steps are
whereas the procedures document “how” each step is carried out:



Incident Management Service Desk Procedures:
o Procedures of when to classify cyber events as possible cyber incidents
o Procedures to determine if BCS, PSP, ESP or EACMS are involved and decision criteria of
when to escalate to an Incident Management Coordinator.
o Procedures for initial diagnosis, triage and service restoration
o Procedures for incident ticketing, assignment, escalation and closure



Incident Management Coordinator Procedures:
o Procedures for finding if cyber events or incidents could be possible Cyber Security
Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted
to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. These
potential incidents require notification to the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Coordinator
o Procedures for the assignment and tracking of tasks to Investigating SMEs
o Procedures associated with regulatory reporting time limits
o Procedures for incident review, documentation of lessons learned, tracking of completion
of documentation update status



E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator Procedures:
o Procedures on how to use the Entity’s own classification and reporting schema to classify
cyber incidents and determine Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part
o Procedures on the review of information to be used for reporting the three required
attributes to be included for E-ISAC or NCCIC notification including the handling of any
BES Cyber System Information
o Procedures for the notification of updates to E-ISAC and NCCIC including the submission
of the three required attributes



Investigating Subject Matter Experts Procedures:
o Procedures for the classification of cyber incidents to possible Cyber Security Incidents,
possible Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or possible Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the
Part and the required information needed to be obtained.
o Procedures for troubleshooting tasks to determine root cause of an incident

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
30

o Procedures for service restoration tasks after an incident
o Procedures for triggering the forensic preservation of the incident
o Procedures on when updates are necessary to information on the required attributes
associated with a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the
Part

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
31

Requirement R2
R2. Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response
plans to collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber
Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time
Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time Operations]
2.1.

Test each Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) at least once every 15 calendar months:


By responding to an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident;



With a paper drill or tabletop exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident; or



With an operational exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

2.2.

Use the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1 when responding to
a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise
a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part, or performing an
exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Document deviations from the plan(s)
taken during the response to the incident or exercise.

2.3.

Retain records related to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Incidents
that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for
this Part.

General Considerations for R2
Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis

If a plan is written at a high enough level, then every action during the response should not be subject to
scrutiny. The plan will likely allow for the appropriate variance in tactical decisions made by incident
responders. Deviations from the plan can be documented during the incident response or afterward as
part of the review.
For more specific types of exercises, refer to the FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation
Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four types of discussion-based exercises: seminar, workshop,
tabletop, and games. In particular, it defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key personnel discussing
simulated scenarios in an informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans,
policies, and procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional exercise, and
full-scale exercise. It defines that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional, multidiscipline exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office, Emergency operation centers, etc.) and
‘boots on the ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating mock victims).”
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain
relevant records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
32

evidence listed in the measure. Entities should refer to their handling procedures to determine the types
of evidence to retain and how to transport and store the evidence. For further information in retaining
incident records, refer to the NIST Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response
(SP800-86). The NIST guideline includes a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing
forensics.
Implementation Guidance for R2
Acceptable Testing Methods
The SDT made no changes to the testing requirements located in Requirement Parts 2 and 3. The applicable system
expansion to include EACMS was the only change. The SDT purposefully did not expand the acceptable testing
methods to include an actual response to a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. This was based on incident risk level and benefits of
exercising the full response plan(s).
Annual testing of the incident response plan(s) are important because they may reveal weaknesses, vulnerabilities,
and opportunity for improvement. The current test options include: a paper drill (coordinated tabletop exercise), an
operational exercise (a full-scale, multiple entity exercise), and actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.
All of these options, especially the latter, involve a complete, step-by-step run-through of the plan components.
Many problems that would occur in a real incident also will be present in the test exercise or drill 6. In fact, it is
recommended that drills and exercises go to the extreme and simulate worst-case scenarios.
Conversely, a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for the Part, may only exercise several components and would likely not result in the same level of response
action. Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise an applicable system, by their very nature, have less
risk than an actual compromise. A Responsible Entity’s actual response to unauthorized access attempts and
suspicious activities does not rise to the same level of required response that actual disruption of a BCS performing
one or more reliability tasks would. For these reasons, the SDT did not change the acceptable testing methods of a
response plan(s), and using records associated to attempts to compromise are not sufficient evidence to
demonstrate compliance with the 15-month testing requirements.
The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident is documented
using the entity’s incident management system including how each role defined in Requirement R1.3 updates the
incident ticket. The incident ticket is a permanent record of the incident including any actions undertaken. The
Incident Management Coordinator is responsible for documenting deviations from the Cyber Incident response plan
and initiating any corrections required in the process or documentation for meeting the Requirement. In addition,
to assure sufficient evidence, records should be dated and should include documentation that sufficiently describes
the actual or simulated scenario(s), response actions, event identifications and classifications, the application of
Cyber Security Incident and reportability criteria, reportability determinations, and reporting submissions and
timeframes.

6

2009, Department of Homeland Security, Developing an Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity Incident
Response Capability, page 13.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
33

Requirement R3
R3.

3.1.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans
according to each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time
Horizon: Operations Assessment].
No later than 90 calendar days after completion of a Cyber Security Incident response
plan(s) test or actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident response:
3.1.1.

Document any lessons learned or document the absence of any lessons learned;

3.1.2.

Update the Cyber Security Incident response plan based on any documented
lessons learned associated with the plan; and

Notify each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident
response plan of the updates to the Cyber Security Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons learned.
No later than 60 calendar days after a change to the roles or responsibilities, Cyber Security
Incident response groups or individuals, or technology that the Responsible Entity
determines would impact the ability to execute the plan:
3.1.3.

3.2.

3.2.1.

Update the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s); and

3.2.2.

Notify each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident
response plan of the updates.

General Considerations for R3

Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis
The process of conducting lessons learned can involve the response team discussing the incident to
determine gaps or areas of improvement within the plan. Any documented deviations from the plan
from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible to have a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such cases, the entity must retain
documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated with the Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.
Entities should consider meeting with all of the individuals involved in the incident and documenting
the lessons learned as soon after the incident as possible. This allows more time for making effective
updates to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals, and distributing those updates to the incident
response team.
This may include changes to the names or contact information listed in the plan. Technology changes
affecting the plan may include referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing
systems.
Implementation Guidance for R3
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
34

The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident results in an
update to Cyber Security Incident response plan, incorporating the “lessons learned”. The role of Incident
Management Coordinator includes the responsibility for meeting Requirement R3. Registered Entities should assure
updated plans are dated in demonstration of the timelines mandated by Requirement R3. It may help to append
these records to the dated Lessons Learned from an actual response or an exercise to test the plan to further
demonstrate plan update timelines were met and relevant areas of the plan were updated to align with the
outcomes and conclusions in the Lessons Learned.

Requirement R4
R4. Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC)
and, if subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable
requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].
4.1.

Initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent
known:
4.1.1

The functional impact;

4.1.2

The attack vector used; and

4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
4.2.

4.3.

After the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification within the following timelines:


One hour after the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar day after determination that a Cyber Security Incident was
an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this
Part.

Provide updates within 7 calendar days of determination of new or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1

General Considerations for R4

Registered Entities may want to consider designing tools or mechanisms to assure incident responders
have the information needed to efficiently and timely report events or conditions that rise to the level of
reportability. A potential approach is to include the E-ISAC/NCCIC phone numbers in response plans,
calling trees, or even within corporate directories for ease of retrieval. Another potential approach is to
develop a distribution list that includes both entities so one notification can easily be sent at the same
time. Certainly, Registered Entities should consider implementing secure methods for transit if using
email. Another approach could be to incorporate website URLs into processes to have them at hand.
Finally, for Registered Entities that prefer to leverage secure portals for E-ISAC or NCCIC, advance planning
by having individual user portal accounts requested, authorized, configured, and tested is encouraged ad
can be a time saver in emergency situations.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
35

Implementation Guidance for R4
The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how initial notification and updates of the required attributes is
performed within the specified time lines (yellow colored tasks).
For attributes that are not known, these should be reported as “unknown”
NCCIC Reporting
NCCIC reporting guidelines for reporting events related to Industrial Control Systems can be found here:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/Report-Incident
https://www.us-cert.gov/incident-notification-guidelines

NCCIC prefers the reporting of 10 attributes, although they will accept any information that is shared. A potential
mapping between the NCCIC preferred attributes and the attributes required to comply with CIP-008-6 standard could
be represented are as follows:
CIP-008-6 Reporting
Functional Impact
Functional Impact

Functional Impact
Level of Intrusion

Level of Intrusion

Level of Intrusion
Level of Intrusion
Level of Intrusion
Attack Vector
Name and Phone

NCCIC Reporting
Identify the current level of impact on agency
functions or services (Functional Impact).
Identify the type of information lost,
compromised, or corrupted (Information
Impact).
Identify when the activity was first detected.

Comment

Estimate the scope of time and resources
needed to recover from the incident
(Recoverability).
Provide any indicators of compromise,
including signatures or detection measures
developed in relationship to the incident
Identify the number of systems, records, and
users impacted.
Identify the network location of the observed
activity.
Provide any mitigation activities undertaken
in response to the incident.
Identify the attack vector(s) that led to the
incident.
Identify point of contact information for
additional follow-up.
Figure 11 NCCIC Reporting Attributes

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
36

Example of a Reporting Form

Entities may wish to create an internal standard form to be used to report Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents and Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part. The advantages of using a standard internal form are:


A standard internal format for the communications of cyber incident information between the
various internal roles with respect to obligations of CIP-008-6, Requirement R4



A standard written record of the notification of the minimum 3 attributes having been reported
to E-ISAC and NCCIC in accordance with CIP-008-6, Requirement R4 which can be easily stored,
sorted and retrieved for compliance purposes

An example of an internal standard form is shown. The instructions on how to complete this form are
included after it.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
37

CIP-008-6 Requirement R4
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form
This form may be used to report Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Incidents that were an
attempt to compromise a system listed in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.

Contact Information
Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Phone Number:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Incident Type
☐ Reportable Cyber Security Incident
☐ Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for the Part

Reporting Category
☐ Initial Notification
☐ Update

Required Attribute Information
1. Attack Vector

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

2. Functional Impact

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

3. Level of Intrusion

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
38

Instructions for Example of a Reporting Form

These are instructions on how to complete the optional form
CIP-008-6
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Contact
Information

Incident Type

Reporting
Category

Required
Attribute
Information
(Attack Vector
fields)

Field Name

Instructions

Name

Enter the First and Last Name of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Phone Number

Enter the Phone Number(s) of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if report includes information for a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.

Cyber Security
Incident that
attempted to
compromise a
system identified
in the
“Applicable
Systems” column
for the Part

Check this box if report includes information for a Cyber

Initial
Notification

Check this box if report is being submitted to satisfy initial
notification obligations of Requirement R4 Part 4.2.

Update

Check this box if report is being submitted to satisfy
subsequent follow-up or update obligations of Requirement
R4 Part 4.3.

Attack Vector



If known, enter a narrative description of the Attack
Vector for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part

Note: Do not check this box for incidents related solely to a
PSP(s).

Examples include, but are not limited to, malware, use of
stolen credentials, etc.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
39

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section

Field Name
Attack Vector
Initial Checkbox

Instructions
If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Attack Vector
If report is being used to provide an update report, select the
Update Checkbox ‘Update’ checkbox.
Required
Attribute
Information

Functional
Impact

(Functional
Impact fields)

Required
Attribute
Information



If known, enter a narrative description of the functional
impact for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Examples include, but are not limited to, situational
awareness, dynamic response, ability to perform Real-time
Assessments, or Real-time monitoring etc.
Functional
Impact Initial
Checkbox

If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Functional
Impact Update
Checkbox

If report is being used to provide an update report, select the
‘Update’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion



If known, enter a narrative description of the level of
intrusion for the compromise or attempt to compromise
to satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement
R4 Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Level of
Intrusion fields)

Examples include, but are not limited to, whether the
compromise or attempt to compromise occurred on
Applicable Systems outside the Electronic Security Perimeter
(ESP), at the ESP, or inside the ESP. Additionally, level of
intrusion may include the Applicable System impact level and
Cyber System classification level.
Level of Intrusion
Initial Checkbox

If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion If report is being used to provide an update, select the
Update Checkbox ‘Update’ checkbox.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | November 2018
40

Project 2018-02
Modifications to CIP-008
Cyber Security Incident Reporting
Standard Drafting Team Meeting
September 17, 2018 2:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern

Standard Drafting Team
Kick-off

Agenda
Administrative
 Review NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Public Announcement
 Roll Call and Determination of Quorum

Agenda Items








3

Chair/Vice Chair Introductions and Remarks
Review FERC Order 848
Review Standards Process
Objectives for First in-person meeting
Review Project Timeline
Future In-person Meetings (Sept 24-26, November 6-8, December 11-13)
Adjourn

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Administrative / Introductions
Administrative
 Review NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Public Announcement
 Roll Call and Determination of Quorum

Introductions
 Chair/Vice Chair Introductions and Remarks, and team introductions
Dave Rosenthal (C)

Kristine Martz (VC)

Steve Brain

Sharon Koller

Norm Dang

John Gasstrom

Tina Weyand

Tony Hall

Jennifer Korenblatt

John Breckenridge

Ian King

Katherine Anagnost

Alison Z. Oswald – NERC Sr. Standards Developer
4

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

FERC Order 848

Order Dates
• Order Issue Date: July 19, 2018
• Order Fed. Reg. Publish Date: July 31, 2018
• Order Effective Date: October 1, 2018
• Directive Filing Deadline: April 1, 2019

6

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Modifications Directed

1. Augment reporting to include Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise or attempt to compromise a Responsible Entity’s
Electronic Security Perimeter or associated Electronic Access
Control or Monitoring Systems

2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should
include certain minimum information to improve the quality of
reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that each
report includes specified fields of information

7

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Modifications Directed Continued
3. Filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be
established once a compromise or disruption to reliable BES
operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption, is
identified by a Responsible Entity

4. Reports should continue to be sent to the E-ISAC, but the
reports should also be sent to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency
Response Team (ICS-CERT)

8

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Standards Development
Process

NERC’s Standards Development
• Governed by the Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A: Standard
Processes Manual (SPM) - Version 3, effective June 26, 2013

10

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Roles and Responsibilities of
Drafting Teams
• Develop an excellent, technically correct standard that helps
provide an adequate level of reliability and achieves consensus





Stay within the scope of the SAR
Address regulatory directives and stakeholder issues
Consider Independent Experts’ Review Panel input
Ensure standard meets criteria for approval

• Develop modifications of Violation Risk Factors (VRFs) and
Violation Severity Levels (VSLs) and associated reasoning
• Develop Implementation Plan
• Develop supporting documents (optional)
• Outreach

11

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Drafting Team Formation and Support
• Drafting team chair and vice chair
• NERC standards developer
• Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
• Legal
• FERC staff observers
• Industry observers

12

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Drafting Team Training
• All Standards Drafting Team members must complete training
 Two modules
o Module 1: How to Develop a High Quality Standard
o Module 2: Your Role on a Drafting Team and Outreach

 Send Certificate when training is complete

13

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

NERC Standards Development Process

14

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Stakeholder Consensus Process

Informal Feedback
Initial/Additional Ballot:
At this step, the standard is either
“new” or significantly changed from
the last version posted for comment/
ballot.
Final Ballot:
At this step, there have been no
significant changes to the standard
from the last ballot. The ballot
record starts with all votes and
comments from the previous ballot.
15

Consider/Respond
to Feedback
Post Standard for
Comment/Ballot
Consider/Respond
to Comments
Final Ballot

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Initial/Additional Comment Period
and Ballot
Typically 45-day period
 45-day comment period
 10-day ballot
 These periods may vary due to:

o Waivers necessary to meet regulatory directives or NERC Board deadlines

Consideration of Comments
 The drafting team must communicate changes to stakeholders

16

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Stakeholder Consensus Process

Informal Feedback
Initial/Additional Ballot:
At this step, the standard is either
“new” or significantly changed from
the last version posted for comment/
ballot.
Final Ballot:
At this step, there have been no
significant changes to the standard
from the last ballot. The ballot
record starts with all votes and
comments from the previous ballot.
17

Consider/Respond
to Feedback
Post Standard for
Comment/Ballot
Consider/Respond
to Comments
Final Ballot

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Objectives for Meeting #1

Be Prepared!!!
 For our first in person meeting, please bring:
o Options for draft language
– Not just requirement language but for incident reporting form

o Potential mock-up of draft incident reporting form
o Pain points where people believe there will be issues
– This can notional, but we need to get ahead of our challenges

 There will be a public posting after the first meeting
o Draft requirement language, incident reporting form as well as:
– Draft implementation plan
– Comment form that is used with the first public posting

 Leverage outreach AND your company/associations
o Again, please come prepared
18

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Project Timeline
Anticipated Date

Location

Event

September 17, 2018

Conference Call

SDT Webex

September 24-26, 2018

Atlanta, GA

SDT in-person meeting to modify the CIP-008-5 standard

September 27, 2018

-

Quality Review and Admin Review

September 28, 2018

Conference Call

SDT Meeting to review feedback from Quality Review

October 4 – 23, 2018

-

Post CIP-008 Standard for 20-day comment and ballot

Week of October 15, 2018

Conference Call

Webinar to educate industry on changes

October 24-November 2,
2018

-

Consolidate comments and distribute to team

November 6-8, 2018

TBD

Second SDT in-person meeting to respond to comments and modify as necessary

Introduce team, review objectives for first meeting

Team conference call to assign comments to members to address

November 9, 2018

Quality Review and Admin Review

November 13, 2018

Conference Call

SDT Meeting to review feedback from Quality Review

November 14 – 28, 2018

-

Post for an additional comment and ballot

November29 - December 7,
2018

-

Consolidate comments and distribute to team

December 11-13, 2018

TBD

SDT Meeting to respond to comments and move to a final ballot

January 14 – 18, 2019

-

Post for Final Ballot

Waiver of the time frame to shorten from 45 days to 15 days.

Team conference call if necessary to assign comments to members to address

February 6-7, 2019

-

NERC Board of Trustees Adoption

February 2019

-

NERC Files Petition with the Applicable Governmental Authorities

19

Comments

Shortened to 5 days.

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Future In-Person Meetings
• September 24-26, 2018
 Atlanta, GA at NERC office
 begin at 1pm, end at 3pm

• November 6-8, 2018
 Location TBD

• December 11-13, 2018
 Location TBD

20

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

21

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY

Standards Announcement

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting
15-day Formal Comment Period Open through November 29, 2018
Now Available

A 15-day formal comment period for CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning is open through 8 p.m. Eastern, Thursday, November 29, 2018.
Commenting

Use the Standards Balloting and Commenting System (SBS) to submit comments. If you experience issues
using the SBS, contact Wendy Muller. An unofficial Word version of the comment form is posted on the
project page.
•

If you are having difficulty accessing the SBS due to a forgotten password, incorrect credential error
messages, or system lock-out, contact NERC IT support directly at https://support.nerc.net/ (Monday –
Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern).

•

Passwords expire every 6 months and must be reset.

•

The SBS is not supported for use on mobile devices.

•

Please be mindful of ballot and comment period closing dates. We ask to allow at least 48 hours for
NERC support staff to assist with inquiries. Therefore, it is recommended that users try logging into
their SBS accounts prior to the last day of a comment/ballot period.

Next Steps

A 10-day additional ballot for the standard, and a non-binding poll of the associated Violation Risk Factors
and Violation Severity Levels will be conducted November 20-29, 2018.
For information on the Standards Development Process, refer to the Standard Processes Manual.
For more information or assistance, contact Senior Standards Developer, Alison Oswald (via email) or at
404-446-9668.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com

ÿ7ÿÿ#1$

010210345

d8ÿ#1$ &9

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ



''97ÿe'

%7ÿ#1&91%7$ÿ1ÿ99ÿ#1&9199$

UVWWXYÿ[\]^WY]ÿÿ
''97ÿ(9)ÿ''97ÿ9!ÿ#1''979!16789
1425$
*+,,-.ÿ0+123ÿ034430ÿ5867ÿÿ67334ÿ89ÿ99!8ÿ67897ÿ97ÿ67334:ÿ;ÿ0ÿ9
<-.=>?ÿ@.+A.ÿB+.23ÿ4410310344ÿ403433ÿ;5
<-.=>?ÿC>DÿB+.23ÿ4410510344ÿ43333ÿ75
*+,,-.ÿEFG23ÿ9
*+,,-.ÿHI.=J=.F3ÿ;
*+,,-.ÿ@2A=2K3ÿ0
E-.+,ÿLÿ<-.2K3ÿ"3:
E-.+,ÿ*+,,-.ÿM--,3ÿ"0N
OP-AP13ÿ5NNN
OP-AP1ÿCK.+Q,=KR2DÿB+.23ÿ4410510344ÿ404:3Nÿ75
S2=?R.2Dÿ@2?12>.ÿ<+,P23ÿT22N
ÿ
*+,,-. @2?12>. H__=A1+.=J2 H__=A1+.=J2 02?+.=J2ÿ<-.2K 02?+.=J2ÿ`A+I.=->
@2?12>. M--, S2=?R. <-.2K
`A+I.=-> abÿc-112>. abÿc-112>.
:2
3T5"
4T
303T
99'97 53 4
4
99'97 T
3T
0
30
2
32
0
99'97 T0 4
24
34":
43
34:N
"
99'97 44 4
4N
340N
"
34T:
N
99'97 TN 4
2"
3442
40
3442
2
fÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿ(9ÿN"33ÿ579ÿ
'9ÿgd(99h30
11797919!16789
1"43

02?+.=J2ÿ<-.2K
ab-ÿc-112>.
3

0HQK.+=> <-.2
N
N

3

3

3

4

N

:

3

3

4

4

:

0
4100

010210345

)*++,(
#$%&$'( -,,+
?9@97 2"
A
?9@97 4
D
?9@97 3
B
?9@97 4
5
?9@97 B
43
 "0C

ÿ
ÿ7ÿ
#$%&$'( 122/3&*(/4$ 122/3&*(/4$ 9$%*(/6478$9ÿ
5ÿ,(
$6 9$%*(/4$ÿ73*8(/,' 9$%*(/4$ÿ5,($6
.$/%0( 5,($6
73*8(/,' ;<ÿ=,&&$'( ;<ÿ=,&&$'(
;<,ÿ=,&&$'(
4
"A
3B4B
B
34B0
3

9,
1>6(*/' 5,($
C
2

34

3

3

4

34

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

34

4

34

3

3

3

3

3

3D

A

3A

4

34

3

4

3

AA

00B

C5BA

2D

4A4C

0

45

4B

EFGGHIÿKHHGÿLMLEMNO
?Pÿ Q

?9 ?9

ÿ979

#$%&$'( R3%*'/S*(/,'
4
Q[ÿÿQ[ÿ?9\9ÿ7
_ÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿ`9ÿC"33ÿa79ÿ
@9ÿb]`??c30
11797919!16789
1"43

5,($3
]977ÿ?!

T$6/%'*($U
-3,VW

)*++,(
9XY=ÿZ$&,
Q^^@\9
1Q
0100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'(
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

)*%+',-+(,.'
>?997ÿÿ>?997ÿ@9A9
>?97ÿ7?7ÿ?7BCÿDD
>H@ÿÿ>I7ÿH!ÿ@9A9ÿ
>K7ÿ9ÿ9A9ÿ7
>98ÿ9ÿ9A9Cÿ67
>!7ÿ79B
77ÿ>!BÿGÿ
97ÿG7
7ÿ9ÿHN9ÿ9A9
ÿOB8ÿ78ÿHN9ÿ>!B
99ÿ79Bÿ@9A9

4

9K9ÿONBÿ79BÿÿJ8>?97
79Bÿ
779A9ÿHN9ÿ>8?77

4

4
Iÿ9ÿHN9ÿ9A9Cÿ67
4
979H7ÿ79BÿO!7ÿ9CÿDD
4
97ÿ9ÿHN9ÿ9A9ÿPJ!Q
4
97ÿO!87ÿRÿSÿ9ÿ
4
BÿU9ÿGÿ@7G98CÿJ!
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿX"33ÿJ79ÿ
?9ÿYEW@@Z30
11797919!16789
1"43

0$1,%'+($2
/.($*
3*.45
ÿ@ 
E!ÿF77
J99ÿ>?7
F977G9ÿD7
B7ÿL99
?ÿ@78G!
M9A7ÿ@?
F9ÿ77
EA8ÿ!8
>87ÿ>789!
E7ÿ!9A
787
J ?K
9BÿO!
M??Bÿ9
O8B
7BÿMK9B
E79ÿO??7
J9ÿ

T7KÿH9
J9ÿ!B9

6+77.(

79
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>7
>GG?A9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

9A9

??97
@!?98
>GG?A9
1>

>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9

9A9

1>

1>

1>

1>
??97
@!?98

"100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
@!ÿB!8A

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
9ÿ7
4
GHÿ79Aÿÿ7!E9ÿ79AÿE7A

0/)%+
?7ÿ@789A
?E9ÿC7897

4
4

7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿDÿ
9IÿJK
7ÿ9ÿMI9ÿ9F9

L9EÿHEA
Aÿ!9!

4
4
4
4

9799ÿ@989
@Aÿ

@!ÿ@99
H9F97ÿGF

4
4
4
4
4

LA78ÿMI9ÿ9F9
LE77ÿÿLE77ÿN7ÿMI9
L!K9ÿ79A
87ÿ67977ÿÿH!97ÿD7ÿ87
E7A
79Aÿÿ79AÿH9F9Oÿ67
F9!9ÿ79A

97
R79AÿÿR79Aÿ7
B79F9ÿ97ÿS9

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
CDDEF9
1C

9F9 EE97
H!E98
CDDEF9
1C

9F9 EE97
H!E98
CDDEF9
1C
CDDEF9
1C
CDDEF9
1C
CDDEF9
1C

PF9ÿ!K9
Q!77ÿ@99
ÿH 77
?!9ÿH9F97
LF8ÿPI97

CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9

4
4

B9ÿ7E7ÿ7
B979ÿ@ÿ78ÿMI9ÿEE7

B9ÿLF
9AÿNKE77

4
B9ÿM7ÿ79AÿÿT7ÿAÿMI9ÿ78
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿN9ÿ#@"33ÿ
ÿG
 79ÿ
E9ÿPLNHHU30
11797919!16789
1"43

?E9ÿG 99

787
G EK

L!ÿU9

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

CDDEF9
1C

9F9 8MA
EE97
CDDEF9
1C
#100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'(
4
4
4
4

)*%+',-+(,.'
>?8ÿ@79ÿ
9ABCÿ67
>?8J!K9ÿ7799
6LG@Dÿÿ68ÿDA9ÿE7?
6E9ÿ67ÿL

4
4

67977ÿ7E7ÿE7?ÿ>87
7
NG

4
4

0$1,%'+($2
/.($*
3*.45
D?EÿFB

ÿ!9
M!ÿ
97
N9!ÿOEE?
GP
Q9ÿQ79
O979ÿ!7

6+77.(
GHHEI9
GHHEI9

79
G7

GHHEI9
1G

98ÿ>7

9I9

RGQ@ÿ9ÿ9I9
MB978ÿ9

S9ÿR97?7
M?ÿS

GHHEI9

9I9

4
4

M77ÿ9ÿO?9E
M7ÿ678ÿDA9ÿG!?

L77?ÿD!897P
9ÿT79?

GHHEI9

9I9

4

MÿG799ÿL9E97ÿHÿS9ÿ78ÿDA9

H7BÿP

9I9

SEÿO789
SEÿD9
QB9ÿOE
LI8ÿS99B9?
99ÿG8

GHHEI9
GHHEI9
GHHEI9
GHHEI9
GHHEI9

4
MA9ÿ8ÿI9ÿG!?
4
Qÿ78ÿGÿ9ÿDA9ÿ9I9
4
Q7ÿ>?8
4
QGTÿDA9
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿWQ
"7373BÿQ
A9
79ÿ

ÿD
ÿE9
9ÿ@LVOOS3
I9ÿ67 0
11797919!16789
1"43

O ÿQ9
G78?ÿF!E7

89:;ÿ=$&.

1G

1G

1G

1G

8D?
EE97

1G
EE97
O!E98

1G
EE97
O!E98
EE97
O!E98

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

2100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
?!79ÿ@A9ÿ78ÿB9

0/)%+
C78DÿE!9

4
4
4
4

Bÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9F9Iÿ67

7ÿL8ÿMHC

9Jÿ@!ÿ@A9ÿO

9AJÿ78ÿH9!Dÿ979

?JÿG9D
?9ÿN79
NG7ÿA9D

ÿP!

CKKGF9
CKKGF9
CKKGF9

9F9

4

9AÿQJÿ@A9ÿC!D

HF9ÿH7

9F9

9
ÿ79DÿÿR8ÿ@A9ÿ78ÿPÿ

9ÿ?!ÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9F9
SLÿ79DÿÿSJGÿLÿ78ÿ9ÿ
SGÿ@!ÿ@A9ÿO
S@ÿÿS9ÿÿ@A9ÿG7D
@9Jÿ9D
@9ÿF9ÿ@A9ÿC!D
@
?ÿ9!9ÿÿ@!ÿH9F9ÿG7DÿK

9Aÿ?9

4
@78ÿL979ÿ9ÿ
4
@@Pÿ9ÿM9ÿ7
ÿ
FG9
0
Tÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV@HLÿ
"33ÿ?
ÿ@!79ÿH9
9ÿSOUHHB3
9ÿ78ÿLÿ

?J9ÿS
9
E9F7ÿB9
9ÿ@D9
O!ÿ@99!J
9ÿBJ!78
H ÿOA79D
?ÿG7
P!9ÿBG

79
CKKGF9
CKKGF9
CKKGF9
CKKGF9

79
CKKGF9
CKKGF9

79ÿ!9
978ÿ!9
N9ÿHG

CKKGF9
1C
CKKGF9
1C
CKKGF9
1C

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

11797919!16789
1"43

7,88/)

9F9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
GG97
H!G98

1C

1C

1C
GG97
H!G98
GG97
H!G98

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

#100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%()
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

*+&,(-.,)-/(
?!ÿ@AÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿCÿ97ÿ!7A
?!ÿ@AÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿCÿ?978ÿH99ÿ!7A
?!ÿ@AÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿCÿK7Fÿ!7A
?!9ÿK!78ÿ79AMÿ67
KF97ÿO!7ÿ@AÿB
KÿI9ÿ?P9
K799ÿ9
KN?J9
KG
GÿÿK!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿRÿ
K99ÿAÿL

1%2-&(,)%3
0/)%+
4+/56
D9CCÿEF9
E9I7ÿ7JA
L7ÿB!7
99ÿNJNA
G!ÿKNI D9ÿ77
K9I97ÿ
ÿQ79
QA79ÿR!F7
FÿS7TN
?J9ÿE!

4

K9F79ÿ9ÿ9I9Mÿ67

ONÿ!

4
4
4

K9FÿÿK7ÿB9ÿRÿ78ÿ9
KO9ÿ?J9ÿ9ÿ9I9
K!97ÿF7AÿÿK!97ÿF7A
K9I9Mÿ67
4
K!97ÿ6787ÿRÿ78ÿ9ÿ
4
K!7CJ9ÿ9ÿ?J9ÿ7
4
Fÿ?!ÿ@9ÿUFMÿQGV
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿX9ÿY"33ÿO79ÿ
F9ÿHBXKKQ30
11797919!16789
1"43

OÿB9
?99ÿBJ7
E979ÿ?9J
K9I9ÿJ77
?!ÿO9CC
D7ÿO99

7,88/)
G7
GCCFI9
GCCFI9
GCCFI9
GCCFI9
GCCFI9
GCCFI9
GCCFI9
GCCFI9

9I9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G
FF97
K!F98

9I9 FF97
K!F98
GCCFI9
1G
GCCFI9
1G

9I9 FF97
K!F98
GCCFI9
1G
G7
1G

9I9 FF97
K!F98

#100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
977999ÿ?9@ÿA!@
4
H9ÿBÿ78ÿÿA7Iÿ67
4
JHÿ!9!ÿEÿ9F7

0/)%+
B9ÿC!D
@ÿHF7
8ÿKL7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

4
4
4
0

M9ÿ79@
M997ÿA9ÿOP9ÿA8F77
Q 9ÿ79@Iÿ67
E7ÿ6HR

A97ÿC97
97ÿ9L7
N97ÿH 
8ÿ?79

0

9ÿ9@ÿ!7ÿEÿ9
Iÿ67

787ÿB97

9G9

0

678997897ÿ9@ÿH@9FÿR9

S978ÿC!

9G9

0

6HRÿ
9Pÿ778Iÿ67

T9ÿO!

9G9

0
0

T87797ÿ6HRIÿ67
OKTÿ6797797IÿSS

9@ÿ6L9
TLÿUF7

AEEFG9

9G9

9ÿX9!7
S977ÿSF9
NG8ÿK978
?G7ÿ?

AEEFG9
AEEFG9
AEEFG9
AEEFG9

0
H!P9ÿOP9ÿOIÿ67ÿVRW
"
AO
"
AF997ÿÿAF997ÿH9G9
Yÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿ?9ÿZAOHÿ
"33ÿA
TD779ÿO!
ÿ
F9
ÿRN?HHM3
ÿH9
G9ÿ 0
11797919!16789
1"43

N!ÿM9

7,88/)
AEEFG9
AEEFG9

9G9
AEEFG9
AEEFG9
AEEFG9

9G9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1A

1A
FF97
H!F98

1A

1A

1A
FF97
H!F98
FF97
H!F98
FF97
H!F98
8O@
FF97

1A
8O@
FF97

1A

1A

1A

1A

#100

010210345

#$%&$'(
"
"
"
"
"
"

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

"
"
"
"
"

CÿAÿK9ÿ9

ÿ9
99 ÿ98
>8BÿD99
R78ÿJ7
S!77
T77Cÿ99

"

CÿU9ÿAÿH7A98@ÿN!

H ÿDB

9?9

JMÿHB9
N99ÿ9C
G99ÿV
779ÿRF9
R99ÿH !9

>7
>AAB?9
>AAB?9
>AAB?9
>AAB?9

"
MÿG!ÿU9
"
9ÿ7
"
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿAÿ
9FÿVM
"
EB77ÿÿEB77ÿ9!9@ÿ67
Wÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿK9ÿXE!
"3M93ÿ7
ÿN9C79ÿ
B9ÿYEKHHD30
11797919!16789
1"43

/.($*
88ÿ9779
DÿEFC79ÿG97
H ÿI779C
J99BCÿK
L7ÿJ
>7799ÿJ77

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

)*%+',-+(,.'
>98ÿ9ÿ9?9@ÿ67
>!7ÿ79C
>?ÿÿ>?ÿ7
7ÿ9ÿGF9ÿ9?9
ÿLC8ÿ78ÿGF9ÿ>!C
9M9ÿLFCÿ79CÿÿN8>B97
79Cÿ
MÿLÿ7
779?9ÿGF9ÿ>8B77
97ÿ9ÿGF9ÿ9?9ÿON!P
CÿAÿQB77

787
N BM

R!ÿT!8C

6+77.(
>AAB?9
>AAB?9

79
>AAB?9
>7

9?9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>
BB97
H!B98
>AAB?9
1>
>AAB?9
1>
>AAB?9
1>
>7
1>

>AAB?9
1>
BB97
H!B98

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

5100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
"

97
"
C79DÿÿC79Dÿ7
"
C8ÿF!7ÿGH9ÿ?97D

/.($*
>7ÿ99
?7ÿE8A
>9ÿF I779D

"

E79B9ÿ97ÿK9

I97ÿLAA7

"
"

L ÿF E!
>7ÿ7

O!ÿP9

"
"
"
"

E9ÿLD9AÿM97ÿ7
E9ÿG7ÿ79DÿÿI7ÿDÿGH9ÿ78
Nÿ
QD8ÿM79ÿ
9HJRÿ67
679A!77ÿ?
I?FMÿ9ÿ9B9
NJ978ÿ9

G!ÿFS9HJ
OB8ÿF9
98ÿQA9
Gÿ8D

M7ÿG79 ?@@AB9

79
?@@AB9

9B9

"
"
"
"

N77ÿ9ÿLD9A
Fÿ78ÿ?ÿ9ÿGH9ÿ9B9
F?EÿGH9
F!79ÿGH9ÿ78ÿP9

>7ÿCJ
L997ÿG!9
9ÿ78
L9ÿL9AJ9

?@@AB9
?@@AB9
?@@AB9

9B9

"

7ÿE8ÿKL?
"

9JÿG!ÿGH9ÿO
Tÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV"33ÿF79ÿ
A9ÿMOULLP30
11797919!16789
1"43

7ÿL77
7Dÿ889A7

787
F AJ
787
F AJ

L ÿF9

6+77.(
?@@AB9
?@@AB9
?@@AB9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1?

1?

1?

?@@AB9
1?
?@@AB9
1?
?@@AB9
1?

?@@AB9
?@@AB9

1?

1?

1?
AA97
L!A98

1?

1?

1?
AA97
L!A98

1?

1?
43100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
"

9>ÿ?@ÿA>9ÿB!C

/.($*
DE8ÿE9

"

G!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿA!ÿG9E9ÿ

DFCÿHCC!@

"
"
"

9ÿI!ÿ9ÿA>9ÿ9E9

Jÿ9ÿA>9ÿ9E9Lÿ67
N ÿOCÿG9E9

G@C9ÿJ9F77
M7ÿG@9C

9E9ÿ>97

NPÿ79CÿÿN@FÿPÿ78ÿ9ÿ
NFÿA!ÿA>9ÿD
NAÿÿN9ÿÿA>9ÿF7C
N>97ÿI!7ÿO9
A9ÿE9ÿA>9ÿB!C
A
Iÿ9!9ÿÿA!ÿG9E9ÿF7CÿK

9>ÿI9

"
A78ÿP979ÿ9ÿ
"
AARÿÿR!E9ÿPÿ78ÿ9ÿ
"
AGPÿÿA!ÿG9E9ÿ9ÿ78ÿPÿ
"
A!ÿOCÿDÿ
ÿ4ÿKÿ97ÿ!7C
"
A!9ÿG!78ÿ79CLÿ67
Tÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV!
"339ÿI
79ÿ
F9ÿNDUGGJ30
K8ÿI

D78ÿQE9
B7ÿGF
J978ÿN7
FÿRC7
M9KKÿR78
RC77ÿP897

BKKFE9
BKKFE9
BKKFE9
BKKFE9
BKKFE9
BKKFE9

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

B79ÿP79
9ÿS99
MF9ÿI9C9
MC9ÿP!78C
FÿJF@
FÿQ9

BKKFE9
BKKFE9
BKKFE9
B7
BKKFE9

79

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

"
"
"
"
"
"

11797919!16789
1"43

787
I F@

6+77.(

9E9

89:;ÿ=$&.
FF97
G!F98

9E9 FF97
G!F98
BKKFE9
1B
BKKFE9
1B
BKKFE9
1B

44100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45
E9ÿ77

#$%&$'(
"
"
"
"

)*%+',-+(,.'
>?97ÿ@!7ÿABÿC
>ÿH9ÿIJ9
>799ÿ9
>F
Fÿÿ>!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿNÿ

/.($*

9ÿD79B
9ÿK78LM
E?9ÿI7
> ÿIM9

"

>99ÿBÿD

!7ÿ7

9H9

"

>9?79ÿ9ÿ9H9Oÿ67

E?9ÿP!97

9H9

"
"
"
"
"

>9?ÿÿ>7ÿC9ÿNÿ78ÿ9
>@9ÿIQ9ÿ9ÿ9H9
>7ÿR9BÿIQ9ÿÿBÿGÿ>7ÿ
>7?ÿ!7BÿIACÿ
ÿ4
>!97ÿ?7BÿÿF?ÿIQ9ÿ?7B

89ÿ>H
E9GGÿ
9
Rÿ88
SBÿ79B
E9ÿC9?QM

"
"

>!97ÿ6787ÿNÿ78ÿ9ÿ
?ÿI!ÿA9ÿT?OÿUFV

P98ÿP989M
@ÿC787

FGG?H9

9H9

78ÿC79B
67ÿN7
E799ÿ@ÿN

79

79
FGG?H9

"
Wÿÿ?ÿ9ÿ
"
977999ÿR9BÿF!B
"
>9ÿNÿ78ÿÿF7Oÿ67
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿR9ÿY"33ÿ@79ÿ
?9ÿWCR>>U30
11797919!16789
1"43

E9GGÿE77

6+77.(
FGG?H9
FGG?H9
FGG?H9

9H9

FGG?H9
FGG?H9

79
FGG?H9

9H9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1F

1F

1F

ÿ??97
>!?98
??97
>!?98
??97
>!?98

1F

1F

1F

1F
??97
>!?98

1F
??97
>!?98

1F

1F

1F
40100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'(
"
"
"
I
I
I
I
I

)*%+',-+(,.'
>ÿ79?ÿ@!Aÿ67
>9ÿ79?
G 9ÿ79?Aÿ67
C7ÿ79?ÿ7ÿJ9E9Aÿ67
CB97ÿN!ÿNO9ÿC7
CM7ÿ9ÿ9E9ÿ7
C!7ÿ79?
?ÿQ9ÿDÿJ7D98AÿH!

/.($*
Bÿ9979
?7ÿ
H9ÿ68
K?ÿL9M9
PMÿ7
C9ÿ>
9ÿ>99M9
P7ÿC97

I

HJÿ79?ÿÿ7!B9ÿ79?ÿB7?

99ÿH79R

I
I

S79?ÿÿS79?ÿ7
S8ÿH!7ÿNO9ÿC97?

C!9?ÿJ
ÿ77

I
@9ÿJ?9BÿT97ÿ7
I
K@97
I
H@ÿ79?ÿÿH87ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ
I
H89ÿ67ÿF
I

7ÿ!ÿ9ÿ9E9ÿC7
I
N!ÿQ?ÿFÿ
ÿ4ÿDÿJ7Bÿ!7?
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿI"33ÿH79ÿ
B9ÿTFVJJ>30
11797919!16789
1"43

C789ÿ?
8ÿB9!

P9ÿF9N9
J979ÿM9
?ÿKO7
P7ÿH797

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

F!ÿ>9

787
H BM

6+77.(
CDDBE9
CDDBE9
CDDBE9
CDDBE9

79
CDDBE9
CDDBE9

9E9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C
BB97
J!B98

9E9 BB97
J!B98
CDDBE9
1C
CDDBE9
1C

CDDBE9
CDDBE9
CDDBE9
CDDBE9
CDDBE9
CDDBE9

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C
4"100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
#
?@97ÿA!7ÿBCÿD
?99ÿCÿI
#

0/)%+
9ÿ79
JÿI

#

BCÿ?9H9Kÿ67

#
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Lÿ79CÿM!Kÿ67
FO
F@997ÿÿF@997ÿA!
FO?ÿÿFQ7ÿO!ÿ?9H9ÿ
FS7ÿ9ÿ9H9ÿ7
F!7ÿ79C
FHÿÿFHÿ7
7ÿ9ÿON9ÿ9H9
ÿJC8ÿ78ÿON9ÿF!C

2

9S9ÿJNCÿÿ
Tÿ79C

7ÿH7
A797
A9Nÿ9G!
@ÿPQ
?@ÿDNC9
R9ÿC
A9ÿJ
?9CÿA9N
M97ÿP@9
AS9ÿRG
J997ÿJ@7
J87
R9H7ÿ?!C

SÿJÿ7
M99ÿ
9R!7ÿ67ÿDÿÿI!SCÿO9SÿON9 AS9ÿR!S
O7ÿOU9
? ÿL779
2
779H9ÿON9ÿF8@77
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿT9ÿ#"33ÿA79ÿ
@9ÿWDT??L30
2
2

11797919!16789
1"43

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
E9ÿ77

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
FGG@H9
1F

9H9 @@97
?!@98
FGG@H9
1F
FGG@H9
FGG@H9
FGG@H9
FGG@H9
FGG@H9
FGG@H9
FGG@H9
FGG@H9
F7

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

9H9

@@97
?!@98
FGG@H9
1F

9H9 8OC
@@97
FGG@H9
1F
4#100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
2
>ÿ?9797ÿ@A98ÿB79Cÿ@@@B

/.($*
ÿD7

2
2
2

GÿD9Cÿ@ÿ78ÿB>9ÿHÿF7H98Cÿ6@
9ÿ7
KFÿ79Gÿÿ7!A9ÿ79GÿA7G

F9E9ÿ9
F979ÿJ!HHA7
LE8ÿ?9G99

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿHÿ
9>ÿMN
>Pÿ!7GÿBQL
LG78ÿB>9ÿ9E9
LA77ÿÿLA77ÿ9!9Cÿ67
Lÿ79GÿÿL9ÿ87ÿA7G
L!N9ÿ79G
87ÿ67977ÿÿF!97ÿH7ÿ87
A7G
LBÿ979>9ÿ
ÿIA9ÿ@@

97
T79GÿÿT79GÿF!7
T8ÿK!7ÿB>9ÿI97G

DAÿD79
L977ÿ7
AAGÿL9
@!ÿR9N
S9HH9GÿL9B9
L9ÿ?8>79
F9979ÿD

2
2
2
2

2
?9ÿB7ÿ79GÿÿU7ÿGÿB>9ÿ78
@ÿ
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿO9ÿW"33ÿK79ÿ
A9ÿRLOFFD30
11797919!16789
1"43

J99ÿK7
!ÿK9
9ÿ@G
ÿ?>89
J8ÿDG9

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

@!ÿ?!8G
L79ÿO9

787
K AN
L!ÿD9

6+77.(

9E9

IHHAE9
IHHAE9
IHHAE9
IHHAE9
IHHAE9
IHHAE9
IHHAE9

89:;ÿ=$&.

ÿAA97
F!A98

1I

1I
AA97
F!A98

1I

1I

1I

1I

1I

1I

1I

IHHAE9
IHHAE9
IHHAE9
IHHAE9

1I

1I

1I

1I

IHHAE9
IHHAE9

9E9

IHHAE9
1I
42100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%()
2
2
2
2
2

*+&,(-.,)-/(
?9ÿ@9ÿ79A
G9ÿH A!97
GA8I!J9ÿB8!7
6F9ÿ67ÿN
KD

0/)%+
B97ÿC
G9ÿH A!97
K!7LÿMF!
7ÿOP
K7ÿQ

2

RQ978ÿ9

KFÿGS8

9@9

2
2
2
2

R77ÿ9ÿHA9F
RÿD799ÿN9F97ÿEÿC9ÿ78ÿBS9
RS9ÿ8ÿ@9ÿD!A
U!9ÿU!7ÿC99ÿ9
F7A
UD?ÿBS9

7ÿ?8ÿVHD

!79ÿVHDWÿRR

TA9ÿCQ97
?977ÿA
99ÿ7S9
N@8ÿ?87

DEEF@9
DEEF@9
DEEF@9

9@9

2
2
2

2

ÿBS9ÿ7
2

9QÿB!ÿBS9ÿN
2

9SÿMQÿBS9ÿD!A
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿY9ÿZ"33ÿU79ÿ
F9ÿ[NYHHC30
11797919!16789
1"43

H9@97ÿ?9
P9ÿH@Q
ÿHF
R!ÿU R98
N7ÿH F
H@Pÿ

H ÿU9

7,88/)
DEEF@9
DEEF@9

79
D7

9@9

DEEF@9
DEEF@9

9@9
D7
DEEF@9

9@9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1D

1D

1D

1D
8BA
FF97
FF97
H!F98

1D

1D

1D
FF97
H!F98

1D

1D
FF97
H!F98

1D

1D
FF97
H!F98
4#100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%()
2
2
2
2
2

*+&,(-.,)-/(

?ÿÿ
?ÿ79@Aÿ67
H?ÿ79@ÿÿHIFÿ?ÿ78ÿ9ÿ
H99ÿBK9ÿ7
HFÿB!ÿBK9ÿL
H7ÿBK9ÿ?9797ÿ67

2
2
2
2

HBÿÿH9ÿÿBK9ÿF7@
B9ÿG9ÿBK9ÿD!@
B78ÿ?979ÿ9ÿ
BBCÿÿC!G9ÿ?ÿ78ÿ9ÿ

0/)%+
BÿC@7
BIÿJ9
L77ÿM77
NF8ÿOE
777ÿ9!

9ÿM
@7ÿD9
@7ÿH7
MPC6
QHOD
L
2
BO?ÿÿBO?ÿRÿCC
FÿS!9@
2
B!ÿP@ÿLÿ
ÿ4ÿEÿ97ÿ!7@
N97ÿ779
2
B!ÿP@ÿLÿ
ÿ4ÿEÿO7Fÿ!7@ OFÿ
9E98
2
B!ÿP@ÿLÿ
ÿ0ÿEÿ?7ÿ!7@A
D9
ÿT
J77
2
B!9ÿO!78ÿ79@Aÿ67
97ÿK@
2
OF97ÿN!7ÿP@ÿL
O!7ÿH
2
OÿG9ÿBU9
S9G7ÿ
997
2
O799ÿ9
FF@ÿ!
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿX"33ÿN79ÿ
F9ÿHLWOOJ30
11797919!16789
1"43

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

M9ÿ77

7,88/)
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9

9G9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1D

1D

1D

1D
FF97
O!F98

1D

1D

1D

1D

DEEFG9
D7
DEEFG9
DEEFG9

1D

1D

1D

1D

DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9

1D

1D

1D

1D
4#100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
?@
@ÿÿ?!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿAÿ
?9Eÿÿ?7ÿG9ÿAÿ78ÿ9
2

0/)%+
@BÿC!8
G79ÿH7I

2
2

?78ÿL9
NEÿGÿ?!O

79

9F9

2
2

?7ÿK9BÿLM9ÿÿBÿDÿ?7ÿ
?!97ÿE7Bÿÿ?!97ÿE7B
A9797
?!97ÿ6787ÿAÿ78ÿ9ÿ
EÿL!ÿQ9ÿRESÿN@T

PIÿP G78
UO7ÿH97

@DDEF9

9F9

2
2
2

977999ÿK9Bÿ@!B
?9ÿAÿ78ÿÿ@7Sÿ67
Q?ÿ!9!ÿDÿ9E7

PÿV99ÿE
PIÿ?97
N978Bÿ979

@DDEF9
@DDEF9

9F9

G7ÿ99E9B9
V78ÿC7
G99IÿM7
A9BÿC!
9ÿY!7F7

ÿJB
!9ÿNI!
7ÿ@ I9E77

@7
@DDEF9
@DDEF9
@DDEF9
@DDEF9
@DDEF9
@DDEF9
@DDEF9

Kÿ79B
2
2
Nÿ79BÿA!Sÿ67
2
N9ÿ79B
2
W 9ÿ79BSÿ67
X
@E997ÿÿ@E997ÿ?9F9
X
@L?ÿÿ@O7ÿL!ÿ?9F9ÿ
X
@I7ÿ9ÿ9F9ÿ7
79ÿ

Zÿ034X5ÿÿ
ÿK9ÿ[@
"33ÿP
98ÿ
E9
ÿÿUGK??N3
9F9Sÿ67 0
11797919!16789
1"43

@789B
JEF

G!ÿN9

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
@DDEF9
1@
@7
1@

1@
EE97
?!E98

1@
EE97
?!E98

1@

1@
EE97
?!E98

1@

1@

1@

1@

1@

1@

1@

1@

4#100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
>
9?9ÿ@ABÿÿCD

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

ÿE 9
H789AÿI9B9
9ÿ@?
J!ÿK!8B
9
MF99
>
NG77ÿÿNG77ÿ9!9Oÿ67
E97ÿ8?7
>
N!?9ÿ79B
K9ÿ9
>
87ÿ67977ÿÿE!97ÿD7ÿ87 P97BÿE999
G7B
>
79B
Q!9ÿ@
>

97
9?BÿR9
>
S79BÿÿS79BÿE!7
H77ÿ6F7
>
S8ÿI!7ÿCA9ÿH97B
8ÿI7G9B 787
I G?
>
S8ÿI!7ÿCA9ÿC
Gÿ998B
787
I G?
>
K9ÿC7ÿ79BÿÿP7ÿBÿCA9ÿ78 Q977D9
N!ÿR9
Jÿ
S789G9B9
>
6G9ÿ67ÿN
N7ÿ9
Tÿ034>5ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿVJ"?393ÿI
979ÿ
G9ÿMNUEER30
78ÿ
C!ÿE
>
>
>
>

?ÿ@ÿ7
779F9ÿCA9ÿH8G77
9ÿ7
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿDÿ
9AÿL?

/.($*
E78ÿEDD9

11797919!16789
1"43

6+77.(

9F9
HDDGF9
HDDGF9
HDDGF9
HDDGF9

89:;ÿ=$&.
GG97
E!G98

1H

1H

1H

1H

HDDGF9
1H
HDDGF9
1H
HDDGF9
1H
HDDGF9
HDDGF9
HDDGF9
HDDGF9

1H

1H

1H

1H

HDDGF9
1H
HDDGF9
1H

79

79

1H

1H

45100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

#$%&$'(
>
>
>
>
>
>

)*%+',-+(,.'
?77ÿ9ÿ@A9B
?ÿD799ÿG9B97ÿEÿH9ÿ78ÿIJ9
?!B77ÿÿ?!B77ÿ79A
M7ÿNA8
M89ÿ67ÿG
M!79ÿIJ9ÿ78ÿH9

/.($*
ÿ!CB
D77ÿK!
Lÿ!9
ÿM!C7C
OB9ÿM P
A7ÿ@9C

>

9JÿQCÿIJ9ÿD!A

Bÿ@F7

9F9

>

@!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿI!ÿ@9F9ÿ

O9ÿRS97

9F9

>
>
>
>
>
>

97ÿE7ÿIJ9ÿD97A

Tÿÿ
Tÿ79AUÿ67
RTÿ79AÿÿRCBÿTÿ78ÿ9ÿ
I9ÿF9ÿIJ9ÿD!A
I78ÿT979ÿ9ÿ
IJ99
ÿ7

G977ÿ@B9
M7ÿ@8
@7ÿA
@7ÿMV
G79ÿM7
T87ÿG7
MC
>
II?ÿÿ?!F9ÿTÿ78ÿ9ÿ
?77ÿR9C9
>
I@TÿÿI@Tÿ79Aÿ9!9ÿ78ÿ89ÿ?? Lÿ7
"33ÿM
9ÿ

ÿRGK@@H3
Xÿ034>5ÿÿ
ÿK9ÿYI!
WAÿ7G
B9
ÿ

ÿ4ÿEÿ97ÿ!07A
GFÿO9!
11797919!16789
1"43

6+77.(
DEEBF9

79
D7
DEEBF9
9799ÿL79 DEEBF9

9F9

D7
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
D7

89:;ÿ=$&.

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D
BB97
@!B98
BB97
@!B98
BB97
@!B98

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

DEEBF9
1D
DEEBF9
1D
D7
1D

03100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
>
?!ÿ@AÿBÿ
ÿ0ÿCÿD7ÿ!7AE
F77
KI97ÿL!7ÿ@AÿB
>
>
KÿJ9ÿ?N9
>
K799ÿ9
>
KH
HÿÿK!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿDÿ
>
K99ÿAÿG

/.($*
G9Aÿ?97
MI9ÿ!
AÿO97
L9ÿP7
M7ÿQI
9ÿQ99I7

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

M9ÿ77

6+77.(
89:;ÿ=$&.
HCCIJ9
1H
HCCIJ9
HCCIJ9
HCCIJ9
HCCIJ9

9J9

>

K9I79ÿ9ÿ9J9Eÿ67

!8Aÿ
JR

9J9

>
>

K7Iÿ!7Aÿ?@Bÿ
ÿ4
K!97ÿI7AÿÿK!97ÿI7A
D9797ÿ78ÿ79AÿLR97
K!97ÿ6787ÿDÿ78ÿ9ÿ
Iÿ?!ÿ@9ÿSIEÿFHT

Q7R7ÿG!
M977C9ÿKAR9

HCCIJ9

9J9

8ÿG9I99
RÿH99

79

9J9

LN9ÿ?7
BJ8ÿVPA
D7ÿFR97
9ÿQ!
9ÿB
7

HCCIJ9
HCCIJ9
HCCIJ9

79
HCCIJ9

>
>

977999ÿU9AÿH!A
>
>
Fÿ79AÿD!Eÿ67
>
F9ÿ79A
>
F997ÿH9ÿ?P9ÿH8I77
>
W 9ÿ79AEÿ67
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿY"33ÿL79ÿ
I9ÿOBUKKF30
11797919!16789
1"43

B!ÿF9

1H

1H

1H

1H
II97
K!I98
II97
K!I98

1H
II97
K!I98

1H
II97
K!I98

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H
04100

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

)*+,*-. /0+1-231.24D
E!F77ÿG77ÿF7HÿEE

54.*0
978ÿIF7

43
43
43

FF7$9ÿ&ÿG!9ÿJ9F97ÿ&
'!ÿK9
M8ÿ9Hÿ877ÿ!7
G8$9ÿ9HÿN7O7

9$ÿQRÿ#9ÿ9Hÿ!7

'99ÿI98
!9ÿG!7PH
LEL
ÿLJLG#N

43
43
43
43
43

9ÿ'$9ÿ877ÿ!7
9HM
#ÿ9Hÿ7
9
ÿ9Hÿ7HWÿ67
X997ÿ9Hÿ877ÿ!7

S!HÿTÿU
L77HÿV7R
J9$ÿ#!
9ÿH79
#9(97ÿ!9R9

5

#$7ÿ4ÿÿ"0%ÿ&ÿ"0%ÿ979

Yÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿT9ÿ%"33ÿG79ÿ
F9ÿNJT##X30
11797919!16789
1"43

J78ÿ
97

6*72+-1.*8
904:;

<1==4.

9(9

>?@AÿC*,4
FF97
#!F98
L&&F(9
1L

L&&F(9
1L
L&&F(9
1L

9(9 8'H
FF97
L&&F(9
1L
L7
1L
L&&F(9
1L
L&&F(9
1L
L&&F(9
1L
'9(! 4
9


00100

ÿ7ÿÿ#1$

010210345

_8ÿ#1$ &9

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ



]]97ÿ`]

%7ÿ#1&91%7$ÿ1ÿ99ÿ#1&9199$

QRSSTUÿWXYZSUYÿÿ
'())*+ÿ-(./0ÿ034130ÿ2837ÿÿ64331ÿ59ÿ69!5ÿ67897ÿ97ÿ643317ÿ
7787ÿ4ÿ8ÿ0ÿ

9*+:;<ÿ=+(>+ÿ?(+/0ÿ4410310341ÿ403433ÿ82
9*+:;<ÿ@;Aÿ?(+/0ÿ4410510341ÿ13333ÿ42
'())*+ÿBCD/0ÿ

'())*+ÿEF+:G:+C0ÿ8
'())*+ÿ=/>:/H0ÿ0
B*+()ÿIÿ9*+/H0ÿ0J5
B*+()ÿ'())*+ÿK**)0ÿ"33
LM*>M.0ÿ5"
LM*>M.ÿ@H+(N):HO/Aÿ?(+/0ÿ4410510341ÿ40703ÿ42
P/:.(+:G/
E[[:>.(+:G/
-/<(+:G/
-/<(+:G/
=/<./;+ K**)
P/:(F+:*;
9*+/H
\>(F+:*;
4
^^
3J""
47
307J
69]97ÿ4 1^
69]97ÿ0 J
37
4
34
2
32
4
"5
3J57
43
303^
69]97ÿ" J3
4
5
3141
0
3410
69]97ÿ^ 4"
69]97ÿ2 71
4
"1
3JJ7
44
300^
4
02
3J14
J
3045
69]97ÿ7 ^1
69]97ÿJ 4
3
3
3
3
3
69]97ÿ1 3
3
3
3
3
3
aÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿb9ÿ^"33ÿ279ÿ
]9ÿc_b66d30
11797919!16789
1"44

-*
ENH+(:; 9*+/
03
^
4
3
4^
J
0
3
42
^
44
2
3
4
3
3
4104

010210345

)*++,(
#$%&$'( -,,+
;9<97ÿ5 4
;9<97 =
43

"33

#$%&$'(
.$/%0(
34
3>

122/3&*(/4$
5,($6
4
?

89
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ
122/367&*
(/4$
9$%*(/4$
73*8(/,'
5,($6
34
3
3?
4

9$%*(/4$
73*8(/,'
3
34

9,
1:6(*/' 5,($
3
3
4
3

?@

4?"

@>3@

4?5?

?@

20

04

ABCCDEÿGDDCÿHIHAIJK
;Lÿ M

;9 ;9

ÿ979

#$%&$'( N3%*'/O*(/,'
MYÿÿMYÿ;9Z9ÿ7
4
4
M<997ÿÿM<997ÿ;9Z9
4
M<97ÿ7<7ÿ<7]^ÿ__
4
MY;ÿÿMa7ÿY!ÿ;9Z9ÿ
4
M98ÿ9ÿ9Z9^ÿ67
4
M!7ÿ79]
dÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿe9ÿ@"33ÿb79ÿ
<9ÿf[e;;g30
11797919!16789
1"44

5,($3
[977ÿ;!
ÿ; 
[!ÿ`77
b99ÿM<7
]7ÿc99
<ÿ;78\!

P$6/%'*($Q
-3,RS

)*++,(
M7
M\\<Z9
M\\<Z9
M\\<Z9
M\\<Z9
M\\<Z9

9TUVÿX$&,

1M

1M

1M

1M

1M

1M
0104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'(
4
4
4
4

)*%+',-+(,.'
77ÿ>!?ÿ@ÿ
97ÿ@7
7ÿ9ÿFG9ÿ9B9
ÿI?8ÿ78ÿFG9ÿ>!?
99ÿ79?ÿC9B9

/.($*
A9B7ÿCD
HB8ÿ!8
>87ÿ>789!
H7ÿ!9B

4

9?ÿI!

4
4

9K9ÿIG?ÿ79?ÿÿJ8>D97
79?ÿ
KÿIÿ7
779B9ÿFG9ÿ>8D77

4

Mÿ9ÿFG9ÿ9B9Nÿ67

L9ÿL797
ADD?ÿ9
I8?
7?ÿAK9?

4
4
4
4

979F7ÿ79?ÿI!7ÿ9NÿOO
97ÿ9ÿFG9ÿ9B9ÿPJ!Q
97ÿI!87ÿRÿSÿ9ÿ
?ÿU9ÿ@ÿC7@98NÿJ!

H79ÿIDD7
J9ÿ

T7KÿF9
J9ÿ!?9

4
4

9ÿ7
JCÿ79?ÿÿ7!D9ÿ79?ÿD7?

E7ÿO789?
ED9ÿ>7897

4
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿ@ÿ
9GÿVK
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿX9ÿY"33ÿJ79ÿ
D9ÿZHXCCL30
11797919!16789
1"44

H9DÿCD?

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45
E9ÿ77

787
J DK

6+77.(
>@@DB9
>@@DB9
>7
>@@DB9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1>

1>

1>

1>

9B9

DD97
C!D98

79

1>
>@@DB9
1>

9B9

O!ÿR!8?

DD97
C!D98
>7
1>
>@@DB9
1>
>@@DB9
1>

9B9 DD97
C!D98
>7
1>

9B9 DD97
C!D98
>@@DB9
1>
"104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
7ÿ9ÿ?@9ÿ9A9
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

EB78ÿ?@9ÿ9A9
EC77ÿÿEC77ÿI7ÿ?@9
E!J9ÿ79B
87ÿ67977ÿÿD!97ÿH7ÿ87
C7B
79Bÿÿ79BÿD9A9Lÿ67
A9!9ÿ79B

97
O79BÿÿO79Bÿ7
Q9ÿ7C7ÿ7
Q979ÿFÿ78ÿ?@9ÿCC7

4

Q9ÿ?7ÿ79BÿÿR7ÿBÿ?@9ÿ78
Fÿ
4
TB8ÿM79ÿ
9@JLÿ67
4
TB8N!U9ÿ7799
4
6EGM?ÿÿ68ÿ?@9ÿC7B
4
6C9ÿ67ÿE
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿI9ÿ#"33ÿK79ÿ
C9ÿMEIDDS30
11797919!16789
1"44

0/)%+
Bÿ!9!

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

9799ÿF989
FBÿ

F!ÿF99
D9A97ÿKA

9:;<ÿ>%'/
CC97
D!C98
GHHCA9
1G
G7
1G
GHHCA9
1G
GHHCA9
1G

MA9ÿ!J9
N!77ÿF99
ÿD 77
P!9ÿD9A97
Q9ÿEA
9BÿIJC77

GHHCA9
GHHCA9
G7
GHHCA9
G7

9A9

PC9ÿK 99
?BCÿOJ

ÿ!9
F!ÿ
97
P9!ÿDCCB
GV

E!ÿS9

7,88/)

9A9

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G
CC97
D!C98
GHHCA9
1G

GHHCA9
GHHCA9

79
G7

1G

1G

1G

1G
#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

98ÿ@7

9E9

4
4

GCAHÿ9ÿ9E9
JK978ÿ9

I9ÿG97?7
J?ÿI

CDD>E9

9E9

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

J77ÿ9ÿB?9>
J7ÿ678ÿMO9ÿC!?
JÿC799ÿL9>97ÿDÿI9ÿ78ÿMO9
JO9ÿ8ÿE9ÿC!?
Aÿ78ÿCÿ9ÿMO9ÿ9E9
A7ÿ@?8
ACPÿMO9
A77KÿMO9ÿ9E9ÿ67

L77?ÿM!897N
9ÿP79?
D7KÿN
I>ÿB789
I>ÿM9
AK9ÿB>
LE8ÿI99K9?
99ÿC8

C7
C7

79
CDD>E9
CDD>E9
CDD>E9
CDD>E9

9E9

4

A!79ÿMO9ÿ78ÿI9

C78?ÿG!9

9E9

AKÿ>9?
A9ÿF79
F>7ÿO9?

CDD>E9
CDD>E9
C7

4

Iÿ9ÿMO9ÿ9E9Rÿ67
4

7ÿP8ÿSBC
4

9KÿM!ÿMO9ÿL
Tÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV"33ÿA79ÿ
>9ÿHLUBBI30
11797919!16789
1"44

/.($*
A9ÿA79

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45
B979ÿ!7

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
4
67977ÿ7>7ÿ>7?ÿ@87
7
4
FC

B ÿA9
C78?ÿQ!>7

6+77.(
89:;ÿ=$&.
CDD>E9
1C
>>97
B!>98

1C
>>97
B!>98

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C
>>97
B!>98
>>97
B!>98

1C

1C

1C
2104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4

9?@ÿ78ÿA9!Bÿ979

0/)%+

ÿC!

4

9?ÿF@ÿG?9ÿH!B

AD9ÿA7

9D9

9
ÿ79BÿÿI8ÿG?9ÿ78ÿCÿ

9ÿJ!ÿ9ÿG?9ÿ9D9
KOÿ79BÿÿK@EÿOÿ78ÿ9ÿ
KEÿG!ÿG?9ÿP
G
Jÿ9!9ÿÿG!ÿA9D9ÿE7BÿN

9?ÿJ9

4
G78ÿO979ÿ9ÿ
4
GGCÿ9ÿQ9ÿ7
4
GAOÿÿG!ÿA9D9ÿ9ÿ78ÿOÿ
4
G!ÿQBÿPÿ
ÿ4ÿNÿ97ÿ!7B
4
G!ÿQBÿPÿ
ÿ4ÿNÿG978ÿK99ÿ!7B
4
G!ÿQBÿPÿ
ÿ4ÿNÿA7Eÿ!7B
4
G!9ÿA!78ÿ79BSÿ67
4
AE97ÿJ!7ÿQBÿP
4
AÿD9ÿGT9
4
A799ÿ9
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿW"33ÿJ79ÿ
E9ÿKPVAAM30

J@9ÿK
9
L9D7ÿM9
9ÿGB9
P!ÿG99!@
C!9ÿME

79
HNNED9
HNNED9
HNNED9
HNNED9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
EE97
A!E98
EE97
A!E98

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

79ÿ!9
978ÿ!9
R9ÿAE
R9NNÿLE9
L9D7ÿ7?B
C7ÿP!7
99ÿ@?@B
H!ÿA@D
A9D97ÿ
ÿM79

HNNED9
H7
H7
H7
HNNED9
HNNED9
HNNED9
HNNED9
HNNED9
H7

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

4
4
4
4
4

11797919!16789
1"44

R9ÿ77

7,88/)

9D9

#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
?@AB9
4
?G
Gÿÿ?!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿEÿ
4
?99ÿDÿL

0/)%+
CD79ÿE!F7
FÿH7I@
AB9ÿM!

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

7,88/)
G7
GJJFK9

9K9

O@ÿ!
OÿP9
A99ÿPB7
M979ÿA9B

G7
GJJFK9
GJJFK9

9K9

4
4

?9F79ÿ9ÿ9K9Nÿ67
?9Fÿÿ?7ÿP9ÿEÿ78ÿ9
?O9ÿAB9ÿ9ÿ9K9
?!97ÿF7Dÿÿ?!97ÿF7D
?9K9Nÿ67
?!7JB9ÿ9ÿAB9ÿ7
FÿA!ÿQ9ÿRFNÿCGS

A!ÿO9JJ
T7ÿO99

G7

9K9

4
4
4

977999ÿU9DÿG!D
?9ÿEÿ78ÿÿG7Nÿ67
Q?ÿ!9!ÿJÿ9F7

E9ÿM!I
Dÿ?F7
8ÿT@7

G7
GJJFK9

9K9

4
4
0

C9ÿ79D
C997ÿG9ÿAB9ÿG8F77
J7ÿ6?V

G97ÿM97
97ÿ9@7
8ÿU79

4
4
4
4

0
9ÿ9Dÿ!7ÿJÿ9
Nÿ67
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿX"33ÿO79ÿ
F9ÿVPU??C30
11797919!16789
1"44

787ÿE97

P!ÿC9

GJJFK9
G7

9K9

9K9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1G

1G
FF97
?!F98

1G

1G

1G
FF97
?!F98

1G
FF97
?!F98

1G

1G
FF97
?!F98

1G

1G
FF97
?!F98
FF97
?!F98

#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
0
678997897ÿ9?ÿ@?9AÿB9

0/)%+
C978ÿD!

0

6@Bÿ
9Fÿ778Gÿ67

H9ÿI!

9E9

0
0

H87797ÿ6@BGÿ67
ILHÿ6797797GÿCC

9?ÿ6J9
HJÿMA7

K7

9E9

9ÿP9!7
C977ÿCA9
RE8ÿL978
TE7ÿT
88ÿ9779
UÿRF?79ÿI97
@ ÿD779?
L99A?ÿT
M7ÿL
K7799ÿL77

KQQAE9
K7
KQQAE9
KQQAE9
KQQAE9
KQQAE9

79
KQQAE9
K7

9E9

ÿ9
99 ÿ98
K8AÿU99

KQQAE9
KQQAE9
KQQAE9

0
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

@!F9ÿIF9ÿIGÿ67ÿNBO
KI
KA997ÿÿKA997ÿ@9E9
KI@ÿÿKS7ÿI!ÿ@9E9ÿ
K98ÿ9ÿ9E9Gÿ67
K!7ÿ79?
KEÿÿKEÿ7
7ÿ9ÿIF9ÿ9E9
ÿM?8ÿ78ÿIF9ÿK!?
9J9ÿMF?ÿ79?ÿÿH8KA97
79?ÿ
"
JÿMÿ7
"
779E9ÿIF9ÿK8A77
Vÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿT9ÿW9
"373ÿH
ÿ979ÿ

IA9
F9ÿBRT@@U3
9E9ÿNH0!O
11797919!16789
1"44

7,88/)

9E9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
AA97
@!A98
AA97
@!A98

1K
AA97
@!A98

1K

1K

1K

1K

1K

1K

1K

1K

1K
AA97
@!A98

1K

1K

1K

#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
"
>ÿ?ÿ@A77
"

>ÿ?ÿF9ÿ9

/.($*
B78ÿC7
D!77
G77>ÿ99

"

>ÿK9ÿ?ÿL7?98MÿH!

L ÿNA

"
"
"
"
"
"
"

IÿO!ÿK9
9ÿ7
PA77ÿÿPA77ÿ9!9Mÿ67
P!I9ÿ79>

97
@79>ÿÿ@79>ÿ7
@8ÿH!7ÿOQ9ÿE97>

CIÿLA9
H99ÿ9>
779ÿBQ9
B99ÿL !9
C7ÿ99
E7ÿG8A
C9ÿH R779>

"

G79J9ÿ97ÿK9

R97ÿLAA7

"
"

G9ÿL>9AÿS97ÿ7
G9ÿO7ÿ79>ÿÿR7ÿ>ÿOQ9ÿ78
Bÿ
"
T>8ÿS79ÿ
9QIMÿ67
"
679A!77ÿE
Vÿ034"5ÿÿ
ÿF9ÿWC"E
33ÿH79ÿ
A9ÿSPFLLN30
11797919!16789
1"44

L ÿH G!
C7ÿ7
O!ÿHU9QI
PJ8ÿH9
G>ÿI9

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

787
H AI

6+77.(
E7

89:;ÿ=$&.

1E

E??AJ9
1E

9J9

B!ÿG!8>

787
H AI
787
H AI
P!ÿN9
S7ÿO79

AA97
L!A98
E7
1E
E7
1E
E7
1E
E??AJ9
1E
E7
1E
E??AJ9
1E
E??AJ9
1E
E??AJ9
1E
E??AJ9
1E
E??AJ9
1E
E??AJ9
1E

79

1E

79

1E

5104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
"
>?@Aÿ9ÿ9B9
"
FG978ÿ9

/.($*
98ÿCD9
Hÿ8I

"
"
"
"

F77ÿ9ÿJI9D
@ÿ78ÿ?ÿ9ÿHM9ÿ9B9
@?NÿHM9
@!79ÿHM9ÿ78ÿO9

K7ÿLG
J997ÿH!9
9ÿ78
J9ÿJ9DG9

"
"
"

7ÿN8ÿPJ?

9GÿH!ÿHM9ÿQ

9MÿRGÿHM9ÿ?!I

7ÿJ77
7Iÿ889D7
QB8ÿB9

"

J!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿH!ÿJ9B9ÿ

QDIÿSII!G

"
"
"

9ÿ@!ÿ9ÿHM9ÿ9B9

Oÿ9ÿHM9ÿ9B9Tÿ67
A ÿPIÿJ9B9

JGI9ÿO9D77
K7ÿJG9I

9B9ÿM97

"
ANÿ79IÿÿAGDÿNÿ78ÿ9ÿ
"
ADÿH!ÿHM9ÿQ
"
AHÿÿA9ÿÿHM9ÿD7I
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿW"33ÿ@79ÿ
D9ÿAQVJJO30

Q78ÿCB9
?7ÿJD
O978ÿA7

11797919!16789
1"44

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

J ÿ@9

787
@ DG

6+77.(
89:;ÿ=$&.
?EEDB9
1?

9B9 DD97
J!D98
?7
1?
?EEDB9
1?
?EEDB9
1?

9B9 DD97
J!D98
?EEDB9
1?
?7
1?

9B9 DD97
J!D98

9B9 DD97
J!D98
?EEDB9
1?
?EEDB9
1?
?EEDB9
1?
?EEDB9
1?
?EEDB9
1?
?EEDB9
1?
43104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
"
>?97ÿ@!7ÿA9
"
H9ÿG9ÿH?9ÿE!D
"
H
@ÿ9!9ÿÿH!ÿJ9G9ÿB7DÿF

9?ÿ@9

"
H78ÿK979ÿ9ÿ
"
HHCÿÿC!G9ÿKÿ78ÿ9ÿ
"
HJKÿÿH!ÿJ9G9ÿ9ÿ78ÿKÿ
"
H!ÿADÿLÿ
ÿ4ÿFÿ97ÿ!7D
"
H!9ÿJ!78ÿ79DMÿ67
"
!9F8ÿ@
"
JB97ÿ@!7ÿADÿL
"
JÿG9ÿHQ9
"
J799ÿ9
"
JE
EÿÿJ!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿKÿ

E79ÿK79
I9ÿ97B
IB9ÿ@9D9
ID9ÿK!78D
BÿNBO
BÿP9

9ÿC79D
9ÿR78SO
IB9ÿH7
J ÿHO9

"

!7ÿ7

J99ÿDÿC

"
J9B79ÿ9ÿ9G9Mÿ67
"
J9BÿÿJ7ÿL9ÿKÿ78ÿ9
"
J@9ÿH?9ÿ9ÿ9G9
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿW"33ÿ@79ÿ
B9ÿ>LVJJN30
11797919!16789
1"44

/.($*
BÿCD7
I9FFÿC78
CD77ÿK897

IB9ÿT!97
89ÿJG
I9FFÿ
9

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

I9ÿ77

I9FFÿI77

6+77.(
EFFBG9
EFFBG9
EFFBG9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1E

1E

1E

EFFBG9

79
E7
E7
EFFBG9

79
EFFBG9
EFFBG9
E7

9G9

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E
BB97
J!B98

9G9 BB97
J!B98
E7
1E
EFFBG9
1E
EFFBG9
1E
44104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
"
>7ÿ?9@ÿAB9ÿÿ@ÿCÿ>7ÿ
"
>7Eÿ!7@ÿAFGÿ
ÿ4
"
>!97ÿE7@ÿÿDEÿAB9ÿE7@

/.($*
?ÿ88
H@ÿ79@
J9ÿG9EBK

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

6+77.(

79
DCCEI9

9I9

"

EÿA!ÿF9ÿLEMÿNDO

PÿG787

9I9

"
"
"
"
"
S
S
S
S

977999ÿ?9@ÿD!@
>9ÿQÿ78ÿÿD7Mÿ67
Nÿ79@ÿQ!Mÿ67
N9ÿ79@
R 9ÿ79@Mÿ67
D7ÿ79@ÿ7ÿ>9I9Mÿ67
D!7ÿ79@
@ÿF9ÿCÿ>7C98MÿP!
P>ÿ79@ÿÿ7!E9ÿ79@ÿE7@

67ÿQ7
J799ÿPÿQ
Eÿ9979
@7ÿ
G!ÿN9
P9ÿ68
T@ÿH9K9
9ÿN99K9
J7ÿD97
99ÿP79U

79
DCCEI9
DCCEI9
DCCEI9
D7
DCCEI9
DCCEI9
D7

9I9

S
S

V79@ÿÿV79@ÿ7
V8ÿP!7ÿAB9ÿD97@

D!9@ÿ>
ÿ77

DCCEI9
DCCEI9

S
Q9ÿ>@9EÿW97ÿ7
Xÿ034S5ÿÿ
ÿ?9ÿST"Q9
337ÿP79ÿ
E9ÿWG?>>N30
11797919!16789
1"44

D789ÿ@
8ÿE9!

787
P EK

89:;ÿ=$&.

1D

1D
EE97
>!E98
EE97
>!E98

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D
EE97
>!E98

1D

1D

DCCEI9
1D
DCCEI9
1D

40104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
>
?!ÿ@AÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿCÿD7Eÿ!7A
DE97ÿG!7ÿ@AÿB
>
>
D99ÿAÿJ
>

@AÿD9I9Lÿ67

>
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Mÿ79AÿN!Lÿ67
H?
HE997ÿÿHE997ÿG!
H?DÿÿHQ7ÿ?!ÿD9I9ÿ
HS7ÿ9ÿ9I9ÿ7
H!7ÿ79A
HIÿÿHIÿ7
7ÿ9ÿ?O9ÿ9I9
ÿKA8ÿ78ÿ?O9ÿH!A

2

9S9ÿKOAÿÿ
Tÿ79A

/.($*
F7ÿG797
9ÿ79
KÿJ
7ÿI7
G797
G9Oÿ9C!
EÿPQ
DEÿBOA9
R9ÿA
G9ÿK
D9AÿG9O
N97ÿPE9
GS9ÿRC
K997ÿKE7
K87
R9I7ÿD!A

2
SÿKÿ7
N99ÿ
2
9R!7ÿ67ÿBÿÿJ!SAÿ?9Sÿ?O9 GS9ÿR!S
?7ÿ?U9
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿT9ÿ>"33ÿG79ÿ
E9ÿWBTDDM30
11797919!16789
1"44

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

F9ÿ77

6+77.(
HCCEI9
HCCEI9

9I9
H7

89:;ÿ=$&.

1H

1H
EE97
D!E98

1H

HCCEI9
H7
HCCEI9
HCCEI9

79
HCCEI9
HCCEI9
HCCEI9
H7

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

9I9

EE97
D!E98
HCCEI9
1H

9I9 EE97
D!E98
4"104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
779?9ÿ@A9ÿB8C77
2
AÿG9797ÿHC98ÿ@79IÿHHH@

0/)%+
D ÿE779
ÿE7

2
2
2

JÿE9IÿHÿ78ÿ@A9ÿFÿD7F98Iÿ6H
9ÿ7
LDÿ79Jÿÿ7!C9ÿ79JÿC7J

D9?9ÿ9
D979ÿK!FFC7
M?8ÿG9J99

2
2
2
2
2
2

7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿFÿ
9AÿNO
AQÿ!7Jÿ@RM
MJ78ÿ@A9ÿ9?9
MC77ÿÿMC77ÿ9!9Iÿ67
M!O9ÿ79J
87ÿ67977ÿÿD!97ÿF7ÿ87
C7J
M@ÿ979A9ÿ
ÿBC9ÿHH

97
T79JÿÿT79JÿD!7
T8ÿL!7ÿ@A9ÿB97J

ECÿE79
M977ÿ7
CCJÿM9
H!ÿS9O
M9ÿG8A79
D9979ÿE

2
2
2
2

2
G9ÿ@7ÿ79JÿÿU7ÿJÿ@A9ÿ78
Hÿ
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿP9ÿ#"33ÿL79ÿ
C9ÿSMPDDE30
11797919!16789
1"44

K99ÿL7
!ÿL9
9ÿHJ
ÿGA89
K8ÿEJ9

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

H!ÿG!8J
M79ÿP9

787
L CO
M!ÿE9

7,88/)
9:;<ÿ>%'/
BFFC?9
1B

9?9 CC97
D!C98
BFFC?9
1B
B7
1B

9?9 CC97
D!C98
BFFC?9
1B
BFFC?9
1B
BFFC?9
1B
BFFC?9
1B
BFFC?9
1B
BFFC?9
1B
BFFC?9
B7
BFFC?9
BFFC?9

1B

1B

1B

1B

BFFC?9
1B
4#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'(
2
2
2
2
2

)*%+',-+(,.'
>9ÿ?9ÿ79@
F9ÿG @!97
F@8H!I9ÿA8!7
6E9ÿ67ÿM
JC

/.($*
A97ÿB
F9ÿG @!97
J!7KÿLE!
7ÿNO
J7ÿP

2

QP978ÿ9

JEÿFR8

2
2
2
2

S@9ÿBP97
>977ÿ@
99ÿ7R9
M?8ÿ>87

2
2

Q77ÿ9ÿG@9E
QÿC799ÿM9E97ÿDÿB9ÿ78ÿAR9
QR9ÿ8ÿ?9ÿC!@
T!9ÿT!7ÿB99ÿ9
E7@
TC>ÿAR9

!79ÿUGCVÿQQ

2
2
2

ÿAR9ÿ7

9PÿA!ÿAR9ÿM

9RÿLPÿAR9ÿC!@

Q!ÿT Q98
M7ÿG E
G?Oÿ

2

>ÿÿ
>ÿ79@Vÿ67
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿX9ÿY"33ÿT79ÿ
E9ÿZMXGGB30
11797919!16789
1"44

G9?97ÿ>9
ÿGE

AÿQ@7

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

G ÿT9

6+77.(
CDDE?9
CDDE?9

79
C7

9?9

89:;ÿ=$&.

1C

1C

1C

1C
EE97
G!E98

9?9 EE97
G!E98
C7
1C
CDDE?9
1C
CDDE?9
1C
C7
1C
CDDE?9
1C

9?9 EE97
G!E98
C7
1C
C7
1C

9?9 EE97
G!E98
CDDE?9
1C
42104

010210345

$%&'%()
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

*+&,(-.,)-/(
?@ÿ79Aÿÿ?BCÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ
?99ÿDI9ÿ7
?CÿD!ÿDI9ÿJ
?7ÿDI9ÿ@9797ÿ67
?Dÿÿ?9ÿÿDI9ÿC7A
D78ÿ@979ÿ9ÿ
DDNÿÿN!H9ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ

2
2
2
2

DM@ÿÿDM@ÿQÿNN
D!ÿOAÿJÿ
ÿ4ÿGÿ97ÿ!7A
D!ÿOAÿJÿ
ÿ4ÿGÿM7Cÿ!7A
D!ÿOAÿJÿ
ÿ0ÿGÿ@7ÿ!7AS
E77
2
D!9ÿM!78ÿ79ASÿ67
2
MC97ÿL!7ÿOAÿJ
2
MÿH9ÿDU9
2
M799ÿ9
2
MF
FÿÿM!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿ@ÿ
2
M9CÿÿM7ÿJ9ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9
ÿV9A7ÿ9D
I9C9
ÿÿÿ
AÿGÿM7ÿ0
Wÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿXM
"337ÿL
ÿ

?JVMME3
11797919!16789
1"44

0/)%+
DBÿE9
J77ÿK77
LC8ÿMG
777ÿ9!
9ÿK
A7ÿ?7
KON6
P?MF
J
CÿR!9A
L97ÿ779
MCÿ
9G98
F9
ÿT
97ÿIA
M!7ÿ?
R9H7ÿ
997
CCAÿ!
FAÿP!8
J79ÿQ7B
M78ÿD9

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

7,88/)
FGGCH9
FGGCH9
FGGCH9
FGGCH9
FGGCH9
FGGCH9

79

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

F7
F7
FGGCH9
FGGCH9

1F

1F

1F

1F

FGGCH9
K9ÿ77
FGGCH9
FGGCH9
F7
FGGCH9
F789AÿRCH F7

79

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

4#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
?!97ÿ@7Aÿÿ?!97ÿ@7A
B9797
@ÿG!ÿH9ÿI@JÿCKL
2

0/)%+
C@ÿDÿ?!E
ME7ÿN97

9F9

2
2
2

977999ÿO9AÿK!A
?9ÿBÿ78ÿÿK7Jÿ67
H?ÿ!9!ÿRÿ9@7

PÿQ99ÿ@
PSÿ?97
C978Aÿ979

KRR@F9
K7

9F9

2
2
U
U
U
U
U

Oÿ79A
C9ÿ79A
K@997ÿÿK@997ÿ?9F9
KG?ÿÿKE7ÿG!ÿ?9F9ÿ
KS7ÿ9ÿ9F9ÿ7
K98ÿ9ÿ9F9Jÿ67
9S9ÿXTAÿÿGR

D7ÿ99@9A9
D99SÿT7
9ÿV!7F7

ÿWA
!9ÿCS!
7ÿK S9@77
?78ÿ?RR9

K7
KRR@F9
KRR@F9
KRR@F9
KRR@F9
KRR@F9

9F9

SÿXÿ7
U
U
779F9ÿGT9ÿK8@77
U
9ÿ7
U
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿRÿ
9TÿYS
Zÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿO9ÿ["33ÿP79ÿ
@9ÿMDO??C30
11797919!16789
1"44

ÿ? 9
K789TÿP9A9
9ÿXS
9
MF99

D!ÿC9

Q!ÿB!8A

7,88/)

9F9

KRR@F9
KRR@F9
K7
KRR@F9

9:;<ÿ>%'/
@@97
?!@98
@@97
?!@98

1K

1K
@@97
?!@98

1K

1K

1K

1K

1K

1K
@@97
?!@98

1K

1K

1K

1K
4#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
?
@A77ÿÿ@A77ÿ9!9Bÿ67
?
@!D9ÿ79H
?
87ÿ67977ÿÿC!97ÿF7ÿ87
A7H
?
79H
?

97
?
N79HÿÿN79HÿC!7
?
N8ÿO!7ÿPQ9ÿE97H
?

N8ÿO!7ÿPQ9ÿP

?

I9ÿP7ÿ79HÿÿJ7ÿHÿPQ9ÿ78
Rÿ
?
6A9ÿ67ÿ@
?
RD978ÿ9
?
R77ÿ9ÿCH9A
?
RÿE799ÿ@9A97ÿFÿM9ÿ78ÿPQ9
?
R!A77ÿÿR!A77ÿ79H
?
O7ÿLH8
?
O89ÿ67ÿ@
Tÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿS9ÿU"33ÿO79ÿ
A9ÿV@SCCM30
11797919!16789
1"44

0/)%+
C97ÿ8D7
I9ÿ9
J97HÿC999

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

K!9ÿL
9DHÿM9
E77ÿ6G7
8ÿO7A9H 787
O AD
Aÿ998H
787
O AD
K977F9
@!ÿM9
N789A9H9
@7ÿ9
P!ÿC
ÿ!DA
E77ÿS!
Jÿ!9
ÿO!D7D
KA9ÿO N
9799ÿJ79

7,88/)
EFFAG9
EFFAG9
EFFAG9

9:;<ÿ>%'/

1E

1E

1E

EFFAG9
E7
EFFAG9
EFFAG9

1E

1E

1E

1E

EFFAG9
1E
EFFAG9
1E

79

79
E7

79
E7
EFFAG9
EFFAG9

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E
4#104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
>
?!79ÿ@A9ÿ78ÿB9

/.($*
C7ÿD9E

>

9AÿHEÿ@A9ÿI!C

GÿDF7

>

D!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿ@!ÿD9F9ÿ

J9ÿKL97

>
>
>
>

97ÿM7ÿ@A9ÿI97C
KOÿ79CÿÿKEGÿOÿ78ÿ9ÿ
@78ÿO979ÿ9ÿ
@A99
ÿ7

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

N977ÿDG9
D7ÿC
N79ÿ?7
O87ÿN7
?E
@@PÿÿP!F9ÿOÿ78ÿ9ÿ
P77ÿK9E9
@DOÿÿ@DOÿ79Cÿ9!9ÿ78ÿ89ÿPP Qÿ7
@!ÿRCÿNÿ
ÿ4ÿMÿ97ÿ!7C
NFÿJ9!
@!ÿRCÿNÿ
ÿ0ÿMÿO7ÿ!7CS
P9Cÿ@97
B77
DG97ÿ?!7ÿRCÿN
JG9ÿ!
DÿF9ÿ@T9
CÿK97
D799ÿ9
?9ÿA7
D99ÿCÿP
9ÿU99G7

Vÿ034>5ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿXD9
"3G
37ÿ?
979ÿ

G9ÿKNWDDB3
9ÿ
ÿ
9F9Sÿ67 0
11797919!16789
1"44

!8Cÿ
FE

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

J9ÿ77

6+77.(

9F9

89:;ÿ=$&.
GG97
D!G98

9F9 GG97
D!G98

9F9 GG97
D!G98
I7
1I
IMMGF9
1I
IMMGF9
1I
I7
1I

79
I7
I7
IMMGF9

1I

1I

1I

1I

IMMGF9
IMMGF9
I7

9F9

1I

1I

1I
GG97
D!G98

1I

I7

45104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

#$%&$'( )*%+',-+(,.'
>
?7@ÿ!7AÿBCDÿ
ÿ4
>
?!97ÿ@7Aÿÿ?!97ÿ@7A
K9797ÿ78ÿ79AÿLF97
>
@ÿB!ÿC9ÿN@OÿPHQ
>
>
>
>
V
5
43
43
43

977999ÿR9AÿH!A
Pÿ79AÿK!Oÿ67
P9ÿ79A
P997ÿH9ÿBU9ÿH8@77
G!@77ÿL77ÿ@7AÿGG
@@7U9ÿIÿL!9ÿD9@97ÿI
B!ÿC9
E8ÿ9Aÿ877ÿ!7
L8U9ÿ9AÿX7W7

9UÿYFÿ?9ÿ9Aÿ!7

9ÿBU9ÿ877ÿ!7
43
43
9AE
43
?ÿ9Aÿ7
43
9
ÿ9Aÿ7AOÿ67
[ÿ03453ÿÿ
ÿR9ÿ\P9
"339ÿL
7ÿ979ÿ

A@9
ÿÿXDR??P3
877ÿ!70
11797919!16789
1"44

/.($*
E7F7ÿG!
M977I9ÿ?AF9

0$1,%'+($2
3*.45

FÿH99
LS9ÿB7
DJ8ÿTUA
K7ÿPF97
9ÿE!
H@78ÿEW9
D78ÿ
97
B99ÿT98
!9ÿL!7SA
HGH
ÿHDHL?X
K!AÿRÿZ
H77AÿM7F
D9Uÿ?!
9ÿA79
?9J97ÿ!9F9

D!ÿP9

6+77.(
89:;ÿ=$&.
HII@J9
1H

9J9 @@97
?!@98

9J9 @@97
?!@98
H7
1H
HII@J9
1H
HII@J9
1H

79

1H

79

1H
HII@J9
1H
HII@J9
1H
HII@J9
1H

9J9 @@97
?!@98
HII@J9
1H
HII@J9
1H
HII@J9
1H
HII@J9
1H
H7
1H

03104

010210345

#$7ÿ4ÿÿ"33ÿ%ÿ"33ÿ979

(ÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿ)9ÿ*"33ÿ+79ÿ
,9ÿ-.)##/30
11797919!16789
1"44

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

&9'! 4
9


04104

Comment Report
Project Name:

2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | CIP-008-6 (Draft 2)

Comment Period Start Date:

11/15/2018

Comment Period End Date:

11/29/2018

Associated Ballots:

2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting CIP-008-6 AB 2 ST

There were 72 sets of responses, including comments from approximately 160 different people from approximately 110 companies
representing 7 of the Industry Segments as shown in the table on the following pages.

Questions
1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) has an updated approach regarding new and modified terms. The SDT is no longer proposing a new
definition for reportable attempted cyber security incidents. The defining concepts describing this event have been incorporated in
proposed modifications to Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1 and Part 1.2.2. The Responsible Entity will be required to establish criteria to evaluate
and define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. The SDT is
proposing modifications to Cyber Security Incident as well as Reportable Cyber Security Incident. For Reportable Cyber Security Incident,
the SDT has determined it is prudent to include BES Cyber Systems (BCS) because of their criticality in relation to ESPs. By including BCS in
the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition, it shows that Protected Cyber Assets (PCA) are not in scope for the proposed modification.
Do you agree with the proposed modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident? Please provide
comments and alternate language, if possible.

2. The SDT has added language in Requirement R1 Part 1.2. for the Responsible Entity to establish and document criteria to evaluate and
define attempts in their Cyber Security Incident response plan(s). Do you agree with this approach to allow the entity to define attempts for
their unique situation?

3. Do the changes clarify that the Responsible Entity must have a process to determine what is an attempt to compromise and provide
notification as stated in Requirement R1 Part 1.2 and Requirement R4 Part 4.2? Please explain and provide comments.

4. The SDT added Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) to applicable systems as opposed to modifying the NERC
Glossary EACMS definition to ensure the FERC Order No. 848 paragraph 54 directive to expand reporting requirements to EACMS was met
without expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that use the existing EACMS NERC Glossary
definition. Do you agree with the addition of EACMS to the applicable systems column in the tables in CIP-008-6? Please provide comments
and an alternate approach to addressing the directive, if possible.

5. Do you agree with reporting timeframes included Requirement R4 Part 4.2 and Part 4.3 which include an increase in reporting timeframe
from 5 to 7 calendar days in Part 4.3? Please explain and provide comments.

6. Do you agree with the SDT’s decision to give the responsible entity the flexibility to determine notification methods in their process?
Please explain and provide comments.

7. Based on feedback the SDT has adjusted the Implementation Plan timeframe from 12 to 18 months. In the Consideration of Comments
Summary Report the SDT justified this change. Do you support the rationale to move to an 18-month Implementation Plan? Please explain
and provide comments.

8. Although not balloted, do you agree with the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for Requirement R1 and R4? Please
explain and provide comments.

9. The SDT proposes that the modifications in CIP-008-6 provide entities with flexibility to meet the reliability objectives in a cost effective
manner. Do you agree? If you do not agree, or if you agree but have suggestions for improvement to enable more cost effective approaches,
please provide your recommendation and, if appropriate, technical or procedural justification.

10, Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.

Organization
Name
Brandon
McCormick

Tennessee
Valley
Authority

MRO

Name

Segment(s)

Brandon
McCormick

Brian Millard

Dana Klem

Region

FRCC

1,3,5,6

1,2,3,4,5,6

SERC

MRO

Group Name

FMPA

Tennessee
Valley
Authority

MRO NSRF

Group Member
Name

Group Member
Organization

Group
Member
Segment(s)

Group Member
Region

Tim Beyrle

City of New
4
Smyrna Beach
Utilities
Commission

FRCC

Jim Howard

Lakeland
Electric

5

FRCC

Javier Cisneros

Fort Pierce
Utilities
Authority

3

FRCC

Randy Hahn

Ocala Utility
Services

3

FRCC

Don Cuevas

Beaches
Energy
Services

1

FRCC

Jeffrey Partington Keys Energy
Services

4

FRCC

Tom Reedy

Florida
Municipal
Power Pool

6

FRCC

Steven Lancaster

Beaches
Energy
Services

3

FRCC

Chris Adkins

City of
Leesburg

3

FRCC

Ginny Beigel

City of Vero
Beach

3

FRCC

Kurtz, Bryan G.

Tennessee
1
Valley Authority

SERC

Grant, Ian S.

Tennessee
3
Valley Authority

SERC

Thomas, M. Lee

Tennessee
5
Valley Authority

SERC

Parsons, Marjorie Tennessee
6
S.
Valley Authority

SERC

Joseph DePoorter Madison Gas & 3,4,5,6
Electric

MRO

Larry Heckert

Alliant Energy

4

MRO

Amy Casucelli

Xcel Energy

1,3,5,6

MRO

Michael Brytowski Great River
Energy

1,3,5,6

MRO

Public Utility
District No. 1
of Chelan
County

Davis Jelusich

PPL Devin Shines
Louisville Gas
and Electric
Co.

6

1,3,5,6

Public Utility
District No. 1
of Chelan
County

RF,SERC

PPL NERC
Registered
Affiliates

Jodi Jensen

Western Area
Power
Administration

1,6

Kayleigh
Wilkerson

Lincoln Electric 1,3,5,6
System

MRO

Mahmood Safi

Omaha Public
Power District

1,3,5,6

MRO

Brad Parret

Minnesota
Powert

1,5

MRO

Terry Harbour

MidAmerican
Energy
Company

1,3

MRO

Tom Breene

Wisconsin
Public Service
Corporation

3,5,6

MRO

Jeremy Voll

Basin Electric
Power
Cooperative

1

MRO

Kevin Lyons

Central Iowa
Power
Cooperative

1

MRO

Mike Morrow

Midcontinent
ISO

2

MRO

Joyce Gundry

Public Utility
3
District No. 1 of
Chelan County

WECC

Jeff Kimbell

Public Utility
1
District No. 1 of
Chelan County

WECC

Meaghan Connell Public Utility
5
District No. 1 of
Chelan County

WECC

Davis Jelusich

Public Utility
6
District No. 1 of
Chelan County

WECC

Brenda Truhe

PPL Electric
Utilities
Corporation

RF

Charles Freibert

PPL - Louisville 3
Gas and
Electric Co.

SERC

JULIE
HOSTRANDER

PPL - Louisville 5
Gas and
Electric Co.

SERC

1

MRO

Seattle City
Light

New York
Independent
System
Operator

ACES Power
Marketing

Ginette
Lacasse

Gregory
Campoli

Jodirah Green

1,3,4,5,6

WECC

2

6

Seattle City
Light Ballot
Body

ISO/RTO
Standards
Review
Committee

NA - Not
Applicable

Linn Oelker

PPL - Louisville 6
Gas and
Electric Co.

SERC

Pawel Krupa

Seattle City
Light

1

WECC

Hao Li

Seattle City
Light

4

WECC

Bud (Charles)
Freeman

Seattle City
Light

6

WECC

Mike Haynes

Seattle City
Light

5

WECC

Michael Watkins

Seattle City
Light

1,4

WECC

Faz Kasraie

Seattle City
Light

5

WECC

John Clark

Seattle City
Light

6

WECC

Tuan Tran

Seattle City
Light

3

WECC

Laurrie Hammack Seattle City
Light

3

WECC

Gregory Campoli

NYISO

2

NPCC

Helen Lainis

IESO

2

NPCC

Mark Holman

PJM
2
Interconnection,
L.L.C.

RF

Charles Yeung

Southwest
Power Pool,
Inc. (RTO)

2

MRO

Terry BIlke

Midcontinent
ISO, Inc.

2

MRO

Brandon Gleason

Electric
Reliability
Council of
Texas, Inc.

2

Texas RE

Ali Miremadi

CAISO

2

WECC

Kahtleen
Goodman

ISO-NE

2

NPCC

Arizona Electric 1
Power
Cooperative,
Inc

WECC

Hoosier Energy 1
Rural Electric

SERC

ACES
Eric Jensen
Standard
Collaborations
Bob Solomon

Cooperative,
Inc.

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Corporation

Manitoba
Hydro

Southern
Company Southern
Company
Services, Inc.

Julie Severino

Mike Smith

1

FirstEnergy

1

Pamela Hunter 1,3,5,6

Manitoba
Hydro

SERC

Southern
Company

Greg Froehling

Rayburn
3,6
Country Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

Texas RE

Chris Bradley

Big Rivers
Electric
Corporation

SERC

Shari Heino

Brazos Electric 5
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.

Texas RE

Ryan Strom

Buckeye
Power, Inc.

5

RF

Kevin Lyons

Central Iowa
Power
Cooperative

1

MRO

Susan Sosbe

Wabash Valley 3
Power
Association

RF

Aubrey Short

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Corporation

4

RF

Aaron
Ghodooshim

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Corporation

3

RF

Robert Loy

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Solutions

5

RF

Ann Ivanc

FirstEnergy FirstEnergy
Solutions

6

RF

Yuguang Xiao

Manitoba Hydro 5

MRO

Karim Abdel-Hadi Manitoba Hydro 3

MRO

Blair Mukanik

Manitoba Hydro 6

MRO

Mike Smith

Manitoba Hydro 1

MRO

Katherine Prewitt

Southern
Company
Services, Inc.

1

SERC

Joel Dembowski

Southern
3
Company Alabama Power
Company

SERC

1

William D. Shultz

Dominion Dominion
Resources,
Inc.

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

Sean Bodkin

Todd Bennett

6

3

Dominion

AECI

Southern
Company
Generation

5

SERC

Jennifer G. Sykes Southern
6
Company
Generation and
Energy
Marketing

SERC

Connie Lowe

Dominion 3
Dominion
Resources, Inc.

NA - Not
Applicable

Lou Oberski

Dominion 5
Dominion
Resources, Inc.

NA - Not
Applicable

Larry Nash

Dominion Dominion
Virginia Power

NA - Not
Applicable

Michael Bax

Central Electric 1
Power
Cooperative
(Missouri)

SERC

Adam Weber

Central Electric 3
Power
Cooperative
(Missouri)

SERC

Stephen Pogue

M and A
Electric Power
Cooperative

3

SERC

William Price

M and A
Electric Power
Cooperative

1

SERC

Jeff Neas

Sho-Me Power 3
Electric
Cooperative

SERC

Peter Dawson

Sho-Me Power 1
Electric
Cooperative

SERC

Mark Ramsey

N.W. Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.

1

NPCC

John Stickley

NW Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.

3

SERC

Ted Hilmes

KAMO Electric
Cooperative

3

SERC

1

Walter Kenyon

KAMO Electric
Cooperative

1

SERC

Kevin White

Northeast
Missouri
Electric Power
Cooperative

1

SERC

Skyler Wiegmann Northeast
Missouri
Electric Power
Cooperative

3

SERC

Ryan Ziegler

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

1

SERC

Brian Ackermann

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

6

SERC

Brad Haralson

Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.

5

SERC

1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) has an updated approach regarding new and modified terms. The SDT is no longer proposing a new
definition for reportable attempted cyber security incidents. The defining concepts describing this event have been incorporated in
proposed modifications to Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1 and Part 1.2.2. The Responsible Entity will be required to establish criteria to evaluate
and define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. The SDT is
proposing modifications to Cyber Security Incident as well as Reportable Cyber Security Incident. For Reportable Cyber Security Incident,
the SDT has determined it is prudent to include BES Cyber Systems (BCS) because of their criticality in relation to ESPs. By including BCS in
the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition, it shows that Protected Cyber Assets (PCA) are not in scope for the proposed modification.
Do you agree with the proposed modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident? Please provide
comments and alternate language, if possible.
Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
ERCOT suggests the SDT consider integrating the two definitions together because there is no longer any purpose in distinguishing between a
reportable and non-reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We are in favor of this change, with the note that, while allowing a Responsible Entity to establish the criteria to define the criteria for an “attempt” it
leaves the interpretation of the criteria to be scrutinized by an auditor. Historically, auditors have taken issue with a Responsible Entity’s “definition” and
caused issues in audits. In this case, because threat vectors and technology constantly change, and new vulnerabilities are discovered every day, it is
difficult and problematic to ask Responsible Entities to define an “attempt.” An auditor could easily take issue with a Responsible Entity’s definition or
criteria of an attempted compromise.
The proposed VSL is not reasonable because it creates a greater compliance risk without any reducing cyber risk to the BES. Chasing attempts,
documenting attempts, and reporting attempts provides no risk reduction to the BES or BCS. Finding attempts only validates the protections within the
CIP standards are working properly. Having to report attempts is just burdensome on RE’s.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While we agree with the proposed modified definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incidnet, AEP recommends that The phrase “that performs one or
more reliability tasks of a functional entity” is redundant to the definition of a BCS and should be struck.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
BPA agrees with the proposed modified definitions and with the elimination of ‘reportable attempted cyber security incidents’. BPA appreciates that the
SDT recognized entities of varying size face differing threat vectors. BPA supports requiring the Responsible Entity to establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Concur with EEI comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light finds that the revised definitions, focused on BES Cyber Systems, add clarity to the proposed modifications.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Recommend the SDT address/include Physical Security Perimeters in the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition due to their criticality in relation
to BES Cyber Systems and Electronic Security Perimeters.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We agree with the change to include BCS and that PCAs should not be included in the proposed modification to the standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We agree that PCAs should not be in scope.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Comments: No definition provided for the revised terms.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power concurs that PCAs should not be included in the proposed modification to the standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While Dominion Energy supports the revised definitions, we suggest a non-substantive change to add clarity and more closely folow the intent of the
SDT.
Dominion Energy recommends the SDT consider adding clarity to the definition of Cyber Security Incident that a compromise or attempts to
compromise also only applies to the Electronic Security Perimeter and Physical Security Perimeter. This would make it clear that the first bullet only
applies to ESP, PSP, and EACMS associated with High and Medium impact BES Cyber Systems. This would relieve our concern the definition can be
misinterpreted and would cause a compromise or attempt to compromise an ESP or PSP as defined in the NERC GOT at a low impact facility would be
in scope of the definition. Please consider the proposed alternative language:

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

For High or Medium BES Cyber Systems, compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) the
Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) the Electronic Access Control and Monitoring Systems; or

•

Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Ameren Agrees with and supports EEI Comments

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We support the Standards Drafting Team (SDT) modification to Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Regarding the PCAs
as out of scope, Exelon believes it would be beneficial to clarify this out of scope status in the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident, which we
view as a non-substantive change. Alternatively, Exelon requests clear language in the Implementation Guidance to understand the relationship
between the defined terms to avoid confusion and PCAs as out of scope is well documented.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
EEI appreciates SDT consideration of EEI comments and concerns related to the previously proposed new term, Reportable Attempted Cyber Security
Incident and support it’s removal. EEI supports the changes made to Requirement R1, parts 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, which address the entity’s responsibilities
to establish “criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise” High and Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems (along with associated EACMS).
We also support the revised definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” as proposed in the current draft.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Omaha Public Power District - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Texas RE appreciates the drafting team’s efforts to resolve the issues identified in the initial ballot. Texas RE agrees with including BES Cyber Systems
in the definitions, however, Texas RE recommends revising the proposed definitions to make it clear which types of Cyber Security Incidents must be
reported. FERC Order No. 848 specifically directed NERC “to develop and submit Reliability Standard requirements that require responsible entities to
report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS” (paragraph 13). Texas
RE suggests that the clearest way to do this is to modify the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident, since those are the incidents CIP-008
requires responsible entities to submit. It is confusing to have a definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident, but it not include everything that is
reportable. Texas RE request that the SDT place a priority on having total alignment between all these inter-related aspects for the development of this
standard.

Texas RE recommends the following definitions:

•

Cyber Security Incident
o A malicious act or suspicious event that compromises, or was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:
 the Electronic Security Perimeter(s) or
 Physical Security Perimeter(s) or,

•

 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems, or
 High or Medium Impact BES Cyber System.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
o A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or was an attempt to compromise, or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System; or
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.

·
Texas RE recommends changing “A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity” to BES Cyber System
because the former is redundant. The operation of a BES Cyber System would include performing one or more reliability tasks, per CIP-002-5.1a,
Guidelines and Technical Basis, BES reliability operating services starting on pages 16/17 and the definition of a BCA, “A Cyber Asset that if rendered
unavailable, degraded, or misused would, within 15 minutes of its required operation, misoperation, or non‐operation, adverse ly impact one or more
Facilities, systems, or equipment, which, if destroyed, degraded, or otherwise rendered unavailable when needed, would affect the reliable operation of
the Bulk Electric System. Redundancy of affected Facilities, systems, and equipment shall not be considered when determining adverse impact. Each
BES Cyber Asset is included in one or more BES Cyber Systems.”

Additionally, Texas RE noticed the Applicable Systems column does not specifically include ESP(s), which means Part 1.2.2 does not specifically
include the scenario for Cyber Security Incidents that attempt to compromise a responsible entity’s ESP per FERC Order No. 848. While each ESP
should have an associated EACMS, the requirement is not clear that attempts to compromise the ESP is included.

This similarly applied to Part 4.2. The Applicable Systems column does not include ESP(s). This could lead to responsible entities not reporting an
attempt to compromise an ESP.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Xcel Energy suggests that "that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity" be removed from the Cyber Security Incident definition. This
is already contained in the context of CIP-002 and is superfluous.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
As currently proposed, the Reportable Cyber Security Incident (RCSI) definition does not include compromised BES Cyber Systems (BCS) and
individual BCS Cyber Assets (BCA).
Cyber Security Incident (CSI) includes only 2 sets:
1. Compromise (or attempt) of ESP, PSP, EACMS
2. Disruption (or attempt) of BCS (implying BCA)
These sets do not include a compromised BCS or BCA. It only includes BCS/BCA that has been disrupted. Therefore, a definition of RCSI that starts
with the CSI definition also does not include a compromised BCS or BCA. Likewise, from R1.2, “an identified CSI [… that is] Only an attempt to
compromise…” by definition also does not include include an attempt to compromised a BCS or BCA. However, Figures 2 and 3 in the Implementation
Guidance suggest that it is intended that compromised BCS are meant to be reported, at least in the attempted case.
It might be argued that a compromised BCA necessarily means the ESP/EACMS was compromised and so the Incident would be reported anyway, but
that is not always true. BCAs can be compromised by communication that is legitimately allowed by an ACL or a firewall rule without that EACMS itself
being compromised. A real example would be a filesharing protocol allowed by a firewall being used to compromise a Cyber Asset. TCAs and
removable media can do the same, even with the CIP mitigating factors in place.
It is suggested that the CSI definition be clarified to include disruption and compromise for all subpoints the way the RCSI definition does.
A second concern is that the defined term “RCSI” does not in fact include all CSI that are reportable as implied by its name. RCSI should be redefined
to include all CSI that are in fact reportable, attempted or otherwise. A new, self-evident name, such as Reportable Cyber Attack (RCA), and a
corresponding definition should be adopted for RCSI that are determined to be successful attacks, not just mere attempts. The more stringent reporting
requirements would then specifically only apply to those RCA.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern greatly appreciates the progress that has been made since draft 1 of the standard. Southern asserts that without additional parameters
around the specifics of what constitutes an “Attempt to Compromise” the definitions are painted with too broad a brush. Further defining the terms
“Cyber Security Incident” and “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” will allow Registered Entities the opportunity to meet the Standard in a clear and
measurable way. Additionally, Southern also agrees with the inclusion of the previously proposed “Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident”
definition so long as the proper scoping is maintained within the words of the definition. See below for alternative wording for the proposed definitions
that clarify the meanings and alleviates ambiguity contained within the current proposed definitions.

Cyber Security Incident – “an unconfirmed malicious act or suspicious event requiring additional investigation to determine if it:
•
•

For high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems, compromised, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the ESP, (2) the PSP, or (3) the
associated EACMS; or
Disrupted, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident – “a confirmed malicious act that was determined by the Responsible Entity to be:
•
•

An attempt to compromise the ESP of a high or medium impact BCS; or
An attempt to disrupt the operation of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System or associated EACMS.”

Note: Once confirmed by the Responsible Entity, the incident must be reported within the prescribed timeframes.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident - a confirmed malicious act that has:
•
•

Compromised the ESP of a high or medium impact BCS; or
Disrupted the operation of a BES Cyber System or high or medium impact-associated EACMS

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NRG asserts that the deletion of attachment 1 could cause lack of uniformity of reporting from the industry for meaningful data (i.e. trends in reporting).
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposal to include "attempts to compromise" has the potential to expand the scope of the standard to include corporate assets that are not part of
a BCS. This increases the burden to entities for increased monitoring and staffing.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: We agree with the commentary provided by NPCC:
•
Although there seems to be clarity provided by the NERC drafting team that Protected Cyber Assets were not included in the scope of this
project, some entities are confused what the expectation is regarding reporting – specifically is the Entity expected to report on PCAs or not? Some
entities have indicated that the NERC webinar and guidance contained some conflicting expectations.
•

There could be a consistency issue with allowing entities to individually define what is an “attempted” Cyber Security Incident is.

Further, the exclusion of PCA’s from required reporting poses a limitation to the industry for gathering and disseminating information on potential or
actual threats.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The use of two definitions will be confusing to many. In this version, all Cyber Security Incidents are reportable, as specified by Order 848. The term
"Reportable Cyber Security Incident" is unnecessary, as it only identifies a level of reporting for one part (Part 4.2) of CIP-008-6. "Reportable Cyber
Security Incident" should be removed and replaced with "Cyber Security Incident."
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
Without a NERC defined term for reportable attempted cyber security incidents, entities are left by themselves to establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. This could lead to significant
inconsistencies among different entities, and the compliance performance measures among different entities could be significantly different.
On the proposed definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident, please clarify that the definition is only associated with the high/medium BES Cyber
Systems (BCS).
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment

PCA devices pose a weak link in the protection of the ESP and should be considered for incident reporting.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Specificity and clarification on “attempt” is needed for the Responbile Entities to establish appropriate critieria for what is expected to be reported.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Specificity and clarification on “attempt” is needed for the Responbile Entities to establish appropriate critieria for what is expected to be reported.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The proposed changes to the CIP standards being proposed by the SDT for 2016-02 (Virtualization) are proposing terminology changes that will directly
impact this language as well as how these changes will be interpreted. Further, the “PCA” (or however they will be referred to) should dbe
included. This is because by definition they reside inside the ESP and as such if they are compromised or attempted then the rest of the ESP would be
at risk.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Without a NERC defined term for reportable attempted cyber security incidents, entities are left by themselves to establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. This could lead to significant
inconsistencies among different entities, and the compliance performance measures among different entities could be significantly different.

On the proposed definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident, please clarify that the definition is only associated with the high/medium BES Cyber
Systems (BCS).
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We recommend that High and Medium BES Cyber System associated PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for Requirement 1
because PCAs could be a vector for compromise. Many PCAs perform secondary reliability functions such as GPS timing. Additionally, the Cyber
Security Incident Definition speaks to compromise of an ESP. By definition, PCAs are inside an ESP.
Based on last Friday’s (November 16) NERC’s industry webinar (Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting), we
understand that PCAs are in the ESP. So Entities are expected to report on PCAs. We request that PCAs be explicitly listed in this table R1’s Applicable
Systems
One could argue that removable media/transient cyber assets could infect a PCA without breaching the ESP. That end result should be reportable since
everything in the ESP could be compromised.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for requirements and in the definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents due to their association with BES Cyber Systems and potential for revealing malicious activity directed at the BPS.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
PPL NERC Registered Affiliates agree that the new definitions are moving in the right direction, however the current definition changes have created
inconsistencies.
For example, a Cyber Security Incident does not take a compromise of a BES Cyber System into account when the new Reportable Cyber Security
Incident definition specifically requires entities to report on compromised BES Cyber Systems. Therefore, to improve consistency, we would like to
suggest the following addition to the Cyber Security Incident definition.
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•
•

Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise the, (1) Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) Electronic Access
Control or Monitoring Systems for High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, or
Compromises or disrupts, or was an attempt to compromise or disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System

Even though Order 848, paragraph 3, does not directly state in the reporting directive that BES Cyber Systems should be included as part of the “Cyber
Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise”, paragraph 19 of the discussion points out that “unsuccessful attempts to compromise or
disrupt a responsible entity’s core activities are not subject to the current reporting requirements in Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 or elsewhere in the
CIP Reliability Standards” (emphasis added). Therefore, we agree with the SDT that it is prudent to include BES Cyber Systems in the definition of
Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
We do not agree, however, with the scope of the edits to the definition. We believe that by including BES Cyber System and removing “that perform
one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity”, it will accomplish what the SDT has stated was their goal. Therefore, we suggest the following edits
to the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition:
"A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
A BES Cyber System;
Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems."
Likes

1

Dislikes

ISO New England, Inc., 2, Puscas Michael
0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

We agree with SDT’s decision to NOT create a new proposed term for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. Thank you for this change from
the first posting.

We agree with this posting’s proposed modifications to Cyber Security Incident. The proposed changes, though more detailed, respect the content the
definition of cyber security incident in Section 215 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

We disagree with the proposed modifications to Reportable Cyber Security Incident for two reasons.

First. We accept the addition of “A BES Cyber System” in the first bullet. However, we recommend deleting the rest of the bullet as redundant and
adding confusion. Delete “that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” This is unnecessary because it is redundant to content in the
NERC Glossary definition of BES Cyber System.”

Second. FERC Order 848 directed “NERC to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security
Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access
Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” It will be clearer to address the directive in the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident. We
recommend: “A Cyber Security Incident that: compromised or disrupted a BES Cyber System; or compromised or attempted to compromise an
Electronic Security Perimeter; or compromised or attempted to compromise Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.” This uses language
from the FERC Order and is clearer than this proposed posting.
Likes

1

Dislikes

ISO New England, Inc., 2, Puscas Michael
0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
N&ST recommends that the SDT ELIMINATE the definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident.” FERC has directed that ALL security events
determined to be “Cyber Security Incidents” be reported, which renders the definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” needlessly redundant (and
confusing to the casual reader). N&ST believes the different reporting deadlines for attempted vs. actual compromises and/or disruptions can be
adequately addressed in Requirement R4. N&ST notes that adopting this recommendation would necessitate minor changes (to eliminate “Reportable
Cyber Security Incident”) to Requirements R1 through R4. Finally, N&ST strongly recommends that Protected Cyber Assets (PCAs) be considered
“Applicable Systems” and included in both the definition of “Cyber Security Incident” and the CIP-008 requirements.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We recommend that High and Medium BES Cyber System associated PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for Requirement 1
because PCAs could be a vector for compromise.
The Cyber Security Incident Definition speaks to compromise of an ESP but does not include PCAs. Since, by definition, PCAs are inside an ESP, it
could be determined that Entities are expected to report on PCAs. We request that the ambiguity be cleared up by explicitly listing PCAs in table R1’s
Applicable Systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please note that even thought I agree with the flexibility to establish my own criteria, I believe that this flexibility will be addressed in a future NOPR as
all applicable Entities will have different criteria of what an attempt to compromise is.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NV Energy agrees with the SDT’s decision to not create a new proposed term for Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. We appreciate the
SDT listening to industry comment on this.

NV Energy agrees with this posting’s proposed modifications to Cyber Security Incident. The proposed changes, though more detailed, respect the
content the definition of cyber security incident in Section 215 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
NV Energy would respectively disagree with the proposed modifications to Reportable Cyber Security Incident for two reasons.
•

We accept the addition of “A BES Cyber System” in the first bullet. However, we recommend deleting the rest of the bullet as redundant and
adding confusion. Delete “that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” This is unnecessary because it is redundant to
content in the NERC Glossary definition of BES Cyber System.”

•

FERC Order 848 directed “NERC to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security
Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic
Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” It will be clearer to address the directive in the definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident. We recommend: “A Cyber Security Incident that: compromised or disrupted a BES Cyber System; or compromised or attempted to
compromise an Electronic Security Perimeter; or compromised or attempted to compromise Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.”
This uses language from the FERC Order and is clearer than this proposed posting.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We disagree with the proposed modifications to Reportable Cyber Security Incident for two reasons:
First. We accept the addition of “A BES Cyber System” in the first bullet. However, we recommend deleting the rest of the bullet as redundant and
adding confusion. Delete “that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” This is unnecessary because it is redundant to content in the
NERC Glossary definition of BES Cyber System.”
{C}1.
definition, it shows that Protected Cyber Assets (PCA) are not in scope for the proposed modification. Do you agree with the proposed
modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident? Please provide comments and alternate language, if possible.
Yes
No
Comments: We disagree with the proposed modifications to Reportable Cyber Security Incident for two reasons:
First. We accept the addition of “A BES Cyber System” in the first bullet. However, we recommend deleting the rest of the bullet as redundant and
adding confusion. Delete “that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.” This is unnecessary because it is redundant to content in the
NERC Glossary definition of BES Cyber System.”
Second. FERC Order 848 directed, “NERC to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security
Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access

Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” It will be clearer to address the directive in the definition of Reportable Cyber Security Incident. We
recommend: “A Cyber Security Incident that: compromised or disrupted a BES Cyber System; or compromised or attempted to compromise an
Electronic Security Perimeter; or compromised or attempted to compromise Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.” This uses language
directly from the FERC Order and is clearer than this proposed posting without using excess uneccessary language.
We agree with this posting’s proposed modifications to Cyber Security Incident. The proposed changes, though more detailed, respect the content the
definition of cyber security incident in Section 215 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We recommend that High and Medium BES Cyber System associated PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for Requirement 1
because PCAs could be a vector for compromise. Many PCAs perform secondary reliability functions such as GPS timing. Additionally, the Cyber
Security Incident Definition speaks to compromise of an ESP. By definition, PCAs are inside an ESP.
Based on last Friday’s (November 16) NERC’s industry webinar (Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting), we
understand that PCAs are in the ESP. So Entities are expected to report on PCAs. We request that PCAs be explicitly listed in this table R1’s Applicable
Systems
One could argue that removable media/transient cyber assets could infect a PCA without breaching the ESP. That end result should be reportable since
everything in the ESP could be compromised.
Otherwise we agree
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

We recommend that High and Medium BES Cyber System associated PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for Requirement 1
because PCAs could be a vector for compromise. Many PCAs perform secondary reliability functions such as GPS timing. Additionally, the Cyber
Security Incident Definition speaks to compromise of an ESP. By definition, PCAs are inside an ESP.

Based on last Friday’s (November 16) NERC’s industry webinar (Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting), we
understand that PCAs are in the ESP. So Entities are expected to report on PCAs. We request that PCAs be explicitly listed in this table R1’s Applicable
Systems

One could argue that removable media/transient cyber assets could infect a PCA without breaching the ESP. That end result should be reportable since
everything in the ESP could be compromised.

Otherwise we agree
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

2. The SDT has added language in Requirement R1 Part 1.2. for the Responsible Entity to establish and document criteria to evaluate and
define attempts in their Cyber Security Incident response plan(s). Do you agree with this approach to allow the entity to define attempts for
their unique situation?
Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NRG does not have concerns about the Responsible Entities ability to evaluate and define “attempts at compromise” however; NRG asserts that the
lack of uniformity in the reporting (i.e. deletion of Attachment 1) could cause difficulty in assessment of the data by E-ISAC and NCCIC, and the
resulting conclusions may not be useful to the industry.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
This additional language to R1 Part 1.2 leaves a Responsible Entity’s criteria and definition open to interpretation by an auditor which is concerning.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Energy or Company) agrees with this approach, but would like to note that many events are not
attempts or reportable. The Company also requests that the Standard Drafting Team be conscious of including systems that are out of scope as BES
Cyber Systems or Electronic Access Control and Monitoring Systems in the Implementation Guidance.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While responsible entities should be encouraged to address this definition of “attempt to compromise or disrupt” related to a Cyber Security Incident,
some care should be taken to ensure a minimum level of diligence is expressed in such a definition. A simple form of definition might include
documenting judgement of a cyber security analyst at a particular time as the means to determine an attempt (“I’ll know one when I see it”). This may
pose some difficulty for auditors trying to assess compliance to this part of the standard.
Note: ERCOT is excluded from the group for this response.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
EEI supports the revised language in Requirement R1, Part 1.2; which we believe appropriately places the responsibility for establishing and
documenting criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise “identified” systems within the responsible entity’s Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s). We believe this change will provide entities with the flexibility to tailor criteria in ways that align with their internal processes and
procedures to provide clarity and effective reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

We agree this update allows RE’s the ability to establish a solid program.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We recommend that High and Medium BES Cyber System associated PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for Requirement 1
because PCAs could be a vector for compromise.
The Cyber Security Incident Definition speaks to compromise of an ESP but does not include PCAs. Since, by definition, PCAs are inside an ESP, it
could be determined that Entities are expected to report on PCAs. We request that the ambiguity be cleared up by explicitly listing PCAs in table R1’s
Applicable Systems.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Ameren Agrees with and supports EEI Comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
In addition, PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for requirements and in the definitions for Cyber Security Incident and
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents due to their association with BES Cyber Systems and potential for revealing malicious activity directed at the BPS.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power supports the intent of the proposed changes. However, we also recognize that Standard still needs and would benefit from guidance on
alternative approaches addressing the language,“establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an
attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems.”
We are concerned that without established guidance, complying entities and compliance and enforcement staff do not have sufficient guidance to come
to common understanding of the draft standard language. Complying public power entities believe that a conservative reporting criteria will present
significant costs to administer, without corresponding measurable reliability benefits. The costs required for the follow-up requirements in R4 are
significant.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

SDT should consider a minimum criteria for the definition of an “attempt”.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light appreciates the efforts of the SDT to provide guidance about how an entity might evaluate and define attempts, and finds that
guidance sufficient in general.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Concur with EEI comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
These changes are effective when considering how a particular entity can maintain compliance with this standard. Unfortunately, the lack of a universal
definition of "attempt" will result in poor data that fails to provide a complete picture of the threat landscape based on attempts across the ERO. A
quality standard that addresses both the compliance needs of the industry and the information/data needs of the ERO could have been drafted had the
drafting team been given more time and a more thoughtful FERC order.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name

Comments for Question 2.docx

Comment
Please see the attachment for AZPS's response.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While responsible entities should be encouraged to address this definition of “attempt to compromise or disrupt” related to a Cyber Security Incident,
some care should be taken to ensure a minimum level of diligence is expressed in such a definition. A simple form of definition might include
documenting judgement of a cyber security analyst at a particular time as the means to determine an attempt (“I’ll know one when I see it”). This may
pose some difficulty for auditors trying to assess compliance to this part of the standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Omaha Public Power District - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Texas RE is concerned that allowing Responsible Entities to establish its own criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise (Subpart 1.2.1) will
lead to inconsistencies in what is reported which may limit the value of the reported data. Texas RE requests the SDT to define a criteria or reporting
threshold for the Cyber Security incidents described in the FERC order. Please see Texas RE’s comments in #1 regarding the change to the definition
of Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
What constitutes an “attempt” should be clearly defined in the standard so that a uniform reporting obligation applies industry-wide. If the purpose of the
reporting mandate is to ensure reporting of accurate risk information to E-ISAC and NCCIC for their own analytical purposes and for the purpose of
sharing credible threat information with industry, the reporting of that information should be standardized and not left to the judgment of each
responsible entity. Furthermore, without a standard definition, responsible entities may be vulnerable to an enforcement determination that the entity’s
definition of “attempts” is inadequate. A clear definition helps entities ensure that they are complying with the rule. While the proposed Implementation
Guidance is helpful in some respects, it is not obligatory, and therefore leaves open the possibility of a multiplicity of reporting practices. The SDT
should consider adopting a list of indicators such as those suggested by the ISO/RTO Council in its comments to FERC in the rulemaking in Docket No.
RM18-2.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern has a few concerns with R1, primarily R1.2.1 where the entity must have “One or more processes to establish criteria to evaluate and define
attempts to compromise.” We don’t think FERC’s intent for the requirement really is for entities to have a “process to establish criteria.” Entities can
establish criteria or have a process to determine whether an event is a true, confirmed attempt to compromise and is reportable, but we don’t think a
process to determine the criteria meets the intent of the FERC Order. There is also concern over determining what the possible criteria would be for an
attempted compromise. In the absence of a defined term, an attempt that rises to the level of reportability remains very subjective. It would include
events that are confirmed as having a malicious intent but aren’t script kiddies or just the normal innocuous noise. It’s not every dropped packet at a
firewall but could be some. It’s not every phishing email but could be some. It’s not every failed remote SSH login but could be some. The threshold is
going to depend on the facts and circumstances of each event and defies being able to sit down and put into objective and measurable criteria ahead of
time. This is why the definitions we have proposed both properly scope reportable incidents as either attempts or actual compromises, and provides the
Responsible Entity the levity to make those determinations.

Southern suggests that “establish criteria” be dropped since this problem defies reducing to simple criteria and be replaced by a “process to determine
which Cyber Security Incidents should be reported as attempts to compromise.”

Requirement R1.2:
One or more processes to:
1.2.1 Determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
•

A Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident; or

•

A Reportable Cyber Security Incident; and

1.2.2 Provide notification per Requirement R4.

Note: One or more processes to identify, classify, and response to a Cyber Security Incident is already defined as per R1.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Xcel Energy agrees that it is correct for Responsible Entities (RE) to define attempts for their unique programs; however, we are concerned with the
language of Requirement R1 1.2. Xcel Energy respectfully suggests removing R1.2.1 in its entirety. R1.1 requires REs to identify Cyber Security
Incidents and R1.2.2 requires REs to determine if a Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or an attempt to compromise.
Having an additional enforceable Requirement to establish a set of criteria or methods to evaluate is not needed and is not in the spirit of the Efficiency
review project currently under way.
If the Standard Drafting Team choses to go ahead with the language in R1.2.1, Xcel Energy would then suggest that the term “criteria” be removed from
the Requirement language. We believe the term "Criteria," is too prescriptive when trying to establish what would be considered an attempt and that a
cyber security event that should be reported may not fit into a REs pre-defined set of criterion. We believe that the R1.2.1 should be reworded to read:
Have one or more process to: "Establish a documented evaluation method that may include using criteria or other evaluation processes to define
attempts to compromise.” This would allow for methods other than a set of prescriptive criteria to evaluate non-conventional events that may not meet
established criterion to also be considered as an attempt to compromise but could through some other form of methodology or assessment ultimately be
deemed an attempt to compromise. This allows the Requirement language to be flexible enough to ensure entities are able to modify their programs as
needed to effectively meet future risks in a changing environment.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

: We disagree with the changes made to Requirement R1, part 1.2.1, which addresses the entity’s responsibilities to, “Establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to compromise;”
Recommend remove the term “define,” and keep the established scope per NERC, CIP & FERC as: ...
The language would have to be so ubiquitous to cover changes in technologies and encapsulate outlying behavior, that any documented process would
be outmoded – and in CONSTANT revisions.
R1.1. already has a criteria to identify the attempts. R.1.1 - One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.)
No - For part 1.2.1, removing “define” allows the entity more flexibility to scope attempts to compromise into their criteria for evaluating the Cyber
Security Incident.
R1.2 - One or more processes to: Use: “Respond”?
1.2.1 Establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 Determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
{C}·

A Reportable Cyber Security Incident or

{C}·

Only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column identified for this Part;

1.2.3 Provide notification per as specified in Requirement R4 of this Standard.
“Attempts” have been a part of the definition for a Cyber Security Incident for more than a decade. PAC will not support a process to define
“attempts.” Industry has already been identifying attempts for years. Part 1.2 should be changed as little as necessary to accomplish the directive and
require the least revisions to each Responsible Entity’s existing program(s). Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates additional work for
Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain. Per our comments on question 1, we recommend incorporating the FERC directive for “attempt to compromise,
a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS)” in the Reportable
Cyber Security Incident definition. Part 1.2 would retain “One or more processes to determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.” The rest of existing Part 1.2 would be deleted.
Further, we disagree with the proposed Part 1.2 to include any reference to “provide notification per Requirement R4.” This recreates a cross-reference
between two requirements and potential double jeopardy for noncompliance. Part 1.2 should have NO reference to reporting.
Additionally, we disagree with the proposed language changes in the Requirements column for Parts 2.2. and 2.3 With our proposed changes
from question 1 and this question, Parts 2.2 and 2.3 should only be modified in the Applicable Systems column. There is no question in the comment
form for Part 2.2 or 2.3
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

“Attempts” have been a part of the definition for a Cyber Security Incident for more than a decade. NV Energy does not support a process to define
“attempts.”

Part 1.2 should be changed as little as necessary to accomplish the directive and require the least revisions to each Responsible Entity’s existing
program(s). Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates additional work for Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain. Per our comments on
question 1, we recommend incorporating the FERC directive for “attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or
associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS)” in the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition. Part 1.2 would retain “One
or more processes to determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.” The rest of existing Part 1.2 would be
deleted.
Further, we disagree with the proposed Part 1.2 to include any reference to “provide notification per Requirement R4.” This recreates a cross-reference
between two requirements and potential double jeopardy for noncompliance. Part 1.2 should have not have a reference to reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please note that even thought I agree with the flexibility to establish my own criteria, I believe that this flexibility will be addressed in a future NOPR as
all applicable Entities will have different criteria of what an attempt to compromise is.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
While the flexibility for entities to define "attempts to compromise” in their unique situations may be desirable, guidance should be provided outlining the
characteristics common to these attempts.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
If the SDT deems it important to add an explicit requirement to define and document criteria for identifying Cyber Security Incidents (it’s already implied
by the language of existing CIP-008 R1 Part 1.1), N&ST believes it should be added to R1 Part 1.1, not R1 Part 1.2. N&ST also recommends changes
to the proposed of language of R1 Part 1.2.2. Per FERC’s directive, all Cyber Security Incidents are to be considered “reportable” (N&ST also
recommends eliminating the definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident,” as per our response to Question 1). N&ST agrees that an actual
compromise of an ESP or an applicable system should be distinguished from an (unsuccessful) attempt but objects to the use of the word, “only” (as in
“Only an attempt...”), as it implies triviality. Suggested re-wording: “Determine whether an identified Cyber Security Incident was an attempt to
compromise an ESP or an applicable system or actually compromised or disrupted an ESP or an applicable system.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
“Attempts” have been a part of the definition for a Cyber Security Incident for more than a decade. MEC will not support a process to define
“attempts.” Industry has already been identifying attempts for years. Part 1.2 should be changed as little as necessary to accomplish the directive and
require the least revisions to each Responsible Entity’s existing program(s). Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates additional work for
Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain. Per our comments on question 1, we recommend incorporating the FERC directive for “attempt to compromise,
a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS)” in the Reportable
Cyber Security Incident definition. Part 1.2 would retain “One or more processes to determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.” The rest of existing Part 1.2 would be deleted.

Further, we disagree with the proposed Part 1.2 to include any reference to “provide notification per Requirement R4.” This recreates a cross-reference
between two requirements and potential double jeopardy for noncompliance. Part 1.2 should have NO reference to reporting.
Additionally, we disagree with the proposed language changes in the Requirements column for Parts 2.2. and 2.3 With our proposed changes from
question 1 and this question, Parts 2.2 and 2.3 should only be modified in the Applicable Systems column. There is no question in the comment form
for Part 2.2 or 2.3

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
LES has ongoing concerns about the lack of a clear and concise definition for “attempt to compromise”, but does understand the challenge of creating a
one size fits all definition. The guidance document developed by the drafting team provides good examples of what does and what does not constitute
an attempt to compromise.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The lack of any guidance for industry to review makes it very difficult for us to provide a more productive set of comments.
It would be very helpful if additional specifics on what would justify as an “attempt to compromise” were provided in guidance, which would reduce
confusion during a regulatory engagement.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Without a NERC defined term for reportable attempted cyber security incidents, entities are left by themselves to establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. This could lead to significant
inconsistencies among different entities, and the compliance performance measures among different entities could be significantly different.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: Further clarification on what qualifies as an attempt to compromise a system, and a definition of “attempt” are needed.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
While having the flexibilty to establish and document our own criteria may be beneficial, we believe this leaves too much room for interpretation and
may not address the security objectives of the Standard if an entity chooses not to include specific criteria in their plans. Additionally, because entities
will establish and document independent criteria, this creates room for auditors to determine their preferred criteria and attempt to hold entities to that
Standard. We recommend the SDT establish and document minimum required criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise to create a
baseline for entities to be held to.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
While it is makes sense that each Responsible Entity will be required to establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts and determine if a Cyber
Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems, there is some concern on the auditablility of such a requirement. There
is concern that without a more clear objective in the requirement, a Responsible Entity may have implemented, in good faith, a criteria to evaluate and
define an attempt to compromise; however, an auditor may not agree, thus resulting in a potential instance of noncompliance.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
One of the four elements outlined by FERC was to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison. In order to collect consistent data
across all Responsible Entities it is necessary to provide specificity to “attempt”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Without a NERC defined term for reportable attempted cyber security incidents, entities are left by themselves to establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. This could lead to significant
inconsistencies among different entities, and the compliance performance measures among different entities could be significantly different.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Part 1.2 is unnecessary and duplicative of Part 1.1. The language of Part 1.2.1 and Part 1.2.2 describes some parts of the classification of a Cyber
Security Incident, which is required by Part 1.1. Part 1.2.3 specifies notification, which is part of response required by Part 1.1. Any language needed to
clarify the basic requirements of "identify, classify, and respond" should be included in Part 1.1, not a separate Part.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
: If the satandard as written is approved, then Responsible Entities should be allowed to define attempts based on their environment configuration,
however, the proposal to include "attempts to compromise" has the potential to expand the scope of the standard to include corporate assets that are
not part of a BCS. This increases the burden to entities for increased documentation of attempts.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
AEP believes if all the RE’s have their own criteria to evaluate and define then Responsible Entities run the risk of reporting (or not reporting) different
incidents. While it is challenging to come up with a common definition of a reportable incident, consistency is needed to ensure the appropriate CSI’s
are reported to satisfy FERC Order 848.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

3. Do the changes clarify that the Responsible Entity must have a process to determine what is an attempt to compromise and provide
notification as stated in Requirement R1 Part 1.2 and Requirement R4 Part 4.2? Please explain and provide comments.
Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
In R1.2.2 the term “only” is introduced in the Requirement language, in the Measures, and is also used in the Requirement language of R4.2. Xcel
Energy believes that the use of the term “only” may create a situation in which a Responsible Entity (RE) would need to prove to an auditor that an
event was in fact “only” an attempted event and not an actual compromise. This would put a RE in a position where they would need to prove the
negative. By removing “only” from the Standard language it will remove the implication that a RE has made that permanent determination that it was an
attempt. The removal of “only” will not substantively change the intent of the Requirement. We see this as an important change to ensure that attempts
to compromise are promptly reported while still allowing on-going monitoring and evaluations to determine if an actual compromise has occurred which
in some cases could be some time in the future.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
None

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Please note that even though the NSRF agrees with our flexibility to establish our own criteria, we believe that this flexibility will be addressed in a future
NOPR as all applicable Entities will have different criterias of what an attempt to compromise is.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Concur with EEI comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light finds the changes clarifying, and finds the additional guidance helpful in developing an acceptable process to determine what is an
attempt to compromise.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
An entity's processes for Part 1.2 should include establishing criteria to evaluate incidents (Part 1.2.1), determine if Cyber Security Incidents are
Reportable or an attempt (Part 1.2.2), and how to provide R4 notifications including each Part of R4 (Part 1.2.3). Thus, the entity's Part 1.2 process(es)
must address what is included in initial notifications (Part 4.1), when they are to be submitted after determinations (Part 4.2), and how to provide
updates as determined with new or changed attribute information within 7 days (Part 4.3). Consequently, the entity's determination utilizing the Part 1.2
process should lead to initial notifications outlined in Part 4.2.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Referring to the “Applicable Systems” column in the “Requirements” column may be redundant. A suggestion for the language in the second bullet for
Part 1.2.2 is: “An attempt to compromise (as defined in Part 1.2.1) one or more applicable systems.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
However, guidance from the SDT would be appreciated to set a baseline for what an attempt to compromise is to ensure consistent application of the
requirements.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power believes that the proposed changes reflect that an Entity must have a process in place identify compromise attempts and provide
notification. Tacoma Power is concerned that specifying a specific number of days for reporting actual and attempted Cyber Security Incidents to
agencies will sometimes be a resource challenge. Tacoma Power recommends that the SDT consider a time frame that provides an update within 24
hours of actual determination of the criteria established in R4.1. Physically getting a team to remote substations to determine the attack vector could
take time and difficulty will be increased depending the how wide-spread the event turns out to be.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Ameren Agrees with and supports EEI Comments

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We recommend that High and Medium BES Cyber System associated PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for Requirement 1
because PCAs could be a vector for compromise. Additionally, the Cyber Security Incident Definition speaks to compromise of an ESP. By definition,
PCAs are inside an ESP.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
EEI believes the proposed language clearly defines that responsible entities must have processes in place within their Cyber Security Incident
Response plans that determine what an attempt to compromise is along with their reporting responsibilities.
Although we support the revised language in Requirement R1 Part 1.2 and Requirement R4 Part 4.2, we suggest the SDT consider making the
following minor modification to the phrase “only an attempt to compromise” to “an attempt to compromise”. (see Subpart 1.2.2, Measures for Part 1.2,
Measures 2.3 and Requirement R4) Although we understand the SDT’s reasoning for adding “only” to the phrase, we believe it offers little additional
clarity yet does have the potential for adding confusion to the phrase. Moreover, within Requirement 1, Subpart 1.2.1 entities are clearly required to
define “attempts to compromise”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The changes do clarify that responsible entities must have a process to determine what is an attempt to compromise and provide notification as stated
in Requirement R1 Part 1.2 and Requirement R4 Part 4.2. However, please see Texas RE’s concern with Responsible Entities developing their own
processes in #2.

Given Texas RE’s proposed changes to the definitions as described in #1, the reporting timelines in Part 4.2 should be changed to:
•
o

o

One hour after the determination of a Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted


Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.



Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or



A BES Cyber System; or

By the end of the next calendar day after determination of a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise or disrupt:


Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or



A BES Cyber System; or


Likes

Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please see our response to Question 1. We agree with the concept, but it will require further definition of key terms detailed above to allow Registered
Entities the opportunity to meet the Standard in a clear and measurable way.

As for the language of R4, itself, Southern Company suggests the following edits to clarify the scope and applicability that is based on the revised
definitions proposed under Q1:

R4: Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E‑IS A C ) and, if subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC)1, or their successors, of a Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incident or a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

For Section 4.2:
After the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented process(es) in Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification within
the following timelines:
•
•

By the end of the next calendar day after determination of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.
One hour after the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Part 4.2 stands on its own. Notification is part of "respond" in Part 1.1 and does not need Part 1.2. Part 4.2 should be clarified so show that all events
that meet the definition of "Cyber Security Incident" are reportable, but that only actual compromise or disruption is reportable within one hour.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Without a NERC defined term for reportable attempted cyber security incidents, entities are left by themselves to establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. This could lead to significant
inconsistencies among different entities, and the compliance performance measures among different entities could be significantly different.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: Request clarifications on the measures and evidence needed to satisfy the requirement.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Without a NERC defined term for reportable attempted cyber security incidents, entities are left by themselves to establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. This could lead to significant
inconsistencies among different entities, and the compliance performance measures among different entities could be significantly different.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See previous comment.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
“Attempts” have been a part of the definition for a Cyber Security Incident for more than a decade. MEC will not support a process to define
“attempts.” Industry has already been identifying attempts for years. Part 1.2 should be changed as little as necessary to accomplish the directive and
require the least revisions to each Responsible Entity’s existing program(s). Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates additional work for
Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain.
Further, see the last question for comments on Requirement 4 and its Parts. There are not questions for Requirement 4 in this comment form.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
N&ST agrees that an actual compromise of an ESP or an applicable system should be distinguished from an (unsuccessful) attempt and that it is
reasonable to define different reporting time frames for each type of Cyber Security Incident. However, N&ST objects to the use of the word, “only” (as
in “Only an attempt...”), as it implies triviality (N&ST also recommends eliminating the definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” as per our
response to Question 1). Suggested re-wording for R1 Part 1.2: “Determine whether an identified Cyber Security Incident was an attempt to
compromise an ESP or an applicable system or actually compromised or disrupted an ESP or an applicable system.” Suggested re-wording for R4 Part
4.2 “bullets:” (1st) “One hour after a determination that a Cyber Security Incident was an actual compromise or disruption of an ESP or an applicable
system.” (2nd) “By the end of the next calendar day after a determination that a Cyber Security Incident was an unsuccessful attempt to compromise or
disrupt an ESP or an applicable system.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please note that even thought I agree with the flexibility to establish my own criteria, I believe that this flexibility will be addressed in a future NOPR as
all applicable Entities will have different criteria of what an attempt to compromise is.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
NV Energy would like to reiterate that “Attempts” have been a part of the definition for a Cyber Security Incident for more than a decade. NV Energy
does not support a process to define “attempts.” Industry has already been identifying attempts for years. Part 1.2 should be changed as little as
necessary to accomplish the directive and require the least revisions to each Responsible Entity’s existing program(s). Every additional change in the
terms or Parts creates additional work for Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
: We disagree with the changes made to Requirement R1, part 1.2.1, which addresses the entity’s responsibilities to, “Establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to compromise;”
Recommend remove the term “define,” and keep the established scope per NERC, CIP & FERC as: ...
The language would have to be so ubiquitous to cover changes in technologies and encapsulate outlying behavior, that any documented process would
be outmoded – and in CONSTANT revisions.
R1.1. already has a criteria to identify the attempts. R.1.1 - One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.)
No - For part 1.2.1, removing “define” allows the entity more flexibility to scope attempts to compromise into their criteria for evaluating the Cyber
Security Incident.
R1.2 - One or more processes to: Use: “Respond”?
1.2.1 Establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 Determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
{C}·

A Reportable Cyber Security Incident or

{C}·

Only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column identified for this Part;

1.2.3 Provide notification per as specified in Requirement R4 of this Standard.
“Attempts” have been a part of the definition for a Cyber Security Incident for more than a decade. PAC will not support a process to define
“attempts.” Industry has already been identifying attempts for years. Part 1.2 should be changed as little as necessary to accomplish the directive and
require the least revisions to each Responsible Entity’s existing program(s). Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates additional work for
Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain. Per our comments on question 1, we recommend incorporating the FERC directive for “attempt to compromise,
a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS)” in the Reportable
Cyber Security Incident definition. Part 1.2 would retain “One or more processes to determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.” The rest of existing Part 1.2 would be deleted.
Further, we disagree with the proposed Part 1.2 to include any reference to “provide notification per Requirement R4.” This recreates a cross-reference
between two requirements and potential double jeopardy for noncompliance. Part 1.2 should have NO reference to reporting.
Additionally, we disagree with the proposed language changes in the Requirements column for Parts 2.2. and 2.3 With our proposed changes
from question 1 and this question, Parts 2.2 and 2.3 should only be modified in the Applicable Systems column. There is no question in the comment
form for Part 2.2 or 2.3
each Responsible Entity’s existing program(s). Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates additional work for Entity’s to revise, implement
and retrain. Per our comments on question 1, we recommend incorporating the FERC directive for “attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s

Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS)” in the Reportable Cyber Security
Incident definition. Part 1.2 would retain “One or more processes to determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.” The rest of existing Part 1.2 would be deleted.
Further, we disagree with the proposed Part 1.2 to include any reference to “provide notification per Requirement R4.” This recreates a cross-reference
between two requirements and potential double jeopardy for noncompliance. Part 1.2 should have NO reference to reporting.
Additionally, we disagree with the proposed language changes in the Requirements column for Parts 2.2. and 2.3 With our proposed changes
from question 1 and this question, Parts 2.2 and 2.3 should only be modified in the Applicable Systems column. There is no question in the comment
form for Part 2.2 or 2.3
{C}1.
Do the changes clarify that the Responsible Entity must have a process to determine what is an attempt to compromise and provide
notification as stated in Requirement R1 Part 1.2 and Requirement R4 Part 4.2? Please explain and provide comments.
{C}{C}{C} Yes
{C}{C} No
Comments: We disagree that the changes clearly, or need to clarify, based on the following;
R1.1 lays out the criteria to identify Cyber Security Incidents (which by definition includes attempts) - One or more processes to identify, classify,
and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.)
They include compromises and attempts to compromise. Remove the language, “and define…” as stated in: 1.2.1 Establish criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to compromise; The requirement as stated is too restrictive and would require too many itemizations and feverish revisions as methods
and technolies are developed. – uggest to utilize the term and process of ‘evaluation’ as stated in the R.1. : ” identify, classify, and respond” measures.
Recommend removal of R.1.2.1, and stick with R.1.1. The scope and intent are included in R.1.1.
PAC will not support a process to define “attempts.” Industry has been identifying attempts for years. Part 1.2 should be changed to accomplish the
FERC directive, and require the least revisions to each Responsible Entity’s existing program(s). Every additional change in the terms, or Parts, creates
additional work for Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain.
Further, see question #10, for comments on Requirement 4, and its Parts. There are not questions for Requirement 4 in this comment form:
There are no questions to provide comments on Requirement 4 or its Parts. We do not support these as proposed. With our recommendations in
questions 1 and 2, R4 only needs to refer to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. It does not need to include “a Cyber Security Indicent that was only
an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column. This phrase could be deleted.
Suggest change to the following:
“was only an attempt to compromise an identified system applicable system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part.“ As identified in
R.1.2.2:
{C}·

Only an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column identified for this Part;

Review for redundancies: These are defined in scope in the ‘Applicable Systems’ in Column One of the Standard.

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

4. The SDT added Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) to applicable systems as opposed to modifying the NERC
Glossary EACMS definition to ensure the FERC Order No. 848 paragraph 54 directive to expand reporting requirements to EACMS was met
without expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that use the existing EACMS NERC Glossary
definition. Do you agree with the addition of EACMS to the applicable systems column in the tables in CIP-008-6? Please provide comments
and an alternate approach to addressing the directive, if possible.
Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
CenterPoint Energy agrees with the addition of EACMS to the Applicable Systems. Additionally, the Company suggest that entities be allowed to restrict
indications of compromise or attempt to compromise to the capability of the EACMS.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
FERC Order 848, ¶ 54 states, “With regard to identifying EACMS for reporting purposes, NERC’s reporting threshold should encompass the functions
that various electronic access control and monitoring technologies provide.” We agree with adding “and their associated” EACMS” to the Applicable
Systems columns in the Parts. We thank SDT for ensuring these changes keep low impact out of scope for reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Yes, but I think it should be further qualified to only those systems involved in controlling access. EACMS currently includes systems that may only be
for monitoring security that Project 2016-02 would classifiy as EAMS. It seems the intention of adding “EACMS” to the standard here is to target

reporting of what Project 2016-02 calls “EACS” systems. Will this new requirement unqualified be a barrier to utilizing external services related to
monitoring access?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Adding EACMS as CIP-008 applicable makes sense to improve the BES security posture. If the systems controlling access and monitoring a BCS are
under attack, response and notification should be required.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

We agree with adding “and their associated” EACMS” to the Applicable Systems columns in the Parts. We thank SDT for ensuring these changes keep
low impact out of scope for reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
LES anticipates this matter will be "cleaned up" in the virtualization project, within this project the SDT is proposing to seperate EACMS into EACS and
EAMS.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
In addition, PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for requirements and in the definitions for Cyber Security Incident and
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents due to their association with BES Cyber Systems and potential for revealing malicious activity directed at the BPS.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

No additional comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Yes, but I think it should be further qualified to only those systems involved in controlling access. EACMS currently includes systems that may only be
for monitoring security that Project 2016-02 would classifiy as EAMS. It seems the intention of adding “EACMS” to the standard here is to target
reporting of what Project 2016-02 calls “EACS” systems. Will this new requirement unqualified be a barrier to utilizing external services related to
monitoring access?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light understands the difficulty faced by the SDT regarding EACMS and FERC Order No. 848. We cannot identify a better alternative and
reluctantly agree with the proposed approach.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Concur with EEI comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Christopher Overberg - Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Omaha Public Power District - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Please see Texas RE’s response to #1 regarding including ESPs as applicable systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern asserts that the language, as proposed, DOES extend the scope into CIP-003 and low impact BES Cyber Systems. The currently approved
definition of “Reportable Cyber Security Incident” has a threshold of actually compromising or disrupting a reliability task of the functional entity. With
the SDT’s proposed changes to the definition and its use in CIP-003, what is reportable at assets containing lows could now be any compromise or
disruption of any BES Cyber System, any “logical borders surrounding a network to which BES Cyber Systems are connected using a routable
protocol”, any “physical borders in which BES Cyber Assets reside…” or any EACMS. It appears the SDT attempts to limit the CIP-003 scope
expansion with the use of the nested “Cyber Security Incident” definition. The EACMS are scoped to high and medium in the CSI definition and then
uses it as the basis of the Reportable CSI definition. Southern asserts that the ESP (and PSP) term in the CSI definition is not likewise scoped and
leaves an ambiguity. Simply because no requirements in CIP-005 or CIP-006 apply at a site that only contains low impact systems does not mean that
a logical or a physical border does not exist at the location that meets these definitions. Therefore, if a firewall at a 100kV “low only” substation is
plugged into a UPS and the UPS “suspiciously” powers off, then both an ESP (the logical border…) and an EACMS is disrupted at that low

substation. It seems to be reportable under one sub-bullet (ESP) but not another (EACMS) and therefore becomes a reportable incident under CIP-003
(CIP-008’s scoping language has no bearing on this situation).
Southern suggests this ambiguity can be removed by moving the qualifier for high and medium to earlier in the definition, as suggested under
Southern’s proposed modifications presented in Q1, and by also specifying high and medium impact-associated EACMS under the Reportable Cyber
Security Incident definition:
Cyber Security Incident – an unconfirmed malicious act or suspicious event requiring additional investigation to determine if it:
•
•

For high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems, compromised, or was an attempt to compromise, (1) the ESP, (2) the PSP, or (3) the
associated EACMS; or
Disrupted, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System

Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident – a confirmed malicious act that was determined by the Responsible Entity to be:
•
•

An attempt to compromise the ESP of a high or medium impact BCS; or
An attempt to disrupt the operation of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System or associated EACMS.

Note: Once confirmed by the Responsible Entity, the incident must be reported within the prescribed timeframes.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident – a confirmed malicious act that has:
•
•

Compromised the ESP of a high or medium impact BCS; or
Disrupted the operation of a BES Cyber System, or high or medium impact-associated EACMS

In fact, Southern suggests that “Electronic Security Perimeter” could be deleted from the definition now that EACMS has been added, as the two appear
redundant. Would not any attempt to compromise or disrupt “the logical border…” occur at an EACMS? Southern provides this as a point of discussion
only.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
EACMS should not be included. Systems that only perform the ‘Monitoring’ portion of an EACMS should not be included due to the minimal risk they
pose compromising the BES. TVA has taken an enterprise approach to Cybersecurity monitoring and the system is implemented and designed to be
isolated from the BES components in such a manner that a compromise of the system can in no way impact the BES.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
I marked No here because of my comments in question 1 above. Those thoughts regarding the SDT 2016-002 are applicable here as well.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
POPUD is afraid that the way this is addressed will cause ambiguity and confusion for low impact BES Cyber Systems, and unnecessary reporting of
minor issues invoving low impact assets.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Seminole does not agree with the inclusion of EACMs.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

5. Do you agree with reporting timeframes included Requirement R4 Part 4.2 and Part 4.3 which include an increase in reporting timeframe
from 5 to 7 calendar days in Part 4.3? Please explain and provide comments.
Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Xcel Energy believes that additional clarity should be provided in Requirement 4.2 so that it is stated that notifications of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident must be made one hour after its determination, even if it was already reported as an attempt. The upgrade from an attempt to an actual
compromise requires a new notification within 24 hours per Requirement 4.2, not just an update.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company supports the “update timeframe” in R4.4 to be set at 7 calendar days which will facilitate regular and timely reporting for issues of an
extended duration. This timeframe will facilitate the ability for a registered entity who experiences a need to update attribute information to do so on a
regular weekly schedule until all attributes have been reported.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While AZPS appreciates the change from 5 to 7 calendar days, as noted in our previous comments, a continual updating of information every 7 days
may result in inaccurate information and an undue burden on resources. Therefore, it is recommended that an initial notification is made and then a
final update at the completion of a Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Concur with EEI comments. Aditionally, while WEC Energy Group supports the proposed reporting timeframes, we recognize the need for a CIP
Exceptional Circumstances clause to be added to Requirement R4 to manage the situation where the reporting timeframe cannot be met due to
declared CEC.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light appreciates the additional time allowed for follow-on reporting, which better accommodates uncommon situations that, nonetheless,
occur with some regularity, such as holiday season, vacations, and operational emergencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We appreciate that the SDT has provided additional time for the updates to the original notification; however, we are not convinced that the timeframe is
appropriate for all situations. The requirement may add additional administrative burden for tracking the periodic updates and may not add
commensurate reliability benefits.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

We appreciate that the SDT has provided additional time for the updates to the original notification; however, we are not convinced that the timeframe is
appropriate for all situations. The requirement may add additional administrative burden for tracking the periodic updates and may not add
commensurate reliability benefits
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Matthew Beilfuss - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While WEC Energy Group supports the proposed reporting timeframes, we recognize the need for a CIP Exceptional Circumstances clause to be added
to Requirement R4 to manage the situation where the reporting timeframe cannot be met due to declared CEC.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Referring to the “Applicable Systems” column in the “Requirements” column may be redundant. A suggestion for the language in the second bullet for
Part 4.2 is: “By the end of the next calendar day after determination that a Cyber Security Incident was an attempt to compromise (as defined in Part
1.2.1) one or more applicable systems.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment
No additional comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Yes we agree 7 is more suitable timeframe because it allows the organization to be more thorough in analysis performance, evidence gathering and fact
finding, before reporting back to the region.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

NV Energy agrees with the additional days for reporting additional information to E-ISAC and NCCIC.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
There should be a consistent reporting timeframe for all, R4.2 & R4.3. A SEVEN calendar day reporting timeframe allows an entity a more reasonable
timeframe to report, and subsuqent follow-up reporting. FERC Order 848, ¶ 53 states, “…NERC should have the flexibility to establish an appropriate
reporting threshold.” This increase supports this.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
ERCOT requests that CIP Exceptional Circumstances be added to Part 4.2. As ERCOT noted in its comments on the last version, responsible entities
need to focus on reliability and restoration without the burden of meeting a reporting deadline during these activities. Alternatively, this could be added
to the overarching Requirement R4. In the SDT’s consideration of comments for the last version, the SDT noted that the 2016-02 SDT would address
this. ERCOT requests that the 2018-02 SDT address this in in the new requirement being developed since the new reporting timelines will be subject to
the implementation plan for CIP-008-6. Proposed language: Part 4.2, “After the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented
process(es) in Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification within the following timelines, except during CIP Exceptional Circumstances:”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
While we agree with the increase in the reporting timeframe from 5 to 7 calendar days in Part 4.3, we still have concerns with the reporting timeframes
in Part 4.2. We strongly encourage NERC and the SDT to reconsider requiring each Responsible Entity (RE) to report to two different agencies (E-ISAC
and NCCIC). If NERC cannot coordinate with both agencies to have one central reporting mechanism, we would recommend expanding the timeframe
to allow for one hour per agency, which would change the Part 4.2 requirement to: “Two hours after the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident. 48 hours after determination that a Cyber Security Incident was only an attempt...” Rationale behind this suggestion can be illustrated with
the following example: If an RE decides to contact the E-ISAC as the first agency and makes a phone call for initial notification, but is placed on hold for
an extended time, it is possible that reporting to the NCCIC (as the second agency) may fall outside of the one hour window. We believe that by
doubling the reporting agencies, REs should receive double the amount of time to report, especially in times of crisis when there may be longer
delays/higher volume in contacting these agencies. This updated requirement is doubling the reporting requirements of CIP-008-5 while keeping the
same one hour reporting timeframe for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Besides meeting CIP-008 reporting requirement, for the same event, an entity may also have EOP-004 and the Department of Energy (DOE) OE-417
reporting requirements to fulfill. These standards/regulations have different reporting requirements and reporting timeline. Please coordinate with EOP004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format. We recommend that an entity use CIP-008-6 proposed reporting
timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Tacoma Power appreciates that the SDT has provided additional time for the updates to the original notification; however, we are not convinced that the
timeframe is appropriate for all situations. The requirement will add additional administrative burden for tracking the periodic updates and may not add
commensurate reliability benefits.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Besides meeting CIP-008 reporting requirement, for the same event, an entity may also have EOP-004 and the Department of Energy (DOE) OE-417
reporting requirements to fulfill. These standards/regulation have different reporting requirements and reporting timeline. Please coordinate with EOP004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format. We recommend that an entity use CIP-008-6 proposed reporting
timeline.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
CenterPoint Energy believes the timeframes are confusing and could result in unintended actions such as shortened investigations and minimal
reporting. Requirements with timeframes are often most violated unintentionally. This could especially be the case during a high-stress incident
response scenario. Suspicious system behavior could take a long time to understand and resolve. Entities should not be penalized for not reporting new
information gained over a long timeframe.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

6. Do you agree with the SDT’s decision to give the responsible entity the flexibility to determine notification methods in their process?
Please explain and provide comments.
Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company notes that the CIP-008-6 Standard language has changed for notification methods, yet the Technical Rationale, in the section
labeled “Methods for Submitting Notifications”, references “submit notification using any approved method supported by E-ISAC and
NCCIC”. Southern Company requests that this be changed to read, “submit notification using any method supported by E-ISAC and NCCIC.” The use
of “approved” implies an approval process that is not addressed in the current Standard language or draft Implementation Guidance.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While we agree with the SDT’s decision to provide flexibility in notification methods, with regards to reporting to two independent agencies (E-ISAC and
NCCIC), and potentially a third agency if checkbox number 10 under the schedule 1 alert criteria for DOE OE-417 reporting applies, we disagree that
this is a cost effective and efficient use of Responsible Entities (REs) time and resources, especially during an emergency event/crisis situation. We ask
that NERC and the SDT consider coordinating with E-ISAC and NCCIC to implement an electronic reporting form for ease of initial reporting, updating,
and tracking that has the capability, upon submission, to automatically route the data to both agencies. This would save REs the undue burden of
submitting twice (or thrice) and potentially encountering discrepancies between the two/three agencies during initial and updated submissions. If
automation is not possible, consider adding a check box on the form indicating that E-ISAC needs to forward the report to NCCIC. Reporting should be
modeled after DOE OE-417 reporting form where one agency’s form provides a flag/check option to coordinate with the other one so that the RE only
needs to report once. This would cover the RE’s responsibility to report to both agencies when necessary, but ensures E-ISAC and NCCIC are
coordinating any response. It is our understanding that E-ISAC already works closely with NCCIC per the below cited references:
•

Per DHS’ website under the expanded section, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers [ISACs], “Sector-specific Information Sharing and
Analysis Centers (ISACs) are non-profit, member-driven organizations formed by critical infrastructure owners and operators to share
information between government and industry. While the NCCIC works in close coordination with all of the ISACs, a few critical
infrastructure sectors maintain a consistent presence within the NCCIC.”

•

In addition, in Presidential Decision Directive 63 under President Clinton in the section Annex A: Structure and Organization under the
description of Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), it states, “Such a center could serve as the mechanism for gathering,
analyzing, appropriately sanitizing and disseminating private sector information to both industry and the NIPC. The center could also
gather, analyze and disseminate information from the NIPC for further distribution to the private sector. While crucial to a successful

government-industry partnership, this mechanism for sharing important information about vulnerabilities, threats, intrusions and anomalies is not
to interfere with direct information exchanges between companies and the government.”
•

Per the FEMA website, “In March 2003, NIPC was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which now has responsibility for
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) matters.”

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NV Energy wants to commend the SDT for listening to industry comment and removing the form for communication, and allowing Entities the flexibility
to determine notification. We would also request that any upcoming drafts not include this Appendix.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
EEI supports the SDT’s decision to provide responsible entities the flexibility to determine the most effective notification method for submitting Cyber
Security Incident information to the E-ISAC and ICS-CERT within their processes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment
Ameren Agrees with and supports EEI Comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
N&ST supports giving Responsible Entities this flexibility but is concerned about the possibility that the recipients of these notifications may be unwilling
to accommodate a multitude of different notification methods and report formats. N&ST recommends that NERC, the Regions, the E-ISAC and the DHS
work cooperatively to define a SINGLE report template that can be used system-wide to reduce administrative overhead.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment
We thank the SDT for responding to comments and eliminating the proposed appendix in the standard. Do not put it back in the standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No additional comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The flexibility that this change provides will allow entities to modify reporting formats as technology, regulatory requirements, and possibly organizations
being reported to change over time.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Recommend the SDT consider the addition of identifying potential notification methods to the Part 1.2 measures to ensure these details are not
overlooked when entities develope processes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light generally is agnostic to reporting method, but would prefer that if duplicate reporting is required, both reports can be made by the
same method and format. See also discussion in question 9.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Concur with EEI comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

None
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
It is not clear how auditors, or enforcement staff, will be restrained from exercising subjective judgement of sufficiency regarding the entites' notification
methods and process.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please coordinate with EOP-004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format, as the same event may need to be
reported to multiple agencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
I am not sure of the rationale behind removing 4.2 from the standard. It seemed to cover nearly any type of method of notification. So if by that it is
intended to provide flexibility I guess that the notification process should be required to be noted as part of the plan so that it can be traced in the event
of an incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
It is not clear what the SDT means with the language, “flexibility to determine notification methods in their process.” Is this referring to language in the R
4.2 that was deleted in this version? Otherwise, the “flexibility” is not included. The measures for the new R 4.2 state just a single measure: Examples
of evidence may include, but are not limited to, dated documentation of notices to the E-ISAC and NCCIC.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: There should be a standardized reporting form which gathers all required attributes and necessary information that is automatically sent to
multiple agencies once submitted (e.g single portal which distributes to E-ISAC and NCCIC).
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
One of the four elements outlined by FERC was to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison. In order to collect consistent data
a framework for reporting is needed.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We are unsure what the SDT considers the “flexibility to determine notification methods in their process”. Is this referring to language in the 4.2 that
was deleted in this version? Otherwise, we do not see flexibility included. The measures for the new 4.2 state just a single measure: Examples of
evidence may include, but are not limited to, dated documentation of notices to the E-ISAC and NCCIC.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please coordinate with EOP-004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format, as the same event may need to be
reported to multiple agencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: A formal template should be provided to industry to ensure consistent information is provided.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

7. Based on feedback the SDT has adjusted the Implementation Plan timeframe from 12 to 18 months. In the Consideration of Comments
Summary Report the SDT justified this change. Do you support the rationale to move to an 18-month Implementation Plan? Please explain
and provide comments.
Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
None
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Concur with EEI comments
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light appreciates the additional time allowed to develop, implement, and socialize the revised incident response and reporting
requirements.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
What is the SDT's intent for the initial performance of Part 2.1? Recommend the SDT address Part 2.1 in the Implementation Plan.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We support the extended implementation timeframe.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We support the extended implementation timeframe.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No additional comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
N&ST supports this change. N&ST believes it may require considerable amounts of time and effort for Responsible Entities to define, test and, as
necessary, adjust criteria and metrics that they will use to distinguish “noise” from serious attempts to compromise their operational cyber
infrastructures. It may also take considerable amounts of time and effort to define and, in some instances, assign staff to reporting functions.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Ameren Agrees with and supports EEI Comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We agree with the adjusted 18 month timeframe as it was necessary to assist RE’s in setting up its documented approach for classifying and reporting
attempts. The time is also needed to adjust internal processes, provide training to necessary staff, and implement the changes to reporting.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
EEI supports the SDT’s decision to move to an 18-month Implementation Plan in response to Industry comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
The additional time for implementation is well needed given the additional administrative burden on Entitie's to meet this Reliability Standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tho Tran - Omaha Public Power District - 1 - Texas RE
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amelia Sawyer Anderson - CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC - 1 - Texas RE
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company believes that due to the program changes required, 24 months is necessary. Given that these changes go from reporting known,
clearly defined, objective events that have caused actual impact, to a very subjective “attempts to compromise” that are not easily and quickly
determined, nor lend themselves to automated detection without flooding the intended recipients, it will require Responsible Entities to deploy additional
resources, modify many existing security processes, potentially implement additional security controls and systems, and coordinate these changes
across large enterprises. Therefore, 24 months is a more reasonable timeframe for successful implementation of the necessary changes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

For small to medium sized RE’s, a significant lift is required to staff the required positions, train/retrain, implement the technologies and create cross
functional processes to meet the newly revised standards. A 24 month Implementation Plan is recommended.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends a 24-month Implementation Plan. This will allow entities time to determine the effects of the revised requirements and
definitions, develop adequate written processes, and train personnel appropriately.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

These changes should not be a significant effort to implement and 12 months seem sufficient to update program documentation and train SMEs of the
changes. This standard would need to be revised again if Project 2016-02 is implemented and the definition for EACMS changes. If the
implementation timeline is extended too far, a conflict could add more work.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
These changes should not be a significant effort to implement and 12 months seem sufficient to update program documentation and train SMEs of the
changes. This standard would need to be revised again if Project 2016-02 is implemented and the definition for EACMS changes. If the
implementation timeline is extended too far, a conflict could add more work.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

8. Although not balloted, do you agree with the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for Requirement R1 and R4? Please
explain and provide comments.
Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
While EEI generally agrees with the Violation Severity Levels, we suggest the SDT consider making the following minor modification to the phrase “only
an attempt to compromise” to “an attempt to compromise”. Although we understand the SDT’s reasoning for adding “only” to the phrase, we believe it
offer little additional clarity yet does have the potential of adding confusion to the phrase. Moreover, within Requirement 1, Subpart 1.2.1 entities are
required to define “attempts to compromise”.
Affected VSL:
•
•
•

R1, Severe VSL
R2, Severe VSL
R4, Lower VSL, Moderate VSL

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Generally yes, but R4 appears to have an error. The same text “The Responsible Entity failed to notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their successors, of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident (R4)” appears under both High VSL and Severe VSL columns.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Ameren Agrees with and supports EEI Comments
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No additional comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
Generally yes, but R4 appears to have an error. The same text “The Responsible Entity failed to notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their successors, of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident (R4)” appears under both High VSL and Severe VSL columns.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Aaron Cavanaugh - Bonneville Power Administration - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
BPA thanks the SDT for making the modifications.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Yes

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sean Bodkin - Dominion - Dominion Resources, Inc. - 6, Group Name Dominion
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kjersti Drott - Tri-State G and T Association, Inc. - 1,3,5 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Due to shorted balloting period Xcel Energy was not able to evaluate the modifications to VRF or VSLs.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
No opinion.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
As stated above, any auditor can take issue with a Responsible Entity’s “criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise” as it is impossible to
define with ever changing threats. Because an auditor can interpret this, a High VSL to R1 is not reasonable. We recommend low and moderate for
“attempts”.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pamela Hunter - Southern Company - Southern Company Services, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Southern Company
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Southern Company does not support the VRFs and VSLs for Requirement R1 and R4 and consider that they do not appropriately outline the true
minimal risk and potential severity to the BES, as written. Given the risk-based nature of NERC’s CMEP program, Southern requests the addition of
Lower and Moderate VSLs under Requirement R1, and language detailing truly tiered severity levels. Examples for Requirement R1:
Lower VLS:

The Responsible Entity has developed a Cyber Security Incident response plan, but the plan does not include one or more processes to provide
notification per Requirement R4. (1.2)
Moderate VSL:
The Responsible Entity has developed a Cyber Security Incident response plan, but the plan does not include one or more processes to identify
Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents.
High VLS:
The Responsible Entity has developed a Cyber Security Incident response plan, but the plan does not include one or more processes to identify
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.

Examples for Requirement R4:
Lower VLS:
The Responsible Entity failed to notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their successors, of a Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
For R1, we believe that failure to include processes to identify Cyber Security Incidents that were only an attempt to compromise an applicable system
should be at a lower VSL than failing to include processes to identify Reportable Cyber Security Incidents (RCSI) as there is a clear difference in a
RCSI’s potential impact to the BES versus only an attempt (which would not have an actual impact to the BES). We believe that all failures related only
to attempts should be classified as “Lower VSL” based on their lack of actual impact to the BES. Similarly, for R4, the same logic should apply. A failure
to notify an information sharing organization of an unsuccessful attempted Cyber Security Incident should not result in a Moderate VSL, but rather a
Lower VSL based on actual impact to the BES (or lack thereof). Furthermore, if a Responsible Entity only notified one agency, this should be
considered nothing higher than a Lower VSL as the incident was still reported and should have been shared between agencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
For R4, there seems to be duplication of criteria for Severe and High VSL regarding the following:
“The Responsible Entity failed to notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. (R4).”
Which shows up in both columns (Severe and High VSL).
Otherwise, the VSL language seems appropriate.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Given our comments on previous items, NV Energy cannot approve the currently drafted VRF and VSLs, as our comments on revisions would require
changes be made to the VRFs and VSLs to reflect NV Energy's recommendations.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We do not agree with Requirements and Parts as proposed. The VRFs and VSLs have to be revised too.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The current proposed requirements still need to be refined by the Standard Drafting Team. And the VRF and VSL should be updated accordingly.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
While we don't agree, we have found it doesn't merit the effort to provide alternatives.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The current proposed requirements still need to be refined by the Standard Drafting Team. And the VRF and VSL should be updated accordingly.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: Until the standard language is more formalized the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels may not accurately reflect the risks.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

For R4, there seems to be duplication of criteria for Severe and High VSL regarding the following:
“The Responsible Entity failed to notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. (R4).”
Which shows up in both columns (Severe and High VSL).
Otherwise, the VSL language seems appropriate.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Reclamation does not agree with the High VSL for R4. Reclamation recommends changing the High VSL
from:
The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and ICS-CERT, or their successors, but failed to notify or update E-ISAC or ICS-CERT, or their successors,
within the timeframes pursuant to Requirement R4, Part 4.3.
to:
The Responsible Entity notified E-ISAC and DHS, or their successors, but did not accomplish the initial notification within the timeframes included in
Requirement R4 Part 4.3.

Reclamation also recommends adding the following as a third option to the Moderate VSL:
The Responsible Entity initially notified E-ISAC and DHS, or their successors, within the timeframes included in Requirement R4 Part 4.3 but failed to
update E-ISAC or DHS, or their successors, within the timeframe included in Requirement R4 Part 4.4.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
R1 Severe VSL seems to be extreme for an admisitrative failure to include "only and attempt to compromise".
R1 High VSL seems to be extreem for the administrave failure to have a process to identify criteria to define attempts to compromise.
POPUD forsees arguments between the entity the auditors and enforcement staff over the sufficiency of these sections. We are aware of instances
where auditors have decided that an issue was techicallyaddressed, but it wasn't addressed to their satisfaction. Most recently there is a discussion of
the sufficiency of certain chains and locks used for CIP-014. We would like these issues addressed going forward during Standard development, rather
than when the Standards are being enforced.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The failure to notify information sharing organizations of an unsuccessful attempted Cyber Security Incident should not result in a severe penalty.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

9. The SDT proposes that the modifications in CIP-008-6 provide entities with flexibility to meet the reliability objectives in a cost effective
manner. Do you agree? If you do not agree, or if you agree but have suggestions for improvement to enable more cost effective approaches,
please provide your recommendation and, if appropriate, technical or procedural justification.
Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
NRG does not have concerns in acheiving these reliability objectives in a cost effective manner; however, this may be challenging for Responsible
Entities who have manual processes for evaluation.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
However, the auditors may not agree with the cost effective approach and demand a higher level (best practices) application. This puts smaller entities
in jeopardy during audits.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
No additional comments.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment
We appreciate the development of the Implementation Guide and we agree with SDT approach to allow RE’s to develop a model based on the
analaysis of the current environment and the time to discuss future projections for realistic budgetary stance.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Constantin Chitescu - Ontario Power Generation Inc. - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Daniel Valle - Daniel Valle On Behalf of: William Winters, Con Ed - Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 3, 1, 5, 6; - Daniel Valle

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Maryanne Darling-Reich - Black Hills Corporation - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tim Womack - Puget Sound Energy, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mike Smith - Manitoba Hydro - 1, Group Name Manitoba Hydro
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Thomas Breene - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1

Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Seth Shoemaker - Muscatine Power and Water - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Tommy Drea - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Smith - NaturEner USA, LLC - 5
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Devin Shines - PPL - Louisville Gas and Electric Co. - 1,3,5,6 - SERC,RF, Group Name PPL NERC Registered Affiliates
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Julie Severino - FirstEnergy - FirstEnergy Corporation - 1, Group Name FirstEnergy
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Jendras - Ameren - Ameren Services - 3
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Evans-Mongeon - Utility Services, Inc. - 4
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Renee Leidel - Dairyland Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

larry brusseau - Corn Belt Power Cooperative - 1
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kimberly Van Brimer - Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (RTO) - 2 - MRO
Answer
Document Name

Yes

Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Pam Feuerstein - Intermountain REA - 3 - WECC
Answer

Yes

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rachel Coyne - Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Texas RE does not have comments on this question.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
While we generally agree with the SDT’s modifications to provide flexibility, with regards to reporting to two independent agencies (E-ISAC and NCCIC),
and potentially a third agency if checkbox number 10 under the schedule 1 alert criteria for DOE OE-417 reporting applies, we disagree that this is a
cost effective and efficient use of Responsible Entities (REs) time and resources, especially during an emergency event/crisis situation. We ask that
NERC and the SDT consider coordinating with E-ISAC and NCCIC to implement an electronic reporting form for ease of initial reporting, updating, and
tracking that has the capability, upon submission, to automatically route the data to both agencies. This would save REs the undue burden of submitting
twice (or thrice) and potentially encountering discrepancies between the two/three agencies during initial and updated submissions. If automation is not
possible, consider adding a check box on the form indicating that E-ISAC needs to forward the report to NCCIC. Reporting should be modeled after
DOE OE-417 reporting form where one agency’s form provides a flag/check option to coordinate with the other one so that the RE only needs to report
once. This would cover the RE’s responsibility to report to both agencies when necessary, but ensures E-ISAC and NCCIC are coordinating any
response. It is our understanding that E-ISAC already works closely with NCCIC per the below cited references:
•

Per DHS’ website under the expanded section, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers [ISACs], “Sector-specific Information Sharing and
Analysis Centers (ISACs) are non-profit, member-driven organizations formed by critical infrastructure owners and operators to share
information between government and industry. While the NCCIC works in close coordination with all of the ISACs, a few critical
infrastructure sectors maintain a consistent presence within the NCCIC.”

•

In addition in Presidential Decision Directive 63 under President Clinton in the section Annex A: Structure and Organization under the
description of Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), it states, “Such a center could serve as the mechanism for gathering,
analyzing, appropriately sanitizing and disseminating private sector information to both industry and the NIPC. The center could also
gather, analyze and disseminate information from the NIPC for further distribution to the private sector. While crucial to a successful
government-industry partnership, this mechanism for sharing important information about vulnerabilities, threats, intrusions and anomalies is not
to interfere with direct information exchanges between companies and the government.”

•

Per the FEMA website, “In March 2003, NIPC was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which now has responsibility for
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) matters.”

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

The new standard ultimately requires Responsible Entities to become cyber security threat hunters rather than relying on the protections required within
the CIP standards. There is no reduction in risk to the BES in reporting attempts to compromise. CIP-008-6’s new requirements are going to require
significant investments in technology and personnel for small and medium sized Regional Entities without an existing 24x7x365 Security Operations
Center (SOC). A 24x7x365 SOC, is a multi-million dollar capital investment and a significant operational and maintenance budget burden. At a
minimum, a SOC requires six qualified FTE to cover shifts plus, a threat hunter, oversight, compliance reporting, and management. Salaries alone for a
small SOC are in excess of $1,000,000. This is just not feasible for a small or medium sized entity. Using a Managed Service Provider for SOC
services to reduce cost is also not feasible due to access to BCSI, its inherent requirements, and increased compliance risk.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jonathan Robbins - Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 1,3,4,5,6 - FRCC
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Including EACMs increases documentation of attempts which makes the requirement onerous for the entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Prior to proposing additional modifications, Reclamation recommends each SDT take the necessary time to effectively define the scope of each
Standard Authorization Request to minimize the costs associated with the planning and adjustments required to achieve compliance with frequently
changing requirements. This will provide entities with economic relief by allowing technical compliance with current standards.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2

Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
With regard to reporting to two independent agencies (E-ISAC and NCCIC), it seems strange to have duplicate reporting. Would it not make sense to
avoid such inefficiency by simply reporting to E-ISAC and asking them to forward relevant items to DHS?
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Robert Ganley - Long Island Power Authority - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Comments: Since the standard has been expanded to include “Attempts” the costs will increase incrementally regardless of the flexibility provided.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light appreciates the efforts of the SDT to provide flexibility in draft CIP-008-6. City Light also appreciates the work of the SDT to respond to
industry comments from the first posting, and to provide extensive guidance documentation about the intent of the draft CIP-008 revisions and how the
revised requirements might be implemented. For the most part, the revisions provide flexibility to meet reliability objectives in a cost effective manner,
and the additional documentation offers reasonable assurance about acceptable means to meet these objectives.
In one area the modifications fall short, that of still requiring double-reporting of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and attempted incidents to E-ISAC
and to DHS NCCIC. This duplication of effort is neither cost effective for an entity nor is it the best use of scare resources during an actual cyber
security incident to focus attention on a duplicative task. City Light urges the SDT to coordinate directly with NERC to arrange for E-ISAC to make the
reportings to DHS NCCIC. Coordination of reporting is appropriate for E-ISAC both as part of its expanded industry engagement (and expanded budget)
and in its central role as an analysis and sharing center, one step removed from the front lines of cyber issues at an entity. City Light understands that
such a change might require additional negotiation among FERC, NERC, and E-ISAC, outside of the Standards process, but believes the result to be
beneficial, appropriate, and consistent with the intent of FERC Order No. 848.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jeanne Kurzynowski - Consumers Energy Co. - 1,3,4,5 - RF
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please coordinate with EOP-004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format, as the same event may need to be
reported to multiple agencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We are concerned that the timelines for reporting may create additional administrative burden and cost. In addition, Entities that have an integrated
EOP-004/CIP-008 all hazards approach to incident management will have considerable costs and effort to accomplish these changes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe O'Brien - NiSource - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Dependent upon what constitutes an “attempt”, additional resources (personnel and/or tools) may be needed to investigate and report on attempted
events.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We are concerned that the timelines for reporting may create additional administrative burden and cost. In addition, Entities that have an integrated
EOP-004/CIP-008 all hazards approach to incident management will have considerable costs and effort to accomplish these changes.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Rick Applegate - Tacoma Public Utilities (Tacoma, WA) - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

Tacoma Power is concerned that the timelines for reporting may create additional administrative burden and cost. In addition, Entities that have an
integrated EOP-004/CIP-008 all hazards approach to incident management will have to expend significant resources to comply with these
changes. There is no evidence that reliability and security benefits will be commensurate with the increased costs.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
See our comments in the next question.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

James Anderson - CMS Energy - Consumers Energy Company - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Please coordinate with EOP-004 and OE-417 regulators for a standardize reporting timeline and reporting format, as the same event may need to be
reported to multiple agencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer
Document Name
Comment

No

The directives can be implemented with fewer changes to the Glossary terms and Requirements. Both should be changed as little as necessary to
accomplish the directive and require the least revisions to Responsible Entity’s existing programs. Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates
additional work for Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain and produce evidence for compliance monitoring without adding value to security or
reliability.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
Absent assurances from the appropriate authorities at the E-ISAC and the DHS that Responsible Entities will be able to use one reporting mechanism
and one standardized report template for incident reporting, N&ST is concerned that the administrative overhead associated with filing and updating
reports could be significant.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer
Document Name

No

Comment
NV Energy cannot make a determination on the implementation for this Standard being done in a cost effective manner given the current draft. Previous
comments provided by NV Energy would require changes to the Definitions and Requirement that would support a more cost effective implementation.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
We do not agree. The directives can be implemented with fewer changes to the Glossary terms and Requirements.
Both should be changed as little as necessary to accomplish the directive and require the least revisions to Responsible Entity’s existing programs.
Every additional change in the terms or Parts creates additional work for Entity’s to revise, implement and retrain and produce evidence for
compliance monitoring without adding value to security or reliability, thus is no longer ‘cost effective’.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer

No

Document Name
Comment
With regard to reporting to two independent agencies (E-ISAC and NCCIC), it seems strange to have duplicate reporting. Would it not make sense to
avoid such inefficiency by simply reporting to E-ISAC and asking them to forward relevant items to DHS?
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

10, Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.
Kara White - NRG - NRG Energy, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - FRCC,MRO,WECC,Texas RE,NPCC,SERC,RF
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The diagram in the Implementation guidance (page 6) references capitalized terms for "Attempted", "Compromise" and "Disrupt" which could be
confusing to Responsible Entities.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Jodirah Green - ACES Power Marketing - 6, Group Name ACES Standard Collaborations
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon Gleason - Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Regarding the Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, ERCOT requests that the historical rationale not be removed
from the standard until this document is approved. If the content is removed and the Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP008-6 is not approved, valuable historical context for the full standard will disappear.

Regarding the implementation guidance, ERCOT requests that the historical Guidelines and Technical Basis not be removed from the standard until this
document is endorsed by the ERO. If the content is removed and the Implementation Guidance for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is not endorsed,
valuable historical context for the full standard will disappear.

ERCOT also offers the following comments on the Implementation Guidance:

•

Page 7, typo correction: “Once this initial notification is made, if all attributes were known, they should have been included in the initial
notification and the reporting obligation ends.

•

Page 7 concern: It is noted that an entities reporting obligations are met once known information for the three required attributes is reported to
E-ISAC and NCCIC. This appears to indicate that entities are non-compliant up to this point. Requirement R4 allows partial reporting while
maintaining compliance.

•

Page 11 correction: The NERC Functional Model is not contained within Attachment 1 of CIP-002. The NERC Functional Model is a wholly
separate document.

•

Page 18 type: “Registered Entities are encouraged to explore options and tools designed to that take the guess work out of the process without
being so overly prescriptive as to create undue administrative burden or remove needed discretion and professional judgment from the SMEs.”

•

Page 18 concern: As noted in response to question 2, ERCOT has concerns with it being up to the Registered Entity to determine what
constitutes and ‘attempt to compromise’. ERCOT recommends the SDT use industry-standard guidance to develop a baseline or minimum
criteria for the industry.

•

Pages 23-35 concern: ERCOT requests that the SDT consider removing the requirement language. This will ensure that the guidance is
relevant and applicable beyond the current proposed version of the requirement language.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Lynn Goldstein - PNM Resources - Public Service Company of New Mexico - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
With regards to reporting to two independent agencies (E-ISAC and NCCIC), and potentially a third agency if checkbox number 10 under the schedule 1
alert criteria for DOE OE-417 reporting applies, we disagree that this is a cost effective and efficient use of Responsible Entities (REs) time and
resources, especially during an emergency event/crisis situation. We ask that NERC and the SDT consider coordinating with E-ISAC and NCCIC to
implement an electronic reporting form for ease of initial reporting, updating, and tracking that has the capability, upon submission, to automatically
route the data to both agencies. This would save REs the undue burden of submitting twice (or thrice) and potentially encountering discrepancies
between the two/three agencies during initial and updated submissions. If automation is not possible, consider adding a check box on the form
indicating that E-ISAC needs to forward the report to NCCIC. Reporting should be modeled after DOE OE-417 reporting form where one agency’s form
provides a flag/check option to coordinate with the other one so that the RE only needs to report once. This would cover the RE’s responsibility to report

to both agencies when necessary, but ensures E-ISAC and NCCIC are coordinating any response. It is our understanding that E-ISAC already works
closely with NCCIC per the below cited references:
•

Per DHS’ website under the expanded section, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers [ISACs], “Sector-specific Information Sharing and
Analysis Centers (ISACs) are non-profit, member-driven organizations formed by critical infrastructure owners and operators to share
information between government and industry. While the NCCIC works in close coordination with all of the ISACs, a few critical
infrastructure sectors maintain a consistent presence within the NCCIC.”
In addition in Presidential Decision Directive 63 under President Clinton in the section Annex A: Structure and Organization under the
description of Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), it states, “Such a center could serve as the mechanism for gathering,
analyzing, appropriately sanitizing and disseminating private sector information to both industry and the NIPC. The center could also
gather, analyze and disseminate information from the NIPC for further distribution to the private sector. While crucial to a successful
government-industry partnership, this mechanism for sharing important information about vulnerabilities, threats, intrusions and anomalies is not
to interfere with direct information exchanges between companies and the government.”

•

Per the FEMA website, “In March 2003, NIPC was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which now has responsibility for
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) matters.”

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Amy Casuscelli - Amy Casuscelli On Behalf of: Carrie Dixon, Xcel Energy, Inc. , 6; - Xcel Energy, Inc. - 1,3,5,6 - MRO,WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Xcel Energy appreciates the work the CIP-008-6 Standard Drafting team has done in the limited timeframe it was required to operate within. The second
draft effectively addressed industry concerns from the first draft while preserving the intent of the Commission’s directive. While Xcel Energy is voting
Affirmative, there are a few language changes, in addition to the comments above, that would provide additional clarity. Those changes are as follows:
•

•

•

•

In Requirements R2.1 the (S) was removed. We believe that this creates a subject-verb agreement issue. If we one were to say “Test each
Cyber Security Incident response plan at least once every 15 calendar months:” than there is an indication that a Responsible Entity (RE) has
more than one plan, many REs will only have one. However, if we were to say “Test Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) at least once
every 15 calendar months:” it suggests that an RE may have one or more plans.
The indication that REs need to have more than one plan is initially described in the already enforced parent Requirement of R2 where it states:
“Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively include…” If R2 were to
read “Each Responsible Entity shall implement its documented Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) to collectively include…” and then
state in “Test Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) at least once every 15 calendar months:” we would have agreement in the parent
requirement an in the sub requirement that a RE can have one or more plans to collectively address each applicable Requirement.
In R2.2 language is added that states: “…that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part,…”.
It is not clear to which Requirement Part the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part” is referring to. Xcel Energy recommends adding the part
number (i.e. Part 2.2) to each occasion where a Requirement Part is referenced with the Requirement Language or removing the references to
the Part altogether.
Generally, Xcel Energy SMEs feel that the changes made to CIP-008-5 in both Drafts 1 and Drafts 2 were done hastily and in a piecemeal way
that were hard to follow and interpret. While Xcel Energy understands that this is likely a bi-product of the shortened drafting period created by
the Commission, we also believe that NERC Standards need to be written in a concise and direct way so that no ambiguities exist nor
interpretations needs to be made by Responsible Entities. When an existing Standard is open for modification or a new Standard is being

drafted, it is imperative that industry drafts a well written Standard that accomplishes the intent of mitigating the risk and eliminates all possible
ambiguities that could lead to misinterpretations and possible compliance violations.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Gregory Campoli - New York Independent System Operator - 2, Group Name ISO/RTO Standards Review Committee
Answer
Document Name
Comment
In requirement R2, part 2.2, please consider changing the following text:
“Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part”
To: “Cyber Security Incident that was only an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part “

In requirement R2, part 2.3, please consider changing the following text:
“Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part. “
To: “Cyber Security Incidents that were only an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part. “

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Sandra Shaffer - Berkshire Hathaway - PacifiCorp - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment
: We support the extraordinary effort by the SDT, particularly with the extraordinarily short deadline from FERC. In FERC Order 848, ¶ 67, FERC
stated, “the development of a Reliability Standard provides the Commission with an opportunity to review and ultimately approve a new or modified
Reliability Standard, ensuring that the desired goals of the directive are met.” Moreover, the Reliability Standards development process allows for the
collaboration of industry experts in developing a draft standard and also gives interested entities broader opportunity to participate and comment on any
proposal that is developed.

The FERC directed timeframe and NERC’s scheduling are NOT achieving FERC’s statement that the development process allows collaboration and
opportunity to participate and comment. The rushed timeframes, especially a 15-day comment period that includes a holiday week is not
acceptable. Entities did not have time to engage experts within there organizations or trade associations. This comment period also overlaps with the
comment period for multiple proposed massive changes to multiple CIP standards and definitions to address virtualization and other.

Won’t agree to define “attempts” parameters.

There are no questions in the comment form for Part 2.2 or 2.3. We do not support the proposed changes to the Requirements language. See
comments in question #2.

There are no questions to provide comments on Requirement 4 or its Parts. We do not support these as proposed. With our recommendations in
questions 1 and 2, R4 only needs to refer to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. It does not need to include “a Cyber Security Indicent that was
only an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column. This phrase should be deleted.
Part 4.1: Include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known: (4.1.1.-4.1.3 as proposed)

Part 4.2: Provide initial notification within the following timelines after determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident per Part 1.2: One hour
after determination for compromises or disruptions. By the end of the next calendar day after determination for attempts.

Part 4.3: ok as proposed.

There are no questions in the comment form for the proposed Implementation Guidance or Technical Rationale and there has been insufficient time to
review the amount of material presented in those two documents to provide comment with this draft. However, there are two initial comments.

Per the FERC Order 848, footnote 19 on page 13, the reference to reliability tasks says, the reliability tasks are referenced in the NERC Functional
Model, not the BROS for CIP-002 as noted in the Implementation Guidance.

The Technical Rationale still refers to Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents, which is no longer a proposed defined term, on page 4 in the first
paragraph under Notification Timing.
All three Parts should follow the pattern in action-oriented Parts and start with verbs.

Dual reporting still not a resolved matter: It is not a consistent, and annonimity is not inplace for both required reporting entities. This needs to be
addressed before going forward with this dual reporting requirement.

Refer to :
BROS for CIP-002

FERC Order 848, footnote 19 on page 13

FERC Order 848, ¶ 67

Freedom of Onformation Act

U.S. Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Form OE-417

*NCCIC – three things: Functional Impact, Level of Intrusion, Attack Vector…Compared to the NERC implementation guiadance – there is no contunity!

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Salsbury - Berkshire Hathaway - NV Energy - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
NV Energy would once again like to commend the SDT on the work done for this Standard, given the time constraints required for completing this
project.
NV Energy would like to identify the following gaps between the comment questions and the CIP-008-6 Draft 2:
•

There are no questions associated with this Draft’s revisions to Requirement R2, Parts 2.2 and 2.3

•

There are no questions associated with this Draft’s revisions to Requirement R4

•

There are no questions associated with this Draft’s supplementary documentation: Implementation Guidance and Technical Rationale.

NV Energy believes there should be avenue for providing comments for all revisions within the Requirement language, and supplementary
documentation.

NV Energy would also like to provide commentary on the poorly chosen timeframe for this commenting and balloting period for CIP-008-6. With the pool
and commenting period opening on the Friday prior to the week of a federal two-day holiday, made it very difficult to engage our company experts, and
trade associations, to review the revisions within this Draft. In addition to the holiday, the commenting and ballot period for CIP-008-6 is occurring
concurrent to the commenting for the revisions to the CIP Standards due to Virtualization inclusion, which included extensive changes to CIP Glossary
Terms and five (5) CIP Standards.
NV Energy understands that there is a strict timeline imposed for the approval of CIP-008-6, but this timeline should not impose on the industry’s ability
to provide fully vetted commentary and ballot position.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Mark Gray - Edison Electric Institute - NA - Not Applicable - NA - Not Applicable
Answer
Document Name
Comment
EEI believes that the SDT and NERC deserve recognition for exceptional work addressing FERC directives under a very aggressive timeline while still
effectively considering and addressing Industry concerns.
One additional suggested minor change would be the following to Part 2.2:
“Use the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1 when responding to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, and/or Cyber
Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system as identified in the “Applicable Systems” columns under Requirement R1, or performing an
exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Document deviations from the plan(s) taken during the response to the incident or exercise.”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Exelon would encourage the Standards Drafting Team (SDT) to assist Responsible Entities by providing a clear description in the Implementation
Guidance of the scope of equipment in scope. Additional discussion around how PCA’s are not included, as an example, will help entities properly
scope their reporting program to the standard. We also believe it would be a good clarifying change to the definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident to explicitly note that PCAs are not included in scope. We do not believe this is a substantive change to the standard, but reflects what is
currently drafted. Additional explanation would be beneficial in clearly articulating scope of the standard.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Davis Jelusich - Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County - 6, Group Name Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Although FERC requested reports be sent to both E-ISAC and NCCIC, this inefficiency may distract or impair a responsible entity’s incident
response. These government organizations should share reports instead of placing the burden on each entity.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brian Millard - Tennessee Valley Authority - 1,3,5,6 - SERC, Group Name Tennessee Valley Authority
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The addition of EACMS functions creates a second definition of the term. If the five functions are what the SDT considers an EACMS to fulfill, the official
definition should be modified to include these to avoid differing interpretations of the term based on the Standard.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Vine - California ISO - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The ISO supports the comments of the Security Working Group (SWG)
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Nicholas Lauriat - Network and Security Technologies - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
As per our response to Question 1, N&ST believes Protected Cyber Assets (PCAs) should be included with BES Cyber Systems and associated
EACMS as applicable systems.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Darnez Gresham - Darnez Gresham On Behalf of: Annette Johnston, Berkshire Hathaway Energy - MidAmerican Energy Co., 1, 3; - Darnez
Gresham
Answer
Document Name
Comment
There are no questions in the comment form for Part 2.2 or 2.3. We do not support the proposed changes to the Requirements language. See
comments in question 2.

There are no questions to provide comments on Requirement 4 or its Parts. We do not support these as proposed. With our recommendations in
questions 1 and 2, R4 only needs to refer to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. It does not need to include “a Cyber Security Incident that was only
an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column.” This phrase could be deleted.

All three Parts should follow the pattern in action-oriented Parts and start with verbs.

Part 4.1: Include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the extent known: (4.1.1.-4.1.3 as proposed)

Part 4.2: Provide initial notification within the following timelines after determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident per Part 1.2: One hour
after determination for compromises or disruptions. By the end of the next calendar day after determination for attempts.

Part 4.3: ok as proposed.

There are no questions in the comment form for the proposed Implementation Guidance or Technical Rationale and there has been insufficient time to
review the amount of material presented in those two documents to provide comment with this draft. However, there are two initial comments.

The Implementation Guidance on page 11 below Figure 5 still references the BES Reliability Operating Services (BROS) with respect to reliability tasks.
In the FERC order, the reference to reliability tasks is in footnote 19 on page 13. The footnote says the reliability tasks are referenced in the NERC
Functional Model, not the BROS. See also the Commission Determination in FERC Order 791 paragraph 156, “While some commenters suggest that
the phrase “reliability tasks” is best understood as referring to the bulk electric system reliability operating services listed in the Guidelines and
Technical Basis section of CIP-002-5, we believe that the NERC Functional Model is the basis for the phrase “reliability task” while the Guidelines and
Technical Basis section provides clarity on how the term applies to the CIP version 5 Standards.”

The Technical Rationale on page 4 in the first paragraph under Notification Timing still refers to Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incidents, which is
no longer a proposed defined term. The capitalization should be removed.

We support the extraordinary effort by the SDT, particularly with the extraordinarily short deadline from FERC. In the Order, FERC stated in paragraph
67: “the development of a Reliability Standard provides the Commission with an opportunity to review and ultimately approve a new or modified
Reliability Standard, ensuring that the desired goals of the directive are met. Moreover, the Reliability Standards development process allows for the
collaboration of industry experts in developing a draft standard and also gives interested entities broader opportunity to participate and comment on any
proposal that is developed.

The FERC directed timeframe and NERC’s scheduling are NOT achieving FERC’s statement that the development process allows collaboration and
opportunity to participate and comment. The rushed timeframes, especially a 15-day comment period that includes a holiday week is not acceptable.
Entities did not have time to engage experts within their organizations or trade associations. This comment period also overlaps with the comment
period for proposed massive changes to multiple CIP standards and definitions to address virtualization and other.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Eric Ruskamp - Lincoln Electric System - 6
Answer
Document Name
Comment

LES supports the idea of timely information sharing with E-ISAC and in turn E-ISAC providing pertinent information to the industry. While the concern at
hand is that not enough information is being provided to E-ISAC, the opposite also appears to be true in that many no-impact and isolated matters are
sent out to the industry through E-ISAC alerts. Theses matter of no-impact (and no potential impact) do not appear to serve the industry well and
instead only lead to alert fatigue. The drafting team may have an opportunity with their work on this issue to emphasize to E-ISAC that there is an
opportunity for improvement in their analysis and their ultimate dissemination of entity provided information. The overall goal of this standard, in
coordination with the work of the E-ISAC, should be to ensure the timely and full submission of pertinent data to E-ISAC and then providing the needed
information to the industry through E-ISAC alerts.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Gordon - Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We generally agree with the approach the SDT has taken. However, PCAs should be included in the Applicable Systems column for requirements and
in the definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents due to their association with BES Cyber Systems and potential for
revealing malicious activity directed at the BPS.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

David Rivera - New York Power Authority - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
No additional comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Terry BIlke - Midcontinent ISO, Inc. - 2

Answer
Document Name
Comment
We agree with the comments provided by the IRC Standards Review Committee. While we are voting for the standard, we believe the following
changes would improve and simplify the standard, while making it more adaptable to changing conditions:
•

Regarding R2, we believe an implementation of the plan, to include notification of an incident or an attempt, should constitute a test of the
plan. The measure for R2 should state this.

•

R3 is redundant. The entity is responsible for having a plan in R1. They either have an appropriate plan or they don’t. R3 adds an
unnecessary obligation to have documentation to prove you have documentation.

•

It is our understanding that some entities want additional structure on what gets reported. We believe a requirement on notification is sufficient
and believe it should be up to the E-ISAC to work with the industry over time to define the information it needs when an incident gets
reported. The structure of the report should not be hard-coded in the standard or an attachment.

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

faranak sarbaz - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Comments: Duplicate effort would be needed to notify multiple agencies.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Michael Buyce - City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Referring to the “Applicable Systems” column in the “Requirements” column may be redundant. A suggestion for the language in the Part 2.2 is: “Use
the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1 when responding to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, responding to a Cyber

Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise (as defined in Part 1.2.1) one or more applicable systems, or performing an exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Document deviations from the plan(s) taken during the response to the incident or exercise”
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Brandon McCormick - Brandon McCormick On Behalf of: Carol Chinn, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Chris Gowder, Florida
Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; David Owens, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5; Don Cuevas, Beaches Energy Services, 1, 3; Ginny
Beigel, City of Vero Beach, 3; Joe McKinney, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Ken Simmons, Gainesville Regional Utilities, 3, 1, 5;
Neville Bowen, Ocala Utility Services, 3; Richard Montgomery, Florida Municipal Power Agency, 6, 4, 3, 5; Tom Reedy, Florida Municipal
Power Pool, 6; - Brandon McCormick, Group Name FMPA
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We do not find language reflecting provisions for CIP Exceptional Circumstances within CIP-008, so there is no safe haven in the event of “A situation
that involves or threatens to involve one or more of the following, or similar, conditions that impact safety or BES reliability: a risk of injury or death; a
natural disaster; civil unrest; an imminent or existing hardware, software, or equipment failure; a Cyber Security Incident requiring emergency
assistance; a response by emergency services; the enactment of a mutual assistance agreement; or an impediment of large scale workforce
availability.” It seems that CIP-008 should have language related to CEC as well.
We understand from the CIP-008 revisions webinar that the SDT declined to include this as part of this project. We strongly encourage the SDT to
incorporate language to support CEC relative to CIP-008 as this standard will likely be filed with FERC prior to the completion of the Ballot Process for
CEC under Project 2016-02.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

William Sanders - Lower Colorado River Authority - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
As responsible entities will be required to report more detailed cybersecurity incident information with both E ISAC and DHS once CIP-008-6 becomes
effective, both organizations (E ISAC and DHS) should provide a secure electronic method for reporting incidents using existing portals or other means.
Likes
Dislikes

0
0

Response

Teresa Cantwell - Lower Colorado River Authority - 5
Answer
Document Name
Comment
As responsible entities will be required to report more detailed cybersecurity incident information with both E ISAC and DHS once CIP-008-6 becomes
effective, both organizations (E ISAC and DHS) should provide a secure electronic method for reporting incidents using existing portals or other
means.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Barry Lawson - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - 4
Answer
Document Name
Comment
NRECA appreciates the efforts of the SDT on this project and also thanks the SDT for the modifcations made in response to our comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andrea Barclay - Georgia System Operations Corporation - 4
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We appreciate the efforts of the SDT on this project and also thanks the SDT for the modifcations made in response to our comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Patricia Boody - Lakeland Electric - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We do not find language reflecting provisions for CIP Exceptional Circumstances within CIP-008, so there is no safe haven in the event of “A situation
that involves or threatens to involve one or more of the following, or similar, conditions that impact safety or BES reliability: a risk of injury or death; a
natural disaster; civil unrest; an imminent or existing hardware, software, or equipment failure; a Cyber Security Incident requiring emergency
assistance; a response by emergency services; the enactment of a mutual assistance agreement; or an impediment of large scale workforce
availability.” It seems that CIP-008 should have language related to CEC as well.
We understand from the CIIP-008 revisions webinar that the SDT declined to include this as part of this project. We strongly encourage the SDT to
incorporate language to support CEC relative to CIP-008 as this standard will likely be filed with FERC prior to the completion of the Ballot Process for
CEC under Project 2016-02.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Joe Tarantino - Joe Tarantino On Behalf of: Arthur Starkovich, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Beth Tincher, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Jamie Cutlip, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Kevin Smith, Balancing Authority of
Northern California, 1; Nicole Looney, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3; Susan Oto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 4, 1,
5, 6, 3; - Joe Tarantino
Answer
Document Name
Comment

Change the sentence in CIP 008 R2 Part 2.2: The sentence currently reads “Use the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1
when responding to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part, or performing an exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.” Change to “Use the
Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1 when responding to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Attempted
Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part, or performing an exercise
of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.”

Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Steven Rueckert - Western Electricity Coordinating Council - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Recommend the SDT consider including "Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the Applicable Systems column"
to Part 2.1 in one of the scenarios for testing each Cyber Security Incident response plan. A test of the plan should address all required Parts from R1
no matter the scenario, whether Reportable or attempted Cyber Security Incidents, and exercise SMEs ability to discern the difference.
Recommend the SDT consider adding Physical Security Perimeter (PSP) or associated Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) into the applicable
systems for CIP-008-6 to ensure any attempts, successful or unsuccessful to compromise the responsible entities PSP or associated PACS are
obtained to gain a better understanding of the full scope of cyber-related threats facing the Bulk-Electric Power System(s).
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Ginette Lacasse - Seattle City Light - 1,3,4,5,6 - WECC, Group Name Seattle City Light Ballot Body
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Seattle City Light supports these changes in principle, but casts a NO ballot for two reasons. One, to encourage another effort at creating a single report
(see discussion in Question 9, above). And two, to encourage additional implementation guidance to add clarity as to how each action reflects a
reliability objective and to discuss alternatives to the single approaches, in most case, that are presented.
City Light has two additional questions about proposed CIP-008-6. One, there is a necessity to notify the local Reliability Coordinator if a BROS
capability has been compromised. Clarification would be helpful of how this process is envisioned to work in conjunction with CIP-008-6 notificaitons
and EOP-004 notifications. Two, what is done with notification information entities make to E-ISAC and DHS? Additional documentation is desired about
the subsequent sharing, processing, and storage of notification data, so that appropriate Federal designations (CEII or similar) may be made as
appropriate.
Finally, Seattle City Light also would like to propose that the SDT consider the possibility that, if an entity participates in the voluntary E-ISAC CRISP
program, such participation would automatically satisfy all reporting requirements of CIP-008. CRISP is a public-private cyber threat and data sharing
platform coordinated by E-ISAC and DOE. Participants voluntarily share IT system traffic in near-real time by installing an information-sharing device at
the border of the IT systems, just outside the firewall.
Such an approach to CIP-008 reporting has a double benefit. It encourages greater participation in CRISP, which in turn increases the value of the
program. It also provides an increased flow of raw cyber security data from industry. This would be an opportunity for FERC and NERC to offer entities
a carrot in place of the usual reliability Standard stick.
Other similar IT data sharing platforms, such as that being developed by DHS, might be afforded similar standing as regards CIP-008 reporting.

Additional information about CRISP is available here: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/09/f55/CRISP%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Andy Fuhrman - Andy Fuhrman On Behalf of: Theresa Allard, Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., 1; - Andy Fuhrman
Answer
Document Name
Comment
See MRO's NERC Standards Review Forum (NSRF) comments.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Dana Klem - MRO - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - MRO, Group Name MRO NSRF
Answer
Document Name
Comment
The NSRF recommends that the SDT add language around the Requirement to report “attempt to compromise” recognizing Entities are allowed
flexibility by detrmining their criteria based on each entity’s architecture and that a “singular criteria” (one size fit all) will not be effective for applicable
entities. We further recommend that this guidance be within the Implementation Plan or Guidance documents that the SDT has developed.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Anthony Jablonski - ReliabilityFirst - 10
Answer
Document Name
Comment

CIP-008-5 applicability addresses high and medium impact BCS and their associated EACMS, however, it is also recommended to address PCAs as
part of the scope. As the new draft definition of a Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident reference "the attempted
compromised or the compromise of an Electronic Security Perimeter", how can PCAs not be included or are they implied? In the CIP-005-5 Table R1 –
Electronic Security Perimeter the Applicable Systems column within the CIP-005-5 Standard PCAs associated with High and Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems are included and make up an Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP). Not listing or including PCAs in the applicability section of CIP-008-6
is inconsistent with the current CIP-007-6 and CIP-010-2 Standards as they ensure the same level of preventative security controls and baselines are
applied to PCAs that make up the ESP as a whole.
Part 2.1 should be modified to permit exercise of the plan using any Cyber Security Incident. Restricting the exercise to only Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents restricts the exercise to only a subset of an entity’s incident response plan. Part 2.2 should be simplified to require use of the incident
response plan when responding to any Cyber Security Incident.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Vivian Vo - APS - Arizona Public Service Co. - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AZPS respectfully recommends removal of the word "only" from the following:
•
•
•

Part 1.2.2
Measures for Part 2.3
R4

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leonard Kula - Independent Electricity System Operator - 2
Answer
Document Name
Comment
In requirement R2, part 2.2, please consider changing the following text:
“Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part”

To
“Cyber Security Incident that was only an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part “

In requirement R2, part 2.3, please consider changing the following text:
“Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part. “

To
“Cyber Security Incidents that were only an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part. “

Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Richard Jackson - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
Reclamation recommends Requirement R1 Part 1.1 be changed
from:
One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
to:
One or more processes to identify, classify, handle, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

After the change to Requirement R1 Part 1.1 is made, Reclamation recommends the SDT change the measure in Requirement R1 Part 1.1
from:
An example of evidence may include, but is not limited to, dated documentation of Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that include the process to
identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
to:

An example of evidence may include, but is not limited to, dated documentation of Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that include the process to
identify, classify, handle, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents (e.g., containment, eradication, recovery/incident resolution).

After the change to Requirement R1 Part 1.1 measure is incorporated, Reclamation recommends the SDT remove Requirement R1 Part 1.4.

Reclamation also recommends changing the timeframe specified in Requirement R3 Part 3.2 to 90 days to align with the time allowed in Requirement
R3 Part 3.1.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Todd Bennett - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. - 3, Group Name AECI
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AECI supports comments provided by NRECA
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Kevin Conway - Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County - 1
Answer
Document Name
Comment
We agree with the direction of the Drafting team, but are concerned that there is not enough protection from subjective enforcement by auditors and
enforcement staff. The danger is most apparent when the entity is trying to meet the spirit of the standard but held to a best practices threshold.
Likes

0

Dislikes
Response

0

Russell Martin II - Salt River Project - 1,3,5,6 - WECC
Answer
Document Name
Comment
No comment from SRP
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Leanna Lamatrice - AEP - 3
Answer
Document Name
Comment
AEP recommends striking the word “only” from the sentences which include, “….Cyber Security Incident was only an attempt to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part.” In requirement R4 and part 4.2. This is to be consistent with requirement parts 2.2 and 2.3
and the definition of Cyber Security Incidnet.
Likes

0

Dislikes

0

Response

Comments received from Jack Cashin, APPA
1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) has an updated approach regarding new and modified terms. The SDT is no longer proposing a new
definition for reportable attempted cyber security incidents. The defining concepts describing this event have been incorporated in proposed
modifications to Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1 and Part 1.2.2. The Responsible Entity will be required to establish criteria to evaluate and define
attempts and determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems. The SDT is proposing
modifications to Cyber Security Incident as well as Reportable Cyber Security Incident. For Reportable Cyber Security Incident, the SDT has
determined it is prudent to include BES Cyber Systems (BCS) because of their criticality in relation to ESPs. By including BCS in the Reportable
Cyber Security Incident definition, it shows that Protected Cyber Assets (PCA) are not in scope for the proposed modification. Do you agree with
the proposed modified definitions of, Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident? Please provide comments and alternate
language, if possible.

Yes
x No
Comments:
APPA believes that additional guidance on the language on alternative approaches -- “establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts and
determine if a Cyber Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable system,” is needed.
Public power concurs that PCAs should not be included in the proposed modification to the standard.
2. The SDT has added language in Requirement R1 Part 1.2. for the Responsible Entity to establish and document criteria to evaluate and define
attempts in their Cyber Security Incident response plan(s). Do you agree with this approach to allow the entity to define attempts for their unique
situation?
X Yes
No
Comments: APPA supports the intent of the proposed changes but, as stated in the answer to question 1, believe the Standard would benefit
from guidance on alternative approaches addressing the language,“establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts and determine if a Cyber
Security Incident is an attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems.”
We are concerned that without established guidance, complying entities and compliance and enforcement staff do not have sufficient guidance to
come to a common understanding of the draft standard language. Complying public power entities believe that a conservative reporting criteria
will present significant costs to administer without corresponding measurable reliability benefits. The costs required for the follow-up
requirements in R4 are significant.
3. Do the changes clarify that the Responsible Entity must have a process to determine what is an attempt to compromise and provide notification
as stated in Requirement R1 Part 1.2 and Requirement R4 Part 4.2? Please explain and provide comments.
X Yes
No
Comments: APPA believes that the proposed changes reflect that an Entity must have a process in place to identify compromise attempts and
provide notification. Public power is concerned that specifying a specific number of days for reporting actual, and attempted Cyber Security
Incidents to agencies could lead to resource challenges. Public power recommends that the SDT consider a time frame that provides an update
within 24 hours of actual determination of the criteria established in R4.1. Physically getting a team to remote substations to determine the attack
vector could take time, and the difficulty will increase depending on how wide-spread the event turns out to be.
4. The SDT added Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS) to applicable systems as opposed to modifying the NERC Glossary
EACMS definition to ensure the FERC Order No. 848 paragraph 54 directive to expand reporting requirements to EACMS was met without
expanding the scope into CIP-003 (low impact BES Cyber Systems) or CIP standards that use the existing EACMS NERC Glossary definition. Do you
agree with the addition of EACMS to the applicable systems column in the tables in CIP-008-6? Please provide comments and an alternate
approach to addressing the directive, if possible.

x Yes
No
Comments: Because there is another SDT evaluating the term EACMS, APPA would appreciate further guidance from the CIP-008 SDT on whether
just the proposed EACS or both the proposed EACS and EAMS would be included in the revised CIP-008 requirements.
5. Do you agree with reporting timeframes included Requirement R4 Part 4.2 and Part 4.3 which include an increase in reporting timeframe from
5 to 7 calendar days in Part 4.3? Please explain and provide comments.
Yes
X No
Comments: APPA appreciates that the SDT has provided additional time for updates to the original notification; however, we are not convinced
that the timeframe is appropriate for all situations. The requirement of tracking the periodic updates will add additional administrative burden for
utilities and may not add commensurate reliability benefits.
6. Do you agree with the SDT’s decision to give the responsible entity the flexibility to determine notification methods in their process? Please
explain and provide comments.
Yes
No
Comments: It is not clear what the SDT means with the language, “flexibility to determine notification methods in their process.” Is this referring
to language in the R 4.2 that was deleted in this version? Otherwise, the “flexibility” is not included. The measures for the new R 4.2 state just a
single measure: Examples of evidence may include, but are not limited to, dated documentation of notices to the E-ISAC and NCCIC.
7. Based on feedback the SDT has adjusted the Implementation Plan timeframe from 12 to 18 months. In the Consideration of Comments
Summary Report the SDT justified this change. Do you support the rationale to move to an 18-month Implementation Plan? Please explain and
provide comments.
X Yes
No
Comments: APPA supports the extended implementation timeframe.
8. Although not balloted, do you agree with the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for Requirement R1 and R4? Please explain and
provide comments.
Yes
No

Comments:
9. The SDT proposes that the modifications in CIP-008-6 provide entities with flexibility to meet the reliability objectives in a cost effective
manner. Do you agree? If you do not agree, or if you agree but have suggestions for improvement to enable more cost effective approaches,
please provide your recommendation and, if appropriate, technical or procedural justification.
Yes
X No
Comments: Public power is concerned that the timeline for reporting creates additional administrative burden and cost. In addition, Entities that
have an integrated EOP-004/CIP-008 all hazards approach to incident management will have to expend significant resources to comply with these
changes. There is no evidence that reliability and security benefits will be commensurate with the increased costs.
10.

Provide any additional comments for the SDT to consider, if desired.

Comments received from Brenda Hampton, Luminant Mining Company LLC
Question 1
Luminant agrees with the updated approach; however, the language in 1.2.2 might be improved. Luminant suggests simplifying by combining
the bullets to read: "Determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or an attempt to compromise one
or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part; and"
Question 6
Luminant agrees with providing flexibility to the entity; however, we continue to disagree with the determination that reporting to a single
agency as an intermediary to the other agency is outside the scope of the SAR. We also suggest NERC pursue an update to OE-417 to add a
checkbox to include the DHS organization (in this case NCCIC). We believe every effort should be made to consolidate reporting to a single
entity.
Question 10
Although we believe that it is in industry's best interests to come up with criteria for evaluating "attempts to compromise", we are absolutely
opposed to the Implementation Plan as it currently exists. The suggested criteria would leave entities with a ridiculously broad criteria for
reporting. We suggest a robust process may be required to come up with better criteria for this category and may need some trial period before
finalizing any IP.

CIP-008-6
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber
Security Incident Reporting: Consideration of
Comments
January 2019

NERC | Report Title | Report Date
I

Table of Contents
Preface................................................................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ iv
Background ..................................................................................................................................................... iv
CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses ............................................................................. 5
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Reporting.......................................................................................................................................................... 6
EACMS and Scoping ......................................................................................................................................... 7
PCAs ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
VRF/VSLs .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Other .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | January 2019
ii

Preface
The vision for the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Enterprise, which is comprised of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the seven regional entities (REs), is a highly reliable and secure North American
Bulk-Power System (BPS). Our mission is to ensure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and
security of the grid.
The North American BPS is divided into seven RE boundaries, as shown below in the map and corresponding table.
The downward diagonal, multicolored area denotes overlap because some Load-Serving Entities participate in one
region while associated Transmission Owners/Operators participate in another.

FRCC

Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

MRO

Midwest Reliability Organization

NPCC

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

RF

ReliabilityFirst

SERC

SERC Reliability Corporation

Texas RE

Texas Reliability Entity

WECC

Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | January 2019
iii

Introduction
Background
The Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting standards drafting team thanks all
commenters who submitted comments on the draft CIP-008-6 standard. This standard was posted for a 10-day public
comment period, ending Thursday, November 29, 2018. Stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on the
standards and associated documents through a special electronic comment form. There were 72 sets of responses,
including comments from approximately 160 different people from approximately 110 companies, representing 7 of
the Industry Segments as shown in the table on the following pages.
All comments submitted may be reviewed in their original format on the standard’s project page.
If you feel that your comment has been overlooked, please let us know immediately. Our goal is to give every
comment serious consideration in this process. If you feel there has been an error or omission, you can contact the
NERC standards developer, Alison Oswald, at 404-446-9668 or at alison.oswald@nerc.net.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | January 2019
iv

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses
Purpose
The Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting standards drafting team (SDT)
appreciates industry’s comments on the CIP-008-6 standard. The SDT reviewed all comments carefully and made
changes to the standard accordingly. The following pages are a summary of the comments received and the SDT’s
corresponding responses. If a specific comment was not addressed in the summary of comments, please contact the
NERC standards developer.

Definitions
Several commenters requested the SDT modify the Cyber Security Incident definition to clarify it to include both
disruption and compromise for all sub points the way the RCSI definition does.
The Cyber Security Incident definition includes: “compromises, or was an attempt to compromise” in its first bullet,
and “disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt,” in its second bullet. The SDT asserts that both terms are addressed
within the definition. The SDT was purposeful when associating compromise with the cyber systems and perimeters
whereas disruptions are related to the function or reliability task. This distinction helps further clarify what is in scope
for low impact BES Cyber Systems.
One commenter suggested adding PSP to RCSI definition.
Regarding PSPs, the currently enforceable definition of Cyber Security Incident includes malicious acts or suspicious
events that compromise, or attempt to compromise, PSPs. The currently-enforceable Reportable Cyber Security
Incident definition includes Cyber Security Incidents that have compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks
of a functional entity. As such, compromises or attempts to compromise PSPs could be reportable under the currently
enforceable standard and definition. Cyber Security Incident that compromises or attempts to compromise a PSP
would become reportable under the RCSI definition when it results in a compromise or disruption of one or more
reliability tasks.
Commenters requested the SDT modify the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition to delete “that performs
one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.”
Thank you for your comment, the team asserts that the inclusion of the phrase “that performs one or more reliability
tasks of a functional entity” in the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition adds additional clarity and has elected
to leave it in the proposed definition. In addition, it is consistent with previous versions of CIP-008.
Several commenters expressed concern that low impact could be interpreted as in scope as a function of the Cyber
Security Incident definition.
The SDT addressed this concern by moving “high and medium impact” in front of BES Cyber Systems and ESP, PSP
and EACMS in the first bullet of the Cyber Security Incident definition. The SDT asserts this single change also
addresses the concern for the Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition.
Some commenters requested that the SDT modify the RCSI definition to include reportable attempts.
The SDT understands there could be some confusion, but the team strived to strike a balance between clear reporting
definitions and timeframes commensurate with risk related to reporting attempts and RCSI. The SDT asserts that a
change to the RCSI definition could affect more than CIP-008 and have consequences relative to CIP-003.
One commenter asserted that the definition of the revised terms was not provided.
The SDT thanks you for your comment. The revised terms were provided in the New or Modified Term(s) Used in
NERC Reliability Standards section of the draft standard.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report | January 2019
5

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

Reporting
While the majority of the commenters appreciated the extended notification timeframes provided in Requirement
4, Parts 4.2 and 4.3, several commenters again requested the inclusion of CIP Exceptional Circumstances (CEC).
The SDT foremost asserts that a general review of CEC is ongoing as part of the scope of Project 2016-02. The SDT
further asserts that waiving the notification requirements when faced with a situation that involves or threatens to
involve an imminent or existing hardware, software, or equipment failure, or a Cyber Security Incident requiring
emergency assistance, is in direct contradiction to the intent of FERC Order No. 848. It is in exactly these types of
situations where it is most important to share information amongst sector entities to stave off similar threats to
protect the reliability of the BES.
Several commenters stated that the notification timeframes were confusing, inappropriate for updated
information, or unduly burdensome. Also, a concern was raised that specifying a specific number of days for
reporting actual and attempted Cyber Security Incidents to agencies will sometimes be a resource challenge. The
recommendation is that the SDT consider a time frame that provides an update within 24 hours of actual
determination of the criteria established in R4.1.
The SDT asserts that it is within each entity’s purview to define its own criteria for and determination of reportability
and knowledge of attributes. Throughout the requirement compliance timing begins with each determination as the
entity executes its response process. It is upon the entity’s determination that the notification timeframes are
predicated — whether it is one hour from determination that an attempt to compromise is now a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident, or whether it is within seven days after the determination of new attribute information. It is not
the SDTs intent for an entity to rush their incident response process. Initial notifications can be preliminary and
include only information that is known at the time of determination. Additional attribute information that is
determined as the investigation continues should be reported per the update timeframes in the standard.
A commenter requested that the notification timeframes be consistent for Parts 4.2 and 4.3, specifically seven
days after determination for an initial notification, as well as updates.
The SDT asserts that seven days after determination for an initial notification is not an appropriate reporting
threshold. The reporting timeline for attempts to compromise is in alignment with FERC Order No. 848, p 89 and is
in the spirit of timely reporting for information sharing. In addition, the one-hour initial notification timeframe for
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents is not new and entities should already have processes in place to satisfy that
requirement.
A commenter expressed concern about reporting to two different agencies and requested doubling the timeframe
for initial notification to accommodate the additional agency reporting requirement.
FERC Order No. 848 instructs the SDT to consider risk when developing timeframes. The SDT asserts that the 1 hour
timeline is in alignment with previous versions of CIP-008, other FERC orders, and severity of the incident. This
standard does not require a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is
reportable. It does require preliminary notification, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report. The SDT also asserts that
means exist to provide simultaneous notification. The time required to notify additional entities does not begin until
the entity has made a determination that aligns with a reportable classification.
Several commenters requested coordination amongst the electric sector’s event notification requirements, i.e.,
U.S. Department of Energy (OE-417), EOP-004, and CIP-008. Also, some commenters would like to leverage
reporting to E-ISAC as an intermediary to NCCIC.
The SDT determined not to modify existing reporting forms, such as OE-417, because Order No. 848 noted that this
form did not request information that FERC directed the SDT to require in CIP-008. Nonetheless the SDT notes that
entities may consider synchronizing their reporting processes as long as all information that is required to be reported
is submitted to appropriate agencies.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report |January 2019
6

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

The SDT asserts that the proposed reliability standard is responsive to FERC Order 848 and that E-ISAC acting as an
intermediary is outside of the scope of the SAR.
Some commenters would like to leverage reporting to a single agency as an intermediary to the other agency.
The SDT thanks you for your comment, however the SDT asserts that the proposed reliability standard is responsive
to FERC Order 848 and that this is outside of the scope of the SAR.
Many of the commenters, expressed the desire to have a Standardized Reporting form and to submit one report
for automatic submission to the two entities.
While the initial form that was developed is not required, it is included as an example in Implementation Guidance
and available for use. The SDT has preserved the entity’s ability to choose to use that form or not.
One commenter expressed concern that auditor will use subjective judgement.
Thank you for your comment. The SDT wanted to give flexibility to entities in creating their process to accommodate
differing size entities while meeting the requirements in the FERC order. The SDT has been working in close
collaboration with the RSAW Task Force developing the CIP-008-6 RSAW.
One commenter stated that Part 4.2 stands on its own and notification is part of "respond" in Part 1.1 and does
not need Part 1.2. Part 4.2 should be clarified so show that all events that meet the definition of "Cyber Security
Incident" are reportable, but that only actual compromise or disruption is reportable within one hour.
This concern has been addressed by adding clarifying language to each of the applicable parts. It is not the intent of
the SDT to infer that all Cyber Security Incidents are reportable. Rather, the SDT has developed standards requirement
language that provides entities with the flexibility to create processes and criteria to ascertain what is reportable.

EACMS and Scoping
Two commenters asked that the SDT limit EACMS in the applicable systems column to exclude systems solely
performing monitoring functions.
The SDT reevaluated FERC Order No. 848 and asserts that two of the five functions listed within the directive in
Paragraph 54 (monitoring and logging, and alerting) are intentionally included.
One commenter stated that the addition of EACMS functions creates a second definition of the term. If the five
functions are what the SDT considers an EACMS to fulfill, the official definition should be modified to include these
to avoid differing interpretations of the term based on the Standard.
The SDT removed the mention of the five functions within the standard and the current definition of EACMS stands.
NERC Project 2016-02 is also in the process of modifications to the NERC Glossary of Terms definitions for Interactive
Remote Access, Intermediate Systems, and Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems. Additionally, the Project
2018-02 SDT has decided not to modify these terms due to their pervasive use throughout CIP Reliability Standards
and the abbreviated timeline for filing of CIP-008-6 as directed in FERC Order No. 848.
One commenter disagrees with the inclusion of EACMS.
Thank you for your comment, the SDT asserts that EACMS is include per FERC order 848 Paragraph 54.
One commenter requested the SDT add ESPs to Applicable Systems in R1.2.2 and R4.2.
The SDT thanks you for your comment. The applicable systems in the proposed standard meet FERC Order 848 for
the systems to be included.
Some commenters expressed concern that attempts to compromise potentially expand the scope to assets that
are corporate systems or otherwise not associated with the CIP program.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report |January 2019
7

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

The SDT added clarifying language to both the definitions and requirements in an effort to ensure that the scope was
limited to the appropriate Applicable Systems.

Requested Modifications to Standard Language
Several commenters requested that the SDT define attempts to compromise, define criteria for attempts to
compromise; or define a minimum set of criteria for attempts to compromise.
The SDT thanks commenters for their input. The SDT asserts that it is to the industry’s benefit that CIP-008 leaves it
up to each Responsible Entity to document a process to determine what constitutes an “attempt to compromise”, as
well as defining criteria for “attempts to compromise;” or defining a minimum set of criteria for “attempts to
compromise.”
The SDT further asserts that no two Responsible Entities are alike and the determination of “attempts” and criteria
for “attempts” is contextual and dependent on what is normal within each unique organization.
To define “attempt” or criteria for “attempts” could create an overly prescriptive and less risk-based approach and
may have the unintended consequence of undue administrative burden or removal of needed discretion and
professional judgment from subject matter experts.
In order to futureproof the standard the SDT determined that it was not to the benefit of Responsible Entities to
define any fixed sets of criteria for “attempts to compromise” based on :
 The current state of cyber security threats will continue to evolve and that the associated security
technologies will also evolve in response to these threats. The criteria for “attempts to compromise” will also
evolve over time as a result


Embedding criteria based on current technical requirements (such as those from CIP-007-6 R4.1) and/or
direct references to other CIP standards such as CIP-007-6 R4.1 creates an administrative issue when changes
to those technical requirements or the referenced standards are required.

The SDT has developed proposed Implementation Guidance inclusive of several examples in an effort to address this.
The team received comments stating that they appreciate the flexibility to establish our own criteria, they believe
that this flexibility will be addressed in a future NOPR as all applicable entities will have different criteria of what
an attempt to compromise is.
The SDT thanks you for your comment. The SDT strived to strike a balance between flexibility and consistency in the
standard. The SDT believes this meets FERC order 848 and provides flexibility in implementation and future proofs
the standard. This approach reflects the approach taken in other current enforceable standards, whereby the entity
defines the criteria that best meets their unique operating environment.
Some commenters stated that “attempts” have been a part of the definition for a Cyber Security Incident for more
than a decade and the entity does not support a process to define “attempts.”
The SDT sought to create language that allows the entity flexibility to work the definition for attempts into their
processes in a manner that supports the FERC order 848 reporting requirement directives and accommodates unique
operating environments.
Many commenters recommend striking the word “only” from the sentences which include, “….Cyber Security
Incident was only an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part.”
The SDT thanks you for your comments. The word “only” has been removed from the final version of the standard.
One commenter stated that referring to the “Applicable Systems” column within the “Requirements” column was
redundant and confusing.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report |January 2019
8

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

The SDT asserts that this reference provides additional clarity for the narrowed scope of reportable attempts to
compromise.
Some comments were received regards to the structure of Requirements R1.1 and R1.2. It was suggested that R1.1
include having a process and using it.
The SDT thanks commenters for their input. The SDT structured R1.1 as the requirement to a have one or more
processes and R1.2 as the required elements for the contents of these process or processes. Requirement R2.2
requires the use of the processes defined in R1.
Some comments received that suggested R1.2 language was not worded correctly.
The SDT thanks commenters for their input. The intent was R1.2 contains elements of what is required in R1.1. The
SDT has made clarifying changes to the standard to address this concern.
One commenter suggested the use of “method” instead of “criteria” in R1.2.1.
The SDT considered whether wording using “method” was a less prescriptive than using “criteria”. At this time, the
SDT feels that these words are effectively equivalent. The SDT did make other changes to clarify the wording in R1.2.1.
Some comments were received that double jeopardy exists between Requirement R1.2.3 and R4.
The SDT structured R1.2.3 as a required element of the process(es) needed for Requirement R1.1.
R4 is the requirement that defines to whom reports are required, the attributes to be reported and the timelines
required. R1.2.3 and R4 are cascaded requirements and do not create a double jeopardy.
One commenter would like to see the reporting of an “attempt” to also constitute a test of entity incident response
plan in R2.
Thank you for your comment, the SDT intentionally excluded attempts to compromise from Requirement R2, Part
2.1. Please see Technical Rationale for justification.

PCAs
Some commenters indicated that PCAs should be included as part of the applicable systems.
The SDT thanks commenters for their input. The SDT has determined that the addition of PCAs to the applicable
systems may create additional administrative burden given that:
 PCAs were not specifically discussed within FERC order 848, appearing only in P10 in reference to EACMS and
ESP
 PCAs do not perform BES Reliability Operating Services that fall within the 15 minute criteria defined in CIP002 and have a much lower risk profile
 While logging requirements are similar to BCS/BCA, PCA user authorization is currently not part of the CIP004 program. While many entities already have existing user authorization programs for PCAs, adapting
these existing programs into their CIP user authorization program may require extensive rework
The SDT asserts that entities retain the ability to voluntary report on PCA’s as deemed appropriate and have added
information to the Implementation Guidance to address this.

VRF/VSLs
Some commenters noted that some of the VSLs seem to be duplicative in the Severe and High columns for
Requirement R4.
While the language is similar in both the High and Severe columns, the Severe uses "and" whereas the High uses "or."
The intent was that if an entity failed to notify both E-ISAC and NCCIC, it violated the standard to a greater degree
than only failing to notify one agency ("or") of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report |January 2019
9

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

Some commenters recommended the SDT consider how an auditor would interpret the standard to determine
VSLs.
The SDT does not consider audit approach in determining VSLs. VSLs are one factor in assessing penalties after it has
been determined the entity has violated the requirement. At that point, enforcement staff has reviewed the audit
team’s recommendations and determined that there has been a violation. When developing VSLs, the SDT considers
whether an entity may still be in compliance with some parts of the requirement while violating others and assigns
the VSLs accordingly.
Some commenters suggested moving the process to define attempts to compromise to a lower VSL than the
process to identify Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and suggested putting other parts of Requirement R1 in
the Lower and Moderate columns.
The SDT considered separating the tiers but ultimately determined not to change the severity level for attempts
within Requirement R1. The SDT determined that the failure to include a process to define attempts or a process to
identify Reportable Cyber Security Incidents in the Cyber Security Incident response plan are a similar degree of
violation of Requirement R1. The SDT also determined that the other parts addressing the processes required to be
included belonged in the Moderate column. Finally, the SDT determined not to lower the VSLs of some of the
currently enforceable requirements from CIP-008-5.
Some commenters asserted that the VSLs do not appropriately reflect risk to BES reliability.
VSLs reflect degrees of compliance with the requirement, not risk to the BES. VRFs are indicators of impact to the BES
if a requirement is violated. As the VRFs for R1 and R4 are Lower, the SDT asserts that they accurately reflect the risk
of these administrative requirements.
One commenter noted that failure to notify the applicable agencies of an attempted Cyber Security Incident should
not result in a severe penalty.
VSLs are just one factor in the determination of a penalty amount, so putting a requirement in the "Severe" VSL
category does not necessarily mean that a Responsible Entity will receive a severe penalty. However, the particular
violation the commenter describes would fall under the “Moderate” VSL category.
Some commenters noted that the VSLs are administrative in nature, could cause unnecessary violations, or should
not have a Severe VSL.
The SDT notes that VSLs are considered for penalty sanctions after a violation has been determined based on the
language of the requirement. Pursuant to the VSL Guidelines based on the 2008 FERC "VSL Order," Violation Severity
Levels must have a severe category as VSLs represent degrees of compliance, not risk to the BES. A severe VSL means
that an entity did not meet the performance of the requirement, whereas lesser VSLs show that an entity met some
performance of the requirement but not all of the requirement. The SDT agrees that Requirement R4 is administrative
in nature so it assigned a “Lower” VRF to reflect the requirement's impact to reliability if violated. However, this
consideration would not factor into how VSLs are determined.
Some commenters noted that they did not agree with the VSLs because of the requirement language or could not
comment on the VSLs because of changes they recommended to the requirement language.
The SDT considered these comments when reviewing the requirement language.
One commenter noted that the shortened ballot period did not allow them to evaluate the VRFs or VSLs and
another commenter noted disagreement with the VRFs and VSLs but did not think proposing alternatives would
be considered.
The SDT understands this was a shortened comment period and ballot but appreciates industry’s cooperation in
meeting the 6-month deadline to file CIP-008-6 with FERC. Also, the SDT appreciates when commenters provide
alternatives if in disagreement with the language.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report |January 2019
10

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

Implementation Plan
A few comments were received that requested a 24 month implementation plan.
The SDT received comments regarding the timeframe for the Implementation Plan on the first ballot and the team
adjusted from 12 to 18 months. The SDT assert that an 18-month implementation timeline is appropriate as it strikes
a balance between the FERC directive for an expeditious implementation and capabilities of industry.
A few comments supported a 12 month implementation plan and one stated “This standard would need to be
revised again if Project 2016-02 is implemented and the definition for EACMS changes. If the implementation
timeline is extended too far, a conflict could add more work.”
Based on the timing of Project 2016-02 and the current proposed changes, the SDT asserts that the net effect will not
have significant impact on CIP-008-6.
One commenter asked what the SDT's intent for the initial performance of Part 2.1 and requested this be addressed
in the Implementation Plan.
Thank you for your comment. The SDT chose not to include a section for the initial performance of certain period
requirements in the interest of preventing confusion and in deference to the existing CAN-012 which clearly states,
"[I]n the event that the standard or implementation plan is silent with regard to completing a periodic activity, CEAs
are to verify that the registered entity has performed the periodic activity within the standard’s timeframe after the
enforceable date."

Cost Effectiveness
One commenter noted concern that the timelines for reporting may create additional administrative burden and
cost.
The SDT understand there are cost considerations with every change to the standard. However, the SDT asserts, that
the changes are not overly burdensome and balance added security, information sharing and the directives from the
FERC order 848.
One commenter noted “the directives can be implemented with fewer changes to the Glossary terms and
Requirements. Both should be changed as little as necessary to accomplish the directive and require the least
revisions to Responsible Entity’s existing programs.”
The SDT asserts that we made the fewest changes possible to meet FERC order 848. For example, the SDT removed
the original proposed definition of Reportable Attempted Cyber Security Incident. The SDT also asserts that we
carefully considered the impact to other standards to minimize the impact.
One commenter noted that the standard falls short in the area requiring double-reporting of Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents and attempted incidents to E-ISAC and to DHS NCCIC. This duplication of effort is neither cost
effective for an entity nor is it the best use of scarce resources during an actual cyber security incident to focus
attention on a duplicative task.
The SDT understands the concern about dual reporting but in order to meet the directives in FERC order 848, dual
reporting is required. The SDT took efforts to ensure that entities could determine their methods of reporting in ways
that minimize duplication of efforts such as co-copying on an email message. By giving the entity the ability to make
their determination of when something is a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or an “attempt” the entity determines
reporting clock start.
One commenter stated that the new standard ultimately requires Responsible Entities to become cyber security
threat hunters rather than relying on the protections required within the CIP standards and requires investment
in a 24x7x365 Security Operations Center (SOC). In addition, there is no reduction in risk to the BES in reporting
attempts to compromise.

NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report |January 2019
11

CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments – Summary Responses

Thank you for your comment. The SDT asserts that the modifications do not require an entity to establish and
implement a 24x7x365 Security Operations Center to achieve compliance, rather the entity may perform these
activities on a schedule that is appropriate for their unique operating environment that is documented in their
process. At a minimum, these modifications to this standard add formality around reporting for events that are
detected and evaluated under existing enforceable standards with the intent to reduce risk to the BES through more
timely information sharing and enhanced situational awareness that the expanded reporting will provide.
One commenter stated dependent upon what constitutes an “attempt”, additional resources (personnel and/or
tools) may be needed to investigate and report on attempted events.
The SDT asserts that the requirement has been written in a manner to provide the entity the flexibility to establish
criteria and processes to determine what constitutes an attempt such that they may operate and achieve compliance
in a cost effective way.
Some commenters noted that they could not comment on the cost effectiveness of the standard because of
changes they recommended to the requirement language.
The SDT considered these comments when reviewing the requirement language.
One commenter expressed concerns with the scoping of the Standard Authorization Request process.
Thank you for your comment, the SDT asserts that the SAR, authorized by the Standards Committee was adequately
scoped to meet the directives of FERC order 848. SAR development was prior to the establishment of the Standards
Drafting Team (SDT).

Other
Some commenters expressed concern over the shortened timeframe of the project.
The SDT thanks you for your response. We understand that the accelerated timeline could have created a situation
where comments were on a shorter timeframe. While there were some scheduling challenges the SDT did the best
to balance the timeframe with industries availability. In addition, the standard drafting process requires NERC Board
of Trustee approval before filing with FERC to meet order 848 deadline of April 1, 2019.
A comment was received that stated the comment form did not provide specific questions for every requirement
and all supporting documentation.
Thank you for your comment. In an attempt to keep the comment form concise, the SDT offered questions on the
comment form for the major changes from the previous draft of the standard. The SDT asserts that there is always
an opportunity to respond to any area of the standard in the last “catch all” question.
On commenter stated that the overall goal of this standard, in coordination with the work of the E-ISAC, should be
to ensure the timely and full submission of pertinent data to E-ISAC and then providing the needed information to
the industry through E-ISAC alerts
The SDT thanks you for your comment. During this process the SDT worked closely with E-ISAC to discuss issues with
them. While there are always issues with balancing information that is received, the E-ISAC provides opportunities to
entities to adjust the way they are receiving information.
Regarding the Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, ERCOT requests that the
historical rationale not be removed from the standard until this document is approved. If the content is removed
and the Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is not approved, valuable historical
context for the full standard will disappear.
The SDT thanks you for your comment, the Guidelines and Technical Basis will be included in its entirety within the
TR and the IG for historical reference. It should also be noted that previous versions of the standards also contain
this information and as standards are revised the GTB doesn’t always match to the new updates.
NERC | CIP-008-6 Consideration of Comments Summary Report |January 2019
12

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Standard Development Timeline
This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will
be removed when the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board).

Description of Current Draft
This is the final draft of the proposed standard being posted for a 5-day final ballot period.
Completed Actions

Date

Standards Committee approved Standard Authorization Request
(SAR) for posting

August 9, 2018

SAR posted for comment

August 10 –
September 10, 2018

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

Anticipated Actions

Date

5-day final ballot

January 2019

Board adoption

February 2019

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 1 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards
This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:


For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, compromises or attempts to compromise
(1) an Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) an Electronic
Access Control or Monitoring System; or



Disrupts or attempts to disrupt the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted:


A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;



An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or



An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber
System.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 2 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-6

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner
4.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 3 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.6 Transmission Operator
4.1.7 Transmission Owner
4.2.

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-6:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 4 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.
5.

Effective Dates:
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems. CIP003, CIP-004, CIP-005, CIP-006, CIP-007, CIP-008, CIP-009, CIP-010, and CIP-011
require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural controls to
mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc.] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in its documented processes,
but must address the applicable requirements in the table.
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it is commonly understood. For example, documented processes describing a
response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident response plans and recovery
plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an approach involving multiple
procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a particular subject matter. Examples in
the standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel
training program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could
also be referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply
any additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 5 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.


High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization processes.



Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 6 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation
Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

EACMS

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process(es) to identify, classify,
and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents.

Page 7 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
One or more processes:
1.2.1 That include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 To determine if an identified
Cyber Security Incident is:


A Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or



An attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Part 1.2.1, one or
more systems
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for this Part;
and

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that is determined to be an
attempt to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column including justification for
attempt determination criteria and
documented processes for
notification.

1.2.3 To provide notification per
Requirement R4.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 8 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.3

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:

1.4

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

EACMS

Page 9 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R2. Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time Operations].
M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing.
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:





Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

Page 10 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, responding to
a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for this Part, or performing an
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken
during the response to the incident or
exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this
Part as per the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined
to be an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column.

Page 11 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3. Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].
M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 12 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
 EACMS
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and response:
their associated:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
 EACMS
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 13 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and that the Responsible Entity determines
their associated:
would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
 EACMS
3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 14 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R4. Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
(NCCIC),1 or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table
R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations
Assessment].
M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Initial notifications and updates shall
include the following attributes, at a
minimum, to the extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial
notifications and updates to the EISAC and NCCIC.

4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and integrated like functions previously
performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 15 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


4.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial
notification within the following
timelines:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and NCCIC.



One hour after the
determination of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar
day after determination that a
Cyber Security Incident was an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
this Part.

Provide updates, if any, within 7
calendar days of determination of new
or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of submissions to
the E-ISAC and NCCIC.

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

EACMS

Page 16 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1. Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the
ERO or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall
serve as the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period
since the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for
three calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the
non-compliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified
above, whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent
audit records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:
None

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 17 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1

Time
Horizon
Long Term
Planning

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
VRF
Lower VSL
Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Part 1.2.1, a
system identified in
Page 18 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

Security Incident
the “Applicable
response plan, but the Systems” column for
plan does not include
Part 1.2. (1.2)
one or more processes
to provide notification
per Requirement R4.
(1.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
that include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise. (1.2)
R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months
between tests of the
plan(s). (2.1)
OR
Page 19 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL
OR
The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.2
occurs. (2.2)

R3

Operations
Assessment

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan within greater
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Cyber Security
Incidents that were an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.3.
(2.3)

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber

Page 20 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
VRF
Lower VSL
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

High VSL

Severe VSL
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 90 calendar
days of any of the
following changes that
the responsible entity
Page 21 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.
R4

Operations
Assessment

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.2
but failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Requirement R1,
Part 1.2.1, a system
identified in the

Severe VSL

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident but
failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

OR
Page 22 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

timelines pursuant to “Applicable Systems”
Part 4.2. (4.2)
column. (R4)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.3
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes within 7
days after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Part 4.1. (4.3)

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 23 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.1
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes after
determination
pursuant to Part 4.1.
(4.1)
D. Regional Variances

None.
E. Interpretations

None.
F. Associated Documents

None.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 24 of 26

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to “control
center.”

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the requirements and to
bring the compliance elements into
conformance with the latest guidelines for
developing compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a Responsible
Entity.
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to Compliance
Enforcement Authority.

2

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the sentence
pertaining to removing component or system
from service in order to perform testing, in
response to FERC order issued September 30,
2009.

3

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for Critical
Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

Update
Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

5

7/9/14

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

FERC Letter Order issued approving VRFs and
VSLs revisions to certain CIP standards.

Update

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed

Page 25 of 26

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Version

Date

Action

Change Tracking
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

6

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

TBD

Modified to address directives in FERC Order
No. 848

Page 26 of 26

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Standard Development Timeline
This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will
be removed when the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board).

Description of Current Draft
This is the second final draft of proposed standard for formal 15-day comment final ballot
period.
Completed Actions

Date

Standards Committee approved Standard Authorization Request
(SAR) for posting

August 9, 2018

SAR posted for comment

August 10 –
September 10, 2018

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

Anticipated Actions

Date

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

5-day final ballot

January 2019

Board adoption

February 2019

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January
2019

Page 1 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards
This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms:

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, cCompromises, or was an attempts to
compromise the, (1) an Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter,
or (3) an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems for High or Medium Impact
BES Cyber Systems; or
 Disrupts, or was an attempts to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 An Electronic Security Perimeter(s) of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or
 An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems of a high or medium impact BES
Cyber System.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January
2019

Page 2 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-6

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner
4.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January
2019

Page 3 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.6 Transmission Operator
4.1.7 Transmission Owner
4.2.

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Remedial Action Scheme where the Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-6:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January
2019

Page 4 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.
5.

Effective Dates:
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems. CIP003, CIP-004, CIP-005, CIP-006, CIP-007, CIP-008, CIP-009, CIP-010, and CIP-011
require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural controls to
mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc.] ] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in its documented
processes, but must address the applicable requirements in the table.
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it is commonly understood. For example, documented processes describing a
response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident response plans and recovery
plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an approach involving multiple
procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a particular subject matter. Examples in
the standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel
training program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could
also be referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply
any additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January
2019

Page 5 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.



High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization processes.
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002 identification and categorization
processes.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January
2019

Page 6 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation
Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 7 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Requirements
One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process(es) to identify, classify,
and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents.

Page 8 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
One or more processes to :
1.2.1 That include Establish
criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to
compromise;
1.2.2 To dDetermine if an
identified Cyber Security
Incident is:


A Reportable Cyber
Security Incident;, or



Only An attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Part 1.2.1, one or
more systems
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for this Part;
and

Measures
Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that is determined to be
onlyan attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column including
justification for attempt
determination criteria and
documented processes for
notification.

1.2.3 To pProvide notification per
Requirement R4.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 9 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.3

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:

1.4

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 10 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R2.

Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time
Operations].

M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of
the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and
Testing.

CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:





Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Measures

By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

Page 11 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, responding to
a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for thisthe Part, or performing
an exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken
during the response to the incident or
exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this
Part as per the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined
to be only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column.

Page 12 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 13 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 14 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
that the Responsible Entity determines
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
their associated:


EACMS

3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Measures
An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Page 15 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R4.

Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC),1,
or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was only an attempt to
compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4
– Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations
Assessment].

M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.

CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Initial notifications and updates shall
include the following attributes, at a
minimum, to the extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial
notifications and updates to the EISAC and NCCIC.

4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and integrated like functions previously
performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).
Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 16 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


4.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial
notification within the following
timelines:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and NCCIC.



One hour after the
determination of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar
day after determination that a
Cyber Security Incident was only
an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
this Part.

Provide updates, if any, within 7
calendar days of determination of new
or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of submissions to
the E-ISAC and NCCIC.

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

EACMS

Page 17 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1.

Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the ERO
or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall serve as
the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period since
the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for three
calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent audit
records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:


None

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 18 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. Table of Compliance Elements

R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

R1

Long Term
Planning

Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)
OR

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Severe VSL
The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)
OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria

Page 19 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
to provide notification
per Requirement R4.
(1.2)

Severe VSL
from Part 1.2.1, a
system identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for
Part 1.2. (1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
that include to
establish criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise. (1.2)

R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18

Page 20 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

Moderate VSL
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

High VSL
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar
months between tests
of the plan(s). (2.1)

calendar months
between tests of the
plan(s). (2.1)

OR

The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Cyber Security
Incidents that were
only an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.3.
(2.3)

The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.2
occurs. (2.2)
R3

Operations
Assessment

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and

OR

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within

Page 21 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
Incident response
plan within greater
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

High VSL

Severe VSL
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
Page 22 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL
each person or group
with a defined role
within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days
of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

R4

Operations
Assessment

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was only an attempt
to compromise a
system identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was only an attempt
to compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Requirement R1,

High VSL

Severe VSL

within 90 calendar
days of any of the
following changes that
the responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)
• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident but
failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

Page 23 of 28

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL
Part 4.2 but failed to
notify or update EISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.3
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes within 7
days after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Moderate VSL
Part 1.2.1, a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column. (R4)

High VSL
timelines pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

Page 24 of 28

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R#

Time
Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-6)
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was only
an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.1
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes after
determination
pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part
4.1. (4.1)

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 25 of 28

Severe VSL

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
D. Regional Variances

None.
E. Interpretations

None.
F. Associated Documents

None.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Page 26 of 28

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to
“control center.”

2

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the
requirements and to bring the
compliance elements into conformance
with the latest guidelines for developing
compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business
judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a
Responsible Entity.
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to
Compliance Enforcement Authority.

3

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the
sentence pertaining to removing
component or system from service in
order to perform testing, in response to
FERC order issued September 30, 2009.

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for
Critical Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Update

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of
Trustees.

Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

Update

Page 27 of 28

CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving
VRFs and VSLs revisions to certain CIP
standards.

6

TBD

Modified to address directives in FERC
Order No. 848

Final Draft 2 of CIP-008-6
November 2018January 2019

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

Page 28 of 28

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Standard Development Timeline
This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will
be removed when the standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board).

Description of Current Draft
This is the final draft of the proposed standard being posted for a 5-day final ballot period.
Completed Actions

Date

Standards Committee approved Standard Authorization Request
(SAR) for posting

August 9, 2018

SAR posted for comment

August 10 –
September 10, 2018

20-day formal comment period with ballot

October 2018

15-day formal comment period with additional ballot

November 2018

Anticipated Actions

Date

5-day final ballot

January 2019

Board adoption

February 2019

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 1 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

New or Modified Term(s) Used in NERC Reliability Standards
This section includes all new or modified terms used in the proposed standard that will be
included in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards upon applicable regulatory
approval. Terms used in the proposed standard that are already defined and are not being
modified can be found in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards. The new or
revised terms listed below will be presented for approval with the proposed standard. Upon
Board adoption, this section will be removed.
Proposed Modified Terms

Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:


For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, Ccompromises, or was an attempts to
compromise ,(1) the an Electronic Security Perimeter, or(2) a Physical Security Perimeter,
or, (3) an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System; or



Disrupts, or was an attempts to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:


A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;.



An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or



An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber
System.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 2 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
A. Introduction

1.

Title:

Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

2.

Number:

CIP-008-56

3.

Purpose: To mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the BES as the result of a
Cyber Security Incident by specifying incident response requirements.

4.

Applicability:
4.1.

Functional Entities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein,
the following list of functional entities will be collectively referred to as
“Responsible Entities.” For requirements in this standard where a specific
functional entity or subset of functional entities are the applicable entity or
entities, the functional entity or entities are specified explicitly.
4.1.1 Balancing Authority
4.1.2 Distribution Provider that owns one or more of the following Facilities,
systems, and equipment for the protection or restoration of the BES:
4.1.2.1 Each underfrequency Load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
Load shedding (UVLS) system that:
4.1.2.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.1.2.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.1.2.2 Each Special Protection System or Remedial Action Scheme
where the Special Protection System or Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.1.2.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.1.3 Generator Operator
4.1.4 Generator Owner

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 3 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.1.5 Interchange Coordinator or Interchange Authority
4.1.64.1.5 Reliability Coordinator

4.2.

4.1.74.1.6

Transmission Operator

4.1.84.1.7

Transmission Owner

Facilities: For the purpose of the requirements contained herein, the following
Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by each Responsible Entity in 4.1
above are those to which these requirements are applicable. For requirements
in this standard where a specific type of Facilities, system, or equipment or
subset of Facilities, systems, and equipment are applicable, these are specified
explicitly.
4.2.1 Distribution Provider: One or more of the following Facilities, systems
and equipment owned by the Distribution Provider for the protection
or restoration of the BES:
4.2.1.1 Each UFLS or UVLS System that:
4.2.1.1.1 is part of a Load shedding program that is subject
to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard; and
4.2.1.1.2 performs automatic Load shedding under a
common control system owned by the Responsible
Entity, without human operator initiation, of 300
MW or more.
4.2.1.2 Each Special Protection System or Remedial Action Scheme
where the Special Protection System or Remedial Action
Scheme is subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or
Regional Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.3 Each Protection System (excluding UFLS and UVLS) that
applies to Transmission where the Protection System is
subject to one or more requirements in a NERC or Regional
Reliability Standard.
4.2.1.4 Each Cranking Path and group of Elements meeting the initial
switching requirements from a Blackstart Resource up to and
including the first interconnection point of the starting station
service of the next generation unit(s) to be started.
4.2.2 Responsible Entities listed in 4.1 other than Distribution Providers:
All BES Facilities.
4.2.3 Exemptions: The following are exempt from Standard CIP-008-56:
4.2.3.1 Cyber Assets at Facilities regulated by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 4 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
4.2.3.2 Cyber Assets associated with communication networks and
data communication links between discrete Electronic Security
Perimeters.
4.2.3.3 The systems, structures, and components that are regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a cyber security
plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73.54.
4.2.3.4 For Distribution Providers, the systems and equipment that
are not included in section 4.2.1 above.
4.2.3.5 Responsible Entities that identify that they have no BES Cyber
Systems categorized as high impact or medium impact
according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.
5.
1.

2.

6.
6.

Effective Dates:
24 Months Minimum – CIP-008-5 shall become effective on the later of July 1,
2015, or the first calendar day of the ninth calendar quarter after the effective
date of the order providing applicable regulatory approval.
In those jurisdictions where no regulatory approval is required, CIP-008-5 shall
become effective on the first day of the ninth calendar quarter following Board of
Trustees’ approval, or as otherwise made effective pursuant to the laws
applicable to such ERO governmental authorities.
See Implementation Plan for CIP-008-6.

Background:
Standard CIP-008-5 exists as part of a suite of CIP Standards related to cyber security.
CIP-002-5 requires the initial identification and categorization of BES Cyber Systems.
CIP-003-5, CIP-004-5, CIP-005-5, CIP-006-5, CIP-007-5, CIP-008-5, CIP-009-5, CIP-010-1,
and CIP-011-1 require a minimum level of organizational, operational, and procedural
controls to mitigate risk to BES Cyber Systems. This suite of CIP Standards is referred
to as the Version 5 CIP Cyber Security Standards.
Most requirements open with, “Each Responsible Entity shall implement one or more
documented [processes, plan, etc].] that include the applicable items in [Table
Reference].” The referenced table requires the applicable items in the procedures for
the requirement’s common subject matter.
The term documented processes refers to a set of required instructions specific to the
Responsible Entity and to achieve a specific outcome. This term does not imply any
particular naming or approval structure beyond what is stated in the requirements.
An entity should include as much as it believes necessary in theirits documented
processes, but they must address the applicable requirements in the table.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 5 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
The terms program and plan are sometimes used in place of documented processes
where it makes sense and is commonly understood. For example, documented
processes describing a response are typically referred to as plans (i.e., incident
response plans and recovery plans). Likewise, a security plan can describe an
approach involving multiple procedures to address a broad subject matter.
Similarly, the term program may refer to the organization’s overall implementation of
its policies, plans and procedures involving a particular subject matter. Examples in
the standards include the personnel risk assessment program and the personnel
training program. The full implementation of the CIP Cyber Security Standards could
also be referred to as a program. However, the terms program and plan do not imply
any additional requirements beyond what is stated in the standards.
Responsible Entities can implement common controls that meet requirements for
multiple high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. For example, a single training
program could meet the requirements for training personnel across multiple BES
Cyber Systems.
Measures for the initial requirement are simply the documented processes
themselves. Measures in the table rows provide examples of evidence to show
documentation and implementation of applicable items in the documented processes.
These measures serve to provide guidance to entities in acceptable records of
compliance and should not be viewed as an all-inclusive list.
Throughout the standards, unless otherwise stated, bulleted items in the
requirements and measures are items that are linked with an “or,” and numbered
items are items that are linked with an “and.”
Many references in the Applicability section use a threshold of 300 MW for UFLS and
UVLS. This particular threshold of 300 MW for UVLS and UFLS was provided in Version
1 of the CIP Cyber Security Standards. The threshold remains at 300 MW since it is
specifically addressing UVLS and UFLS, which are last ditch efforts to save the Bulk
Electric System. A review of UFLS tolerances defined within regional reliability
standards for UFLS program requirements to date indicates that the historical value of
300 MW represents an adequate and reasonable threshold value for allowable UFLS
operational tolerances.
“Applicable Systems” Columns in Tables:
Each table has an “Applicable Systems” column to further define the scope of systems
to which a specific requirement row applies. The CSO706 SDT adapted this concept
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Risk Management
Framework as a way of applying requirements more appropriately based on impact

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 6 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
and connectivity characteristics. The following conventions are used in the
“Applicable Systems” column as described.


High Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
high impact according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.



Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems – Applies to BES Cyber Systems categorized as
medium impact according to the CIP-002-5 identification and categorization
processes.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 7 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
B. Requirements and Measures
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively include each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1. Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.
CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

One or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process(es) to identify, classify,
and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 8 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
1.2

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

One or more processes to:
1.2.1 That include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to compromise;
1.2.2 To determine if an identified
Cyber Security Incident is a:


A Reportable Cyber
Security Incident and
notify; or



An attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the Electricity
Sector Information
Sharingcriteria from
Part 1.2.1, one or more
systems identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for
this Part; and Analysis
Center (ES-ISAC),
unless prohibited by
law. Initial

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for
determining which Cyber Security
Incidents are also Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents and documentation
of initial notices to the Electricity
Sector Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). or a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined to
be an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column including
justification for attempt
determination criteria and
documented processes for
notification.

1.2.3 To provide notification to
the ES-ISAC, which may be
only a preliminary notice,
shall not exceed one hour
from the determination of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 9 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part

1.3

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Requirements
Incident.per Requirement
R4.
The roles and responsibilities of Cyber
Security Incident response groups or
individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting,
etc.) of Cyber Security Incident
response groups or individuals.

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:

1.4

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Measures

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 10 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 11 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R2. Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time Operations].
M2. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing.

CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once every
15 calendar months:





By responding to an actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident;
With a paper drill or tabletop
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
With an operational exercise of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated evidence
of a lessons-learned report that
includes a summary of the test or a
compilation of notes, logs, and
communication resulting from the
test. Types of exercises may include
discussion or operations based
exercises.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 12 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part
2.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


2.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1 when responding to a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident, responding to
a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for this Part, or performing an
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken
during the response to the incident or
exercise.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, incident
reports, logs, and notes that were
kept during the incident response
process, and follow-up
documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Retain records related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this
Part as per the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under Requirement
R1.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents. and a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined
to be an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 13 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R3. Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of the
applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and
Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].
M3. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each Cyber
Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 14 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.1

Applicable Systems

Requirements

Measures

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 90 calendar days after
completion of a Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
 EACMS
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and response:
their associated:
3.1.1. Document any lessons learned
 EACMS
or document the absence of
any lessons learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons
learned associated with the
plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
based on any documented
lessons learned.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the
following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
response or dated documentation
stating there were no lessons
learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 15 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-56 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part
3.2

Applicable Systems

Requirements

Measures

High Impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated:

No later than 60 calendar days after a
change to the roles or responsibilities,
Cyber Security Incident response
 EACMS
groups or individuals, or technology
Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems and that the Responsible Entity determines
their associated:
would impact the ability to execute the
plan:
 EACMS
3.2.1. Update the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or group
with a defined role in the Cyber
Security Incident response plan
of the updates.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 16 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
R4. Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
(NCCIC),1 or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table
R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations
Assessment].
M4. Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each determined
Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and
Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.1

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Initial notifications and updates shall
include the following attributes, at a
minimum, to the extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial
notifications and updates to the EISAC and NCCIC.

4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was
achieved or attempted.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and integrated like functions previously
performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 17 of 35

CIP-008-56 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part
4.2

Applicable Systems
High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


4.3

EACMS

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:


EACMS

Requirements

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial
notification within the following
timelines:

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the EISAC and NCCIC.



One hour after the
determination of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar
day after determination that a
Cyber Security Incident was an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
this Part.

Provide updates, if any, within 7
calendar days of determination of new
or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1.

Examples of evidence may include,
but are not limited to, dated
documentation of submissions to
the E-ISAC and NCCIC.

Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:


EACMS

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 18 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
C. Compliance

1. Compliance Monitoring Process:
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority:
The Regional Entity shall serve as the Compliance Enforcement Authority (“CEA”) unless the
applicable entity is owned, operated, or controlled by the Regional Entity. In such cases the
ERO or a Regional Entity approved by FERC or other applicable governmental authority shall
serve as the CEA.
1.2. Evidence Retention:
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the CEA may ask
an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full time period
since the last audit.
The Responsible Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as identified below
unless directed by its CEA to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an
investigation:


Each Responsible Entity shall retain evidence of each requirement in this standard for
three calendar years.



If a Responsible Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the
non-compliance until mitigation is complete and approved or for the time specified
above, whichever is longer.



The CEA shall keep the last audit records and all requested and submitted subsequent
audit records.

1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:


Compliance Audit



Self-Certification



Spot Checking



Compliance Investigation



Self-Reporting



Complaint

1.4. Additional Compliance Information:
None

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 19 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
2. 2. Table of Compliance Elements

R#
R1

Time
Horizon
Long Term
Planning

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL
Lower

N/A

Moderate VSL
N/A

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include the
roles and
responsibilities of
Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals.
(1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not developed a
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
with one or more
processes to identify,
classify, and respond
to Cyber Security
Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s), but the plan
does not include
incident handling
procedures for Cyber
Security Incidents.
(1.4)
OR
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

OR
The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more
processes to identify
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents. or
a Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria

Page 20 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
response plan, but the
plan does not include
one or more processes
to provide notification
per Requirement R4.
(1.2)

from Part 1.2.1, a
system identified in
the “Applicable
Systems” column for
Part 1.2. (1.2)

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 17
calendar months, not
exceeding 18 calendar

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 18
calendar months

OR

The Responsible Entity
has developed a Cyber
Security Incident
OR
response plan, but did
The Responsible Entity not provide at least
has developed a Cyber preliminary
Security Incident
notification to ES-ISAC
response plan, but the within one hour from
plan does not include
identification of a
one or more processes Reportable Cyber
that include criteria to Security Incident. (1.2)
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise. (1.2)
R2

Operations
Planning
Real-time
Operations

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 15
calendar months, not
exceeding 16 calendar

The Responsible Entity
has not tested the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) within 16
calendar months, not
exceeding 17 calendar

Page 21 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL
months between tests
of the plan.(s). (2.1)

R3

Operations
Assessment

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Lower

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with
a defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan within greater

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

months between tests
of the plan.(s). (2.1)

months between tests
of the plan.(s). (2.1)

between tests of the
plan.(s). (2.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
did not document
deviations, if any,
from the plan during a
test or when a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.2
occurs. (2.2)

The Responsible Entity
did not retain relevant
records related to
Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents or
Cyber Security
Incidents that were an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 2.3.
(2.3)

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual

The Responsible Entity
has neither
documented lessons
learned nor
documented the
absence of any
lessons learned within
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 90 and
less than 120 calendar
days of a test or actual

Page 22 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL
than 90 but less than
120 calendar days of a
test or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

Moderate VSL

High VSL

incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR

OR

The Responsible Entity
has not notified each
person or group with a
defined role in the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
of updates to the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
within 120 calendar
days of a test or actual
incident response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.3)

The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response plan
based on any
documented lessons
learned within 120
calendar days of a test
or actual incident
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.2)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Severe VSL
response to a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident.
(3.1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity
has not updated the
Cyber Security
Incident response
plan(s) or notified
each person or group
with a defined role
within 90 calendar
days of any of the
Page 23 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R#

Time
Horizon

Violation Severity Levels (CIP-008-56)
VRF
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

within 60 and less
than 90 calendar days
of any of the following
changes that the
responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

following changes that
the responsible entity
determines would
impact the ability to
execute the plan: (3.2)

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Severe VSL

• Roles or
responsibilities, or
• Cyber Security
Incident response
groups or individuals,
or
• Technology
changes.

Page 24 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

R4

Operations
Assessment

Lower

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.2
but failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.3
but failed to report on

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber
Security Incident that
was an attempt to
compromise, as
determined by
applying the criteria
from Requirement R1,
Part 1.2.1, a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column. (R4)

The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident but
failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their
successors, within the
timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR
The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

Page 25 of 35

The Responsible Entity
failed to notify E-ISAC
and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. (R4)

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
one or more of the
attributes within 7
days after
determination of the
attribute(s) not
reported pursuant to
Part 4.1. (4.3)
OR
The Responsible Entity
notified E-ISAC and
NCCIC, or their
successors, of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or a
Cyber Security
Incident that was an
attempt to
compromise a system
identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.1
but failed to report on
one or more of the
attributes after
determination
pursuant to Part 4.1.
(4.1)
D. Regional Variances

None.

Page 26 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
E. Interpretations

None.
F. Associated Documents

None.

Page 27 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Guidelines and Technical Basis
Section 4 – Scope of Applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Standards
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible Entities to determine the scope of the
applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard applies. If the entity is registered as one
or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1, then the NERC CIP Cyber Security Standards apply. Note that there is a
qualification in Section 4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of Distribution Providers to only those that own certain types of
systems and equipment listed in 4.2. Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by the Responsible Entity, as qualified in
Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the standard. As specified in the exemption section 4.2.3.5, this standard does not
apply to Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems under CIP-002-5’s categorization.
In addition to the set of BES Facilities, Control Centers, and other systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and
equipment owned by Distribution Providers. While the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES characteristic, the
additional use of the term BES here is meant to reinforce the scope of applicability of these Facilities where it is used, especially in
this applicability scoping section. This in effect sets the scope of Facilities, systems, and equipment that is subject to the standards.
Requirement R1:
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a Cyber Security Incident response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an Industrial Control Systems Cyber
Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide, Special Publication 800-61
revision 1, March 2008, online at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61-rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted one or more
reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to distinguish Reportable Cyber Security Incidents as one resulting in a necessary
response action. A response action can fall into one of two categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing characteristic is
whether or not action was taken in response to an event. Precautionary measures that are not in response to any persistent
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 28 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
damage or effects may be designated as elective. All other response actions to avoid any persistent damage or adverse effects,
which include the activation of redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary notice to the ES-ISAC within one hour
after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable (not within one hour of the Cyber Security Incident, an important
distinction). This addition is in response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to
report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not require a complete report within an hour of determining that
a Cyber Security Incident is reportable, but at least preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based
notice. The standard does not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan. This includes the requirement in Part
2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The testing requirements are specifically for Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for exercising the plan annually.
Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill, tabletop exercise, or full operational exercise. For more specific types
of exercises, refer to the FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four types of
discussion-based exercises: seminar, workshop, tabletop, and games. In particular, it defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key
personnel discussing simulated scenarios in an informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans, policies, and
procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional exercise, and full-scale exercise. It defines
that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional, multi-discipline exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office,
Emergency operation centers, etc.) and ‘boots on the ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating mock victims).”
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain relevant records for
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of evidence listed in the measure. Entities should
refer to their handling procedures to determine the types of evidence to retain and how to transport and store the evidence. For
further information in retaining incident records, refer to the NIST Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response
(SP800-86). The NIST guideline includes a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing forensics.
Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are two requirement parts that trigger
plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2) organizational or technology changes from Part 3.2.
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 29 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber Security Incident and involves the
activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to document lessons learned starts after the completion of the incident in
recognition that complex incidents on complex systems can take a few days or weeks to complete response activities. The process
of conducting lessons learned can involve the response team discussing the incident to determine gaps or areas of improvement
within the plan. Any documented deviations from the plan from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible to
have a Reportable Cyber Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such cases, the entity must retain
documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated with the Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)

1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and distributing those updates. Entities should
consider meeting with all of the individuals involved in the incident and documenting the lessons learned as soon after the incident
as possible. This allows more time for making effective updates to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals, and distributing
those updates to the incident response team.
The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology changes referenced in the plan and involves
the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below. Organizational changes include changes to the roles and responsibilities people have in
the plan or changes to the response groups or individuals. This may include changes to the names or contact information listed in
the plan. Technology changes affecting the plan may include referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing
systems.

Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 30 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
1/1
Organization and
Technology Changes

3/1
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/1 - 3/1
Update Plan and Distribute Updates

1/1

3/1

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2

Rationale:
During the development of this standard, references to prior versions of the CIP standards and rationale for the requirements and
their parts were embedded within the standard. Upon BOT approval, that information was moved to this section.
Rationale for R1:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation of the BES
caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls
applying to BES Cyber Systems. Preventative activities can lower the number of incidents, but not all incidents can be prevented. A
preplanned incident response capability is therefore necessary for rapidly detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction,
mitigating the weaknesses that were exploited, and restoring computing services. An enterprise or single incident response plan
for all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the Requirement. An organization may have a common plan for multiple registered
entities it owns.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry feedback to more specifically describe
required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed to “respond to” for clarity.
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 31 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part only obligates entities to have a
process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. Also addresses the directive in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and
676 to report within one hour (at least preliminarily).
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the interpretation that roles and
responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming change to reference new defined term Cyber Security Incidents.

Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation of the BES
caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for improving the security controls
applying to BES Cyber Systems. This requirement ensures implementation of the response plans. Requirement Part 2.3 ensures the
retention of incident documentation for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an incident occurs or when testing, but
does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations from the plan. It ensures the plan represents the actual response and does
not exist for documentation only. If a plan is written at a high enough level, then every action during the response should not be
subject to scrutiny. The plan will likely allow for the appropriate variance in tactical decisions made by incident responders.
Deviations from the plan can be documented during the incident response or afterward as part of the review.
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s effectiveness and consistent
application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System.
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 32 of 35

CIP-008-6 — Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for review.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in the Compliance Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s effectiveness and
consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System. A separate plan is not required for
those requirement parts of the table applicable to High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems. If an entity has a single Cyber
Security Incident response plan and High or Medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, then the additional requirements would apply to
the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which includes a directive to perform after-action
review for tests or actual incidents and update the plan based on lessons learned. Additional changes include specification of what it
means to review the plan and specification of changes that would require an update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to update the plan in response to any
changes. The modifications make clear the changes that would require an update.
Final Draft of CIP-008-6
January 2019

Page 33 of 35

Guidelines and Technical BasisCIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning
Version History

Version

Date

1

1/16/06

R3.2 — Change “Control Center” to “control
center.”

9/30/09

Modifications to clarify the requirements and to
bring the compliance elements into
conformance with the latest guidelines for
developing compliance elements of standards.
Removal of reasonable business judgment.
Replaced the RRO with the RE as a Responsible
Entity.
Rewording of Effective Date.
Changed compliance monitor to Compliance
Enforcement Authority.

2

Action

Change Tracking
3/24/06

Updated version number from -2 to -3
In Requirement 1.6, deleted the sentence
pertaining to removing component or system
from service in order to perform testing, in
response to FERC order issued September 30,
2009.

3

3

12/16/09

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

3

3/31/10

Approved by FERC.

4

12/30/10

Modified to add specific criteria for Critical
Asset identification.

Update

4

1/24/11

Approved by the NERC Board of Trustees.

Update
Modified to
coordinate with
other CIP
standards and to
revise format to
use RBS
Template.

5

11/26/12

Adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees.

5

11/22/13

FERC Order issued approving CIP-008-5.

5

7/9/14

FERC Letter Order issued approving VRFs and
VSLs revisions to certain CIP standards.

Page 24 of 24

Update

CIP-008-5
Requirement R2,
VSL table under
Severe, changed

Guidelines and Technical BasisCIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response
Planning
Version

Date

Action

Change Tracking
from 19 to 18
calendar months.

6

TBD

Modified to address directives in FERC Order
No. 848

Page 24 of 24

Implementation Plan
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting | Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Applicable Standard and Definitions


CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Cyber Security Incident



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident

Requested Retirements


CIP-008-5 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Cyber Security Incident
(currently effective definition)



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident (currently effective definition)

Prerequisite Standard(s)
These standard(s) or definitions must be approved before the Applicable Standard becomes
effective: None
Applicable Entities


Balancing Authority



Distribution Provider



Generator Operator



Generator Owner



Reliability Coordinator



Transmission Operator



Transmission Owner

Background
The purpose of this project is to address the directives that FERC issued in Order No. 848 to
augment mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempted Cyber Security
Incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the Reliable Operation of the Bulk

Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC to develop and submit modifications that would
“require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a
responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the four elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;
2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by
ensuring that each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center (NCCIC)1.
Effective Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the standard, or as otherwise
provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the date the
standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise provided for in that jurisdiction.
Revised Definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the definition shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, or
as otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational
structure and integrated like functions previously performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States
Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | January 2019

2

Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the definition shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the
date that Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise
provided for in that jurisdiction.
Retirement Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability
Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming effective.
Currently Effective Definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident
The definitions proposed for retirement shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming
effective.

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | January 2019

3

Implementation Plan
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting | Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Applicable Standard and Definitions


CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Cyber Security Incident



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident

Requested Retirements


CIP-008-5 – Cyber Security – Incident Reporting and Response Planning



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Cyber Security Incident
(currently effective definition)



Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards Definition of Reportable Cyber Security
Incident (currently effective definition)

Prerequisite Standard(s)
These standard(s) or definitions must be approved before the Applicable Standard becomes
effective: None
Applicable Entities


Balancing Authority



Distribution Provider



Generator Operator



Generator Owner



Reliability Coordinator



Transmission Operator



Transmission Owner

New Terms in the NERC Glossary of Terms
This section includes all newly defined, revised, or retired terms used or eliminated in the NERC
Reliability Standard. New or revised definitions listed below become approved when the proposed

standard is approved. When the standard becomes effective, these defined terms will be removed
from the individual standard and added to the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards.

Proposed Modified Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, cCompromises, or was an attempt to
compromise the, (1) an Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, or
(3) an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems for High or Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems; or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 Electronic Security Perimeter(s); or
 Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems.
Proposed Retirements of Approved Definitions:
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, the Electronic Security Perimeter or
Physical Security Perimeter or,
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a
functional entity.
Background
The purpose of this project is to address the directives that FERC issued i by FERC in Order No. 848
to augment mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents, including attempted Cyber Security
Incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the Reliable Operation of the Bulk
Electric System (BES). FERC directed NERC to develop and submit modifications that would
“require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a
responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring Systems (EACMS).” (Order No. 848 at P1)
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 addresses the four4 elements outlined by FERC:
1. Responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS;

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | November 2018January 2019

2

2. Required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum
information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by
ensuring that each report includes specified fields of information;
3. Establish deadlines for filing Cyber Security Incidents that are commensurate with incident
severity; and
4. Cyber Security Incident reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center (NCCIC),1the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control
Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).
Effective Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving the standard, or as otherwise
provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the standard shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the date the
standard is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise provided for in that jurisdiction.
Revised Definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required, the definition shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the effective
date of the applicable governmental authority’s order approving Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, or
as otherwise provided for by the applicable governmental authority.
Where approval by an applicable governmental authority is not required, the definition shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 calendar months after the
date that Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 is adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees, or as otherwise
provided for in that jurisdiction.
Retirement Date
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational
structure and integrated like functions previously performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States
Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | November 2018January 2019

3

Reliability Standard CIP-008-5 shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability
Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming effective.
Currently Effective Definitions for Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security Incident
The definitions proposed for retirement shall be retired immediately prior to the effective date of
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 in the particular jurisdiction in which the revised standard is becoming
effective.

Implementation Plan
CIP-008-6 | November 2018January 2019

4

Violation Risk Factor and Violation Severity Level Justification
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

This document provides the standard drafting team’s (SDT’s) justification for assignment of violation risk factors (VRFs) and violation severity
levels (VSLs) for each requirement in CIP-008-6. Each requirement is assigned a VRF and a VSL. These elements support the determination of
an initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of requirements in FERC-approved Reliability Standards, as defined in
the Electric Reliability Organizations (ERO) Sanction Guidelines. The SDT applied the following NERC criteria and FERC Guidelines when
developing the VRFs and VSLs for the requirements.

NERC Criteria for Violation Risk Factors
High Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of
failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a
planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly
cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System
at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition.
Medium Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively
monitor and control the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is unlikely to lead to Bulk Electric System
instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal,
or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly and adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is
unlikely, under emergency, abnormal, or restoration conditions anticipated by the preparations, to lead to Bulk Electric System instability,
separation, or cascading failures, nor to hinder restoration to a normal condition.

Lower Risk Requirement

A requirement that is administrative in nature and a requirement that, if violated, would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical
state or capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk Electric System; or, a requirement that
is administrative in nature and a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, would not, under the emergency, abnormal, or
restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

FERC Guidelines for Violation Risk Factors
Guideline (1) – Consistency with the Conclusions of the Final Blackout Report

FERC seeks to ensure that VRFs assigned to Requirements of Reliability Standards in these identified areas appropriately reflect their historical
critical impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. In the VSL Order, FERC listed critical areas (from the Final Blackout Report) where
violations could severely affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System:


Emergency operations



Vegetation management



Operator personnel training



Protection systems and their coordination



Operating tools and backup facilities



Reactive power and voltage control



System modeling and data exchange



Communication protocol and facilities



Requirements to determine equipment ratings



Synchronized data recorders



Clearer criteria for operationally critical facilities



Appropriate use of transmission loading relief.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

2

Guideline (2) – Consistency within a Reliability Standard

FERC expects a rational connection between the sub-Requirement VRF assignments and the main Requirement VRF assignment.
Guideline (3) – Consistency among Reliability Standards

FERC expects the assignment of VRFs corresponding to Requirements that address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.
Guideline (4) – Consistency with NERC’s Definition of the Violation Risk Factor Level

Guideline (4) was developed to evaluate whether the assignment of a particular VRF level conforms to NERC’s definition of that risk level.
Guideline (5) – Treatment of Requirements that Co-mingle More Than One Obligation

Where a single Requirement co-mingles a higher risk reliability objective and a lesser risk reliability objective, the VRF assignment for such
Requirements must not be watered down to reflect the lower risk level associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

3

NERC Criteria for Violation Severity Levels
VSLs define the degree to which compliance with a requirement was not achieved. Each requirement must have at least one VSL. While it is
preferable to have four VSLs for each requirement, some requirements do not have multiple “degrees” of noncompliant performance and
may have only one, two, or three VSLs.
VSLs should be based on NERC’s overarching criteria shown in the table below:
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

The performance or product
measured almost meets the full
intent of the requirement.

The performance or product
measured meets the majority of
the intent of the requirement.

High VSL

The performance or product
measured does not meet the
majority of the intent of the
requirement, but does meet
some of the intent.

Severe VSL

The performance or product
measured does not
substantively meet the intent of
the requirement.

FERC Order of Violation Severity Levels
The FERC VSL guidelines are presented below, followed by an analysis of whether the VSLs proposed for each requirement in the standard
meet the FERC Guidelines for assessing VSLs:
Guideline (1) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Not Have the Unintended Consequence of Lowering the Current
Level of Compliance

Compare the VSLs to any prior levels of non-compliance and avoid significant changes that may encourage a lower level of compliance than
was required when levels of non-compliance were used.
Guideline (2) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Ensure Uniformity and Consistency in the Determination of
Penalties

A violation of a “binary” type requirement must be a “Severe” VSL.
Do not use ambiguous terms such as “minor” and “significant” to describe noncompliant performance.
Guideline (3) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Consistent with the Corresponding Requirement

VSLs should not expand on what is required in the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

4

Guideline (4) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Based on A Single Violation, Not on A Cumulative Number of
Violations

Unless otherwise stated in the requirement, each instance of non-compliance with a requirement is a separate violation. Section 4 of the
Sanction Guidelines states that assessing penalties on a per violation per day basis is the “default” for penalty calculations.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

5

VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VSL did not substantively change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard. Only minor revisions were made.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VSL did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

6

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

Lower
N/A

Moderate
N/A

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include the
roles and responsibilities of
Cyber Security Incident response
groups or individuals. (1.3)

The Responsible Entity has not
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan with one
or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include
incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents. (1.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to provide
notification per Requirement
R4. (1.2)
OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to identify
Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from Part
1.2.1, a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 1.2. (1.2)

OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes that include
VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

7

criteria to evaluate and define
attempts to compromise. (1.2)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

8

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The proposed VSLs retain the VSLs from FERC-approved CIP-008-5 and add two VSLs to the High and
Severe categories to reflect new subparts 1.2.1 and 1.2.3. The two new VSLs are similar to currentlyapproved VSLs. As a result, the proposed VSLs do not lower the current level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

9

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

NERC VRF Discussion

A VRF of Lower is being proposed for this requirement.
A VRF of lower is appropriate due to the fact that the requirement is associated with reporting obligations,
not response to Cyber Security Incident(s), Reportable Cyber Security Incident(s), or Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident(s). If violated, is administrative and would not be expected to
adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the bulk electric system.

FERC VRF G1 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 1- Consistency
with Blackout Report
FERC VRF G2 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 2- Consistency
within a Reliability Standard
FERC VRF G3 Discussion

The proposed VRF is consistent among other FERC approved VRF’s within the standard.

Guideline 3- Consistency
among Reliability Standards

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

10

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

FERC VRF G4 Discussion

The team relied on NERC’s definition of lower risk requirement.

Guideline 4- Consistency
with NERC Definitions of
VRFs
FERC VRF G5 Discussion
Guideline 5- Treatment of
Requirements that Comingle More than One
Obligation

Failure to report would not, under Emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the
preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric System,
or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was an attempt to
compromise a system identified
in the “Applicable Systems”
column for Part 4.2 but failed to
notify or update E-ISAC or
NCCIC, or their successors,
within the timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)
OR

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was an attempt to
compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from
Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column.
(R4)

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident but
failed to notify or update E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their successors,
within the timelines pursuant to
Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

OR
The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their

11

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.3 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
within 7 days after
determination of the attribute(s)
not reported pursuant to Part
4.1. (4.3)

High

Severe

successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
an attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.1 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
after determination pursuant to
Part 4.1. (4.1)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

12

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The requirement is new. Therefore, the proposed VSLs do not have the unintended consequence of
lowering the level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

13

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | January 2019

14

Violation Risk Factor and Violation Severity Level Justification
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting

This document provides the standard drafting team’s (SDT’s) justification for assignment of violation risk factors (VRFs) and violation severity
levels (VSLs) for each requirement in CIP-008-6. Each requirement is assigned a VRF and a VSL. These elements support the determination of
an initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of requirements in FERC-approved Reliability Standards, as defined in
the Electric Reliability Organizations (ERO) Sanction Guidelines. The SDT applied the following NERC criteria and FERC Guidelines when
developing the VRFs and VSLs for the requirements.

NERC Criteria for Violation Risk Factors
High Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of
failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a
planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly
cause or contribute to Bulk Electric System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk Electric System
at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition.
Medium Risk Requirement

A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively
monitor and control the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is unlikely to lead to Bulk Electric System
instability, separation, or cascading failures; or, a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, could, under emergency, abnormal,
or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly and adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is
unlikely, under emergency, abnormal, or restoration conditions anticipated by the preparations, to lead to Bulk Electric System instability,
separation, or cascading failures, nor to hinder restoration to a normal condition.

Lower Risk Requirement

A requirement that is administrative in nature and a requirement that, if violated, would not be expected to adversely affect the electrical
state or capability of the Bulk Electric System, or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk Electric System; or, a requirement that
is administrative in nature and a requirement in a planning time frame that, if violated, would not, under the emergency, abnormal, or
restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric
System, or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

FERC Guidelines for Violation Risk Factors
Guideline (1) – Consistency with the Conclusions of the Final Blackout Report

FERC seeks to ensure that VRFs assigned to Requirements of Reliability Standards in these identified areas appropriately reflect their historical
critical impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. In the VSL Order, FERC listed critical areas (from the Final Blackout Report) where
violations could severely affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System:


Emergency operations



Vegetation management



Operator personnel training



Protection systems and their coordination



Operating tools and backup facilities



Reactive power and voltage control



System modeling and data exchange



Communication protocol and facilities



Requirements to determine equipment ratings



Synchronized data recorders



Clearer criteria for operationally critical facilities



Appropriate use of transmission loading relief.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

2

Guideline (2) – Consistency within a Reliability Standard

FERC expects a rational connection between the sub-Requirement VRF assignments and the main Requirement VRF assignment.
Guideline (3) – Consistency among Reliability Standards

FERC expects the assignment of VRFs corresponding to Requirements that address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.
Guideline (4) – Consistency with NERC’s Definition of the Violation Risk Factor Level

Guideline (4) was developed to evaluate whether the assignment of a particular VRF level conforms to NERC’s definition of that risk level.
Guideline (5) – Treatment of Requirements that Co-mingle More Than One Obligation

Where a single Requirement co-mingles a higher risk reliability objective and a lesser risk reliability objective, the VRF assignment for such
Requirements must not be watered down to reflect the lower risk level associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

3

NERC Criteria for Violation Severity Levels
VSLs define the degree to which compliance with a requirement was not achieved. Each requirement must have at least one VSL. While it is
preferable to have four VSLs for each requirement, some requirements do not have multiple “degrees” of noncompliant performance and
may have only one, two, or three VSLs.
VSLs should be based on NERC’s overarching criteria shown in the table below:
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

The performance or product
measured almost meets the full
intent of the requirement.

The performance or product
measured meets the majority of
the intent of the requirement.

High VSL

The performance or product
measured does not meet the
majority of the intent of the
requirement, but does meet
some of the intent.

Severe VSL

The performance or product
measured does not
substantively meet the intent of
the requirement.

FERC Order of Violation Severity Levels
The FERC VSL guidelines are presented below, followed by an analysis of whether the VSLs proposed for each requirement in the standard
meet the FERC Guidelines for assessing VSLs:
Guideline (1) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Not Have the Unintended Consequence of Lowering the Current
Level of Compliance

Compare the VSLs to any prior levels of non-compliance and avoid significant changes that may encourage a lower level of compliance than
was required when levels of non-compliance were used.
Guideline (2) – Violation Severity Level Assignments Should Ensure Uniformity and Consistency in the Determination of
Penalties

A violation of a “binary” type requirement must be a “Severe” VSL.
Do not use ambiguous terms such as “minor” and “significant” to describe noncompliant performance.
Guideline (3) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Consistent with the Corresponding Requirement

VSLs should not expand on what is required in the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

4

Guideline (4) – Violation Severity Level Assignment Should Be Based on A Single Violation, Not on A Cumulative Number of
Violations

Unless otherwise stated in the requirement, each instance of non-compliance with a requirement is a separate violation. Section 4 of the
Sanction Guidelines states that assessing penalties on a per violation per day basis is the “default” for penalty calculations.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

5

VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R2
The VSL did not substantively change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard. Only minor revisions were made.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VRF did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R3
The VSL did not change from the previously FERC-approved CIP-008-5 Reliability Standard.
VRF Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.
VSL Justification for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4
The justification is provided on the following pages.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

6

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

Lower
N/A

Moderate
N/A

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include the
roles and responsibilities of
Cyber Security Incident response
groups or individuals. (1.3)

The Responsible Entity has not
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan with one
or more processes to identify,
classify, and respond to Cyber
Security Incidents. (1.1)

OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed the Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s), but
the plan does not include
incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents. (1.4)
OR
The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to provide
notification per Requirement
R4. (1.2)
OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes to identify
Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise, as
determined by applying the
criteria from Part 1.2.1, a system
identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for Part 1.2.
(1.2)

OR

The Responsible Entity has
developed a Cyber Security
Incident response plan, but the
plan does not include one or
more processes that include to
establish criteria to evaluate and
VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

7

define attempts to compromise.
(1.2)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

8

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R1

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The proposed VSLs retain the VSLs from FERC-approved CIP-008-5 and add two VSLs to the High and
Severe categories to reflect new subparts 1.2.1 and 1.2.3. The two new VSLs are similar to currentlyapproved VSLs. As a result, the proposed VSLs do not lower the current level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

9

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

NERC VRF Discussion

A VRF of Lower is being proposed for this requirement.
A VRF of lower is appropriate due to the fact that the requirement is associated with reporting obligations,
not response to Cyber Security Incident(s), Reportable Cyber Security Incident(s), or Reportable
Attempted Cyber Security Incident(s). If violated, is administrative and would not be expected to
adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the bulk electric system.

FERC VRF G1 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 1- Consistency
with Blackout Report
FERC VRF G2 Discussion

N/A

Guideline 2- Consistency
within a Reliability Standard
FERC VRF G3 Discussion

The proposed VRF is consistent among other FERC approved VRF’s within the standard.

Guideline 3- Consistency
among Reliability Standards

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

10

VRF Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Proposed VRF

Lower

FERC VRF G4 Discussion

The team relied on NERC’s definition of lower risk requirement.

Guideline 4- Consistency
with NERC Definitions of
VRFs
FERC VRF G5 Discussion
Guideline 5- Treatment of
Requirements that Comingle More than One
Obligation

Failure to report would not, under Emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the
preparations, be expected to adversely affect the electrical state or capability of the Bulk Electric System,
or the ability to effectively monitor, control, or restore the Bulk Electric System.

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower

Moderate

High

Severe

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.2 but failed to notify or
update E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, within the timelines
pursuant to Requirement R4,
Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Cyber Security
Incident that was only an
attempt to compromise, as
determined by applying the
criteria from Requirement R1,
Part 1.2.1, a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems”
column. (R4)

The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident but
failed to notify or update E-ISAC
or NCCIC, or their successors,
within the timelines pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.2. (4.2)

The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity failed to
notify E-ISAC or NCCIC, or their

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

11

VSLs for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

Lower
OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.3 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
within 7 days after
determination of the attribute(s)
not reported pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1. (4.3)

Moderate

High

Severe

successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident. (R4)

OR
The Responsible Entity notified
E-ISAC and NCCIC, or their
successors, of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident or a
Cyber Security Incident that was
only an attempt to compromise
a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
Part 4.1 but failed to report on
one or more of the attributes
after determination pursuant to
Requirement R4, Part 4.1. (4.1)

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

12

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

13

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G1
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Not
Have the Unintended
Consequence of Lowering
the Current Level of
Compliance
FERC VSL G2
Violation Severity Level
Assignments Should Ensure
Uniformity and Consistency
in the Determination of
Penalties

The requirement is new. Therefore, the proposed VSLs do not have the unintended consequence of
lowering the level of compliance.

The proposed VSLs are not binary and do not use any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting
uniformity and consistency in the determination of similar penalties for similar violations.

Guideline 2a: The Single
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Category for
"Binary" Requirements Is
Not Consistent
Guideline 2b: Violation
Severity Level Assignments
that Contain Ambiguous
Language
FERC VSL G3
Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be
Consistent with the
Corresponding Requirement

The proposed VSLs use the same terminology as used in the associated requirement and are, therefore,
consistent with the requirement.

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

14

VSL Justifications for CIP-008-6, Requirement R4

FERC VSL G4

Each VSL is based on a single violation and not cumulative violations.

Violation Severity Level
Assignment Should Be Based
on A Single Violation, Not on
A Cumulative Number of
Violations

VRF and VSL Justifications
Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident Reporting | November 2018January 2019

15

Cyber Security –
Incident Report
Technical Rationale and Justification for
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6
January 2019

NERC | Report Title | Report Date
I

Table of Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards ....................................................................................... 2
Proposed Modified Terms: .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Cyber Security Incident ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Reportable Cyber Security Incident ......................................................................................................................... 2
EACMS...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Requirements R1, R2, and R3.......................................................................................................................................... 4
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and Requirement R3 ............................................... 4
Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4................................................................................................. 4
Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts .............................................................. 4
Requirement R4 .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
General Considerations for Requirement R4 .............................................................................................................. 5
Required Reportable Incident Attributes .................................................................................................................... 5
Methods for Submitting Notifications......................................................................................................................... 5
Notification Timing ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Notification Updates ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Technical Rationale for Reliability Standard CIP-008-5................................................................................................... 8

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
ii

Preface
The vision for the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Enterprise, which is comprised of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the seven Regional Entities (REs), is a highly reliable and secure North American
bulk power system (BPS). Our mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and
security of the grid.
The North American BPS is divided into seven RE boundaries as shown in the map and corresponding table below.
The multicolored area denotes overlap as some load-serving entities participate in one Region while associated
Transmission Owners/Operators participate in another.

FRCC

Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

MRO

Midwest Reliability Organization

NPCC

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

RF

ReliabilityFirst

SERC

SERC Reliability Corporation

Texas RE

Texas Reliability Entity

WECC

Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
iii

Introduction
This document explains the technical rationale and justification for the proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6. It
provides stakeholders and the ERO Enterprise with an understanding of the technology and technical requirements
in the Reliability Standard. It also contains information on the Standard Drafting Team’s (SDT’s) intent in drafting the
requirements. This Technical Rationale and Justification for CIP-008-6 is not a Reliability Standard and should not be
considered mandatory and enforceable.
On July 19, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 848. In this
Order FERC directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to “develop and submit modifications
to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access and Control or
Monitoring System (EACMS).” (Order 848, Paragraph 1)
In response to the directive in Order No. 848, the Project 2018-02 SDT drafted Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to
require Responsible Entities to implement methods augmenting the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents
to include: “(1) responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to
compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP; (2) required information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include
certain minimum information to improve the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that
each report included specified fields of information; (3) filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be
established once a compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption,
is identified by a responsible entity; and (4) Cyber Security Incident reports should continue to be sent to the
Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), rather than the Commission, but the reports should also
be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control System Cyber Emergency Response Team
(ICS-CERT).” (Order 848, Paragraph 3) 1

1

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is the successor organization of the Industrial
Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). In 2017, NCCIC realigned its organizational structure and
integrated like functions previously performed independently by the ICS-CERT and the United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT).
NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
1

New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
Proposed Modified Terms:
Cyber Security Incident
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
•

For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, compromises, or attempts to compromise the, (1) an
Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) an Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring System; or

•

Disrupts, or attempts to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

In response to FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, the SDT modified the Cyber Security Incident definition to include
Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS) associated with high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems,
in response to the Order.
The addition of high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems considers the potential unintended consequences with
the use of the existing definition in CIP-003-7. It also provides clarity that only low impact BES Cyber Systems are
included within the definition. ESP or EACMs that may be may be defined by an entity for low impact BES Cyber
Systems are not part of the definition.
An attempt to disrupt the operation of a BES Cyber System is meant to include, among other things, a compromise
of a single BES Cyber Asset within a BES Cyber System. For example, malware discovered on a BES Cyber Asset is an
attempt to disrupt the operation of that BES Cyber System.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
A Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted:
•

A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;

•

An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or

•

An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber Systems.

The Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition was modified to comply with FERC Order 848. In response to
Paragraph 54 of the Order, the SDT modified the definition to include incidents that compromised or disrupted an
ESP or an EACMS. The team also added the qualifying clause for “A BES Cyber System that performs one or more
reliability tasks of a functional entity” to clarify what was compromised or disrupted, thus not extending the scope to
Protected Cyber Assets (PCAs). In response to comments, the SDT left the entire definition of BES Cyber system in
Reportable Cyber Security Incident to provide clarity.
It is also important to understand the relationship between the two definitions, the requirement language, and how
they work in concert to classify events and conditions at varied levels of significance as the Registered Entity executes
its process and applies its defined criteria to determine if reporting is required.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
2

New and Modified Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
EACMS
The drafting team spent significant time discussing this topic among its members, through industry outreach, and
with FERC staff. The team believes by not specifically referencing the five functions in Order 848, we have reduced
complexity and made compliance with the Standard achievable. The drafting team asserts that the five functions are
equivalent to the current definition of EACMS in the NERC Glossary of Terms. If entities have questions about
application of the EACMS definition, the drafting team advises entities to discuss those questions directly with NERC.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
3

Requirements R1, R2, and R3
General Considerations for Requirement R1, Requirement R2, and
Requirement R3
FERC Order 848, Paragraph 1, directs modifications to Reliability Standards to require reporting of incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS. The intent of the SDT was
to minimize the changes within CIP-008 and address the required modifications. To do this, the SDT added “and their
associated EACMS” to the “Applicable Systems” column for Requirements R1, R2, and R3.
To add clarity to “attempts to compromise,” the drafting team created Part 1.2.1 to require entities to establish and
document their process to include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise. This requirement maps
to Requirement 4 Part 4.2, which requires entities to use that entity-defined process for determining which incidents
entities must report.
The use of the language describing Cyber Security Incident(s) as being “an attempt to compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from Part 1.2.1, one or more systems identified in the ‘Applicable Systems’” column for the Part
is meant to clarify which Cyber Assets are in scope for attempts to compromise reporting by entities. This language
is used throughout the standard.

Moving Parts of Requirement R1 to Requirement R4
To minimize the changes to Requirement R1, the SDT created Requirement R4 and consolidated all the CIP-008-6
reporting requirements. The SDT deleted Requirement R1 Part 1.2 reporting requirements from CIP-008-5, and
moved them to Requirement R4 for this purpose.

Inclusion of “Successor Organizations” throughout the Requirement Parts
The SDT recognizes that organizations are constantly evolving to meet emerging needs, and may re-organize or
change their names over time. The ICS-CERT has completed its name change to the National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) Industrial Control Systems. The E-ISAC previously re-branded its name
and may again in the future. By following Requirement R4 references to E-ISAC and NCCIC with “or their successors”
the SDT is ensuring that Requirement R4 can be implemented even if the names of E-ISAC and NCCIC change or a
different agency takes over their current roles.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
4

Requirement R4
General Considerations for Requirement R4
Requirement R4 is a new requirement focused on mandatory reporting of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and
includes attempts to compromise systems in the “Applicable Systems” column. Previously, CIP-008-5 defined
reporting requirements for Reportable Cyber Security Requirements (Requirement R1 Part 1.2) only.

Required Reportable Incident Attributes
Requirement R4.1 specifies that initial notifications and updates must include three attributes: 1) functional impact,
2) attack vector used, and 3) level of intrusion achieved or attempted. These attributes are taken directly from the
Order. (FERC Order No. 848, paragraph 89).
The SDT understands that some or all of these attributes may be unknown at time of initial notification. To account
for this scenario the SDT included “to the extent known” in the requirement language. There is an expectation that
update reporting will be done as new information is determined or unknown attributes become known by the entity.
There could be cases, due to operational need, that all the attributes may never be known, if this case presents itself
that information should be reported.

Methods for Submitting Notifications
Requirement R4 Part 4.2 allows responsible entities to submit notification using any method supported by E-ISAC and
NCCIC. The SDT did not prescribe a particular reporting method or format to allow responsible entities’ personnel to
focus on incident response itself and not the method or format of reporting. It is important to note the report must
contain the three attributes required in Requirement R4 Part 4.1 as they are known, regardless of reporting method
or format.

Notification Timing
Requirement R4 Part 4.2 specifies two timelines for initial notification submission; one hour for Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents; and end of next calendar day for attempts to compromise systems in the “Applicable Systems”
column. Paragraph 3 of FERC Order No 848 directly states that reporting deadlines must be established. Paragraph
89 further states that “timelines that are commensurate with the adverse impact to the BES that loss, compromise,
or misuse of those BES Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.”
•

Reportable Cyber Security Incidents – The SDT wrote Requirement R4 Part R4.2 to use a one hour deadline
for reporting of these events because incidents in this category include successful compromise of ESP(s),
EACMS, or BES Cyber System(s). One hour is referenced directly in FERC Order No 848 paragraph 89 and is
also the current reporting requirement in CIP-008-5.

•

Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column - Due to the lower severity of these unsuccessful attempts at compromising ESP(s), EACMS,
or BES Cyber System(s), the SDT proposed a longer reporting timeframe. The intent behind the decision to
add “By the end of the next calendar day” (11:59 pm local time) was to give responsible entities additional
time to gather facts prior to notifications for the less severe attempts to compromise Applicable Systems. It
is important to note that compliance timing begins with the entity’s determination that attempt to
compromise meets the process they defined in Requirement R1 Part 1.2.1.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
5

Requirement R4
The SDT understands initial notification may not have all the details when first submitted. It is expected, however,
that information that has been determined is reported within the notification deadlines. Additionally, it is important
to note the wording in Requirement R4 Part 4.2. The “compliance clock” for the report timing begins when the
Responsible Entity executes its process from Requirement R1 Part 1.2.1 and a determination has been made that the
type of incident which has occurred qualifies as reportable.
Technical rationale taken from the Guidelines and Technical Basis (GTB) CIP-008-5 Requirement 1 provides additional
justification for the SDT to maintain the one hour timeframe for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
“The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary
notice to the ES-ISAC within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable
(not within one hour of the Cyber Security Incident, an important distinction). This addition is in
response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to
report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not require a complete report
within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable, but at least preliminary
notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based notice. The standard does
not require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.”
In 2007, the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) was known as the Electricity Sector
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). Its voluntary procedures required the reporting of a cyber-incident
within one hour of an incident. CIP-008-1 required entities to report to the ES-ISAC.
In FERC Order No. 706 2 (July 18, 2008), the Commission concluded that the one-hour reporting limit was reasonable
[P 663]. The Commission further stated that it was leaving the details to NERC, but it wanted the reporting timeframe
to run from the “discovery” of the incident by the entity, and not the actual “occurrence” of the incident [P 664].
CIP-008-2 and CIP-008-3 were silent regarding the required timeframe for reporting, but it was specifically addressed
in CIP-008-5. In the October 26, 2012, redlined version of CIP-008-5, the proposed language for initial notification
originally specified “one hour from identification” of an incident. This aligned with the Commission’s decision in Order
No. 706, for the clock to start with the discovery of an incident. However, the Standard Drafting Team changed “one
hour from identification” to “one hour from the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident”. This
language was subsequently approved and incorporated into CIP-008-5.
These changes, from “occurrence” to “discovery” to “determination,” provide the additional time needed for the
entity to apply its specifically created process(es) for determining whether a Cyber Security Incident rises to the level
of required reporting. This determination timeframe may include a preliminary investigation of the incident which
will provide useful information to other entities to help defend against similar attacks.

2

2008, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Order No.
706.
NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
6

Requirement R4
Notification Updates
Requirement R4 Part 4.3 requires that Responsible Entities submit updates for the required attributes upon
determination of new or changed attribute information, if any. The SDT added this language to provide entities
sufficient time to determine attribute information, which may be unknown at the time of initial notification, and
which may change as more information is gathered. The intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.3 is to provide a method for
Responsible Entities to report new information over time as their investigations progress. NOTE: The SDT does not
intend updates specified in Requirement R4. Part 4.3 to expose responsible entities to potential violations if, for
example, initial and updated notification on the same attribute have different information. This is expected since
knowledge of attributes may change as investigations proceed. Rather, the intent of Requirement R4 Part 4.3 is to
have a mechanism to report incident information to E-ISAC and NCCIC (and thereby industry) upon determination of
each required attribute.
The intent is that the entity report what is known and document the reason not all attributes could become known
and ultimately be reported in conditions where, e.g. a Cyber Asset was restored completely, removing all forensic
evidence in order to restore operations, which caused the entity to conclude its investigation without having a
complete knowledge of the three required attributes.
The SDT asserts that nothing included in the new reporting Requirement R4, precludes the entity from continuing to
provide any voluntary sharing they may already be conducting today.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
7

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
This section contains the Guidelines and Technical basis as a “cut and paste” from CIP-008-5 standard to preserve any
historical references.
Section “4. Applicability” of the standards provides important information for Responsible Entities to determine the
scope of the applicability of the CIP Cyber Security Requirements.
Section “4.1. Functional Entities” is a list of NERC functional entities to which the standard applies. If the entity is
registered as one or more of the functional entities listed in Section 4.1, then the NERC CIP Cyber Security Standards
apply. Note that there is a qualification in Section 4.1 that restricts the applicability in the case of Distribution
Providers to only those that own certain types of systems and equipment listed in 4.2. Furthermore,
Section “4.2. Facilities” defines the scope of the Facilities, systems, and equipment owned by the Responsible Entity,
as qualified in Section 4.1, that is subject to the requirements of the standard. As specified in the exemption section
4.2.3.5, this standard does not apply to Responsible Entities that do not have High Impact or Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems under CIP-002-5’s categorization. In addition to the set of BES Facilities, Control Centers, and other
systems and equipment, the list includes the set of systems and equipment owned by Distribution Providers. While
the NERC Glossary term “Facilities” already includes the BES characteristic, the additional use of the term BES here is
meant to reinforce the scope of applicability of these Facilities where it is used, especially in this applicability scoping
section. This in effect sets the scope of Facilities, systems, and equipment that is subject to the standards.
Requirement R1:
The reporting obligations for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents require at least a preliminary notice to the ES-ISAC
within one hour after determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable (not within one hour of the Cyber
Security Incident, an important distinction). This addition is in response to the directive addressing this issue in FERC
Order No. 706, paragraphs 673 and 676, to report within one hour (at least preliminarily). This standard does not
require a complete report within an hour of determining that a Cyber Security Incident is reportable, but at least
preliminary notice, which may be a phone call, an email, or sending a Web-based notice. The standard does not
require a specific timeframe for completing the full report.
Requirement R2:
Requirement R2 ensures entities periodically test the Cyber Security Incident response plan. This includes the
requirement in Part 2.2 to ensure the plan is actually used when testing. The testing requirements are specifically for
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents.
Entities may use an actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident as a substitute for exercising the plan
annually. Otherwise, entities must exercise the plan with a paper drill, tabletop exercise, or full operational exercise.
In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain relevant
records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of evidence listed in the
measure.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
8

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
Requirement R3:
This requirement ensures entities maintain Cyber Security Incident response plans. There are two requirement parts
that trigger plan updates: (1) lessons learned from Part 3.1 and (2) organizational or technology changes from Part
3.2.
The documentation of lessons learned from Part 3.1 is associated with each Reportable Cyber Security Incident and
involves the activities as illustrated in Figure 1, below. The deadline to document lessons learned starts after the
completion of the incident in recognition that complex incidents on complex systems can take a few days or weeks
to complete response activities. It is possible to have a Reportable Cyber Security Incident without any documented
lessons learned. In such cases, the entity must retain documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated
with the Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
1/1 - 1/14
Reportable
Cyber Security Incident
(Actual or Exercise)
1/1 - 1/14
Incident

4/14
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/14 - 4/14
Document Lessons Learned, Update Plan, and Distribute Updates

1/1

4/14

Figure 1: CIP-008-5 R3 Timeline for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

The activities necessary to complete the lessons learned include updating the plan and distributing those updates.

The plan change requirement in Part 3.2 is associated with organization and technology changes referenced in the
plan and involves the activities illustrated in Figure 2, below. Organizational changes include changes to the roles and
responsibilities people have in the plan or changes to the response groups or individuals.

Figure 2: Timeline for Plan Changes in 3.2
1/1
Organization and
Technology Changes

3/1
Complete Plan
Update Activities

1/1 - 3/1
Update Plan and Distribute Updates

1/1

3/1

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
9

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
Rationale for R1:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation
of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for
improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. Preventative activities can lower the number of
incidents, but not all incidents can be prevented. A preplanned incident response capability is therefore necessary
for rapidly detecting incidents, minimizing loss and destruction, mitigating the weaknesses that were exploited, and
restoring computing services.
Summary of Changes: Wording changes have been incorporated based primarily on industry feedback to more
specifically describe required actions.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.1) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.1)
“Characterize” has been changed to “identify” for clarity. “Response actions” has been changed to “respond to” for
clarity.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.2) CIP-008, R1.1
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.2)
Addresses the reporting requirements from previous versions of CIP-008. This requirement part only obligates entities
to have a process for determining Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. Also addresses the directive in FERC Order No.
706, paragraphs 673 and 676 to report within one hour (at least preliminarily).
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.3) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.3)
Replaced incident response teams with incident response “groups or individuals” to avoid the interpretation that roles
and responsibilities sections must reference specific teams.
Reference to prior version: (Part 1.4) CIP-008, R1.2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 1.4)
Conforming change to reference new defined term Cyber Security Incidents.
Rationale for R2:
The implementation of an effective Cyber Security Incident response plan mitigates the risk to the reliable operation
of the BES caused as the result of a Cyber Security Incident and provides feedback to Responsible Entities for
improving the security controls applying to BES Cyber Systems. This requirement ensures implementation of the
response plans. Requirement Part 2.3 ensures the retention of incident documentation for post event analysis.
This requirement obligates entities to follow the Cyber Security Incident response plan when an incident occurs or
when testing, but does not restrict entities from taking needed deviations from the plan. It ensures the plan
represents the actual response and does not exist for documentation only.

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
10

Technical R ationale for R eliability Standard CI P -008-5
Summary of Changes: Added testing requirements to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s effectiveness
and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.1) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.1)
Minor wording changes; essentially unchanged.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.2) CIP-008, R1.6
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.2)
Allows deviation from plan(s) during actual events or testing if deviations are recorded for review.
Reference to prior version: (Part 2.3) CIP-008, R2
Change Description and Justification: (Part 2.3)
Removed references to the retention period because the Standard addresses data retention in the Compliance Section.
Rationale for R3:
Conduct sufficient reviews, updates and communications to verify the Responsible Entity’s response plan’s
effectiveness and consistent application in responding to a Cyber Security Incident(s) impacting a BES Cyber System.
A separate plan is not required for those requirement parts of the table applicable to High or Medium Impact BES
Cyber Systems. If an entity has a single Cyber Security Incident response plan and High or Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems, then the additional requirements would apply to the single plan.
Summary of Changes: Changes here address the FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686, which includes a directive to
perform after-action review for tests or actual incidents and update the plan based on lessons learned. Additional
changes include specification of what it means to review the plan and specification of changes that would require an
update to the plan.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.1) CIP-008, R1.5
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.1)
Addresses FERC Order 706, Paragraph 686 to document test or actual incidents and lessons learned.
Reference to prior version: (Part 3.2) CIP-008, R1.4
Change Description and Justification: (Part 3.2)
Specifies the activities required to maintain the plan. The previous version required entities to update the plan in
response to any changes. The modifications make clear the changes that would require an update

NERC | DRAFT Technical Rationale and Justification for Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 | January 2019
11

January 2019 - DRAFT Implementation Guidance
Pending Submittal for ERO Enterprise Endorsement

Cyber Security –
Incident Reporting and
Response Planning
Implementation Guidance for
CIP-008-6

NERC | Report Title | Report Date
I

Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Determination and Classification of Cyber Security Incidents .................................................................................. 7
Example of a Cyber Incident Classification Process ......................................................................................... 10
Sample Classification Schema ........................................................................................................................ 11
Examples of the use of the Sample Classification Schema .............................................................................. 13
Attempts to Compromise and Cyber Security Incidents......................................................................................... 20
Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Example of Sample Criteria to Evaluate and Define Attempts to Compromise ................................................ 23
Other Considerations ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Protected Cyber Assets .................................................................................................................................. 25
Requirement R1.................................................................................................................................................... 26
General Considerations for R1 ....................................................................................................................... 26
Implementation Guidance for R1 ................................................................................................................... 27
Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2) ........................................ 27
Supporting Narrative Description of Sample Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security
Incidents (R1.1, R1.2) ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Roles and Responsibilities (R1.3) .................................................................................................................... 31
Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents (R1.4) ................................................................... 33
Requirement R2.................................................................................................................................................... 35
General Considerations for R2 ....................................................................................................................... 35
Implementation Guidance for R2 ................................................................................................................... 36
Acceptable Testing Methods .......................................................................................................................... 36
Requirement R3.................................................................................................................................................... 38
General Considerations for R3 ....................................................................................................................... 38
Implementation Guidance for R3 ................................................................................................................... 39
Requirement R4.................................................................................................................................................... 40
General Considerations for R4 ....................................................................................................................... 40
Implementation Guidance for R4 ................................................................................................................... 41
NCCIC Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Example of a Reporting Form ......................................................................................................................... 42
Instructions for Example of a Reporting Form ................................................................................................ 44
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
2

List of Figures
Figure 1 Relationship of Cyber Security Incidents ....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Potential Approach Tool ............................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 Flow Diagram for Cyber Security Incidents ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 Typical Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5 Example of Classification Schema .............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 6 Examples of the Use of the Classification Schema ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 7 Examples of Non-Reportable Cyber Incidents ............................................................................................. 18
Figure 8 Examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempt to compromise one or more applicable
systems ................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9 Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 10 Sample Process to Identify, Classify and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents .......................................... 28
Figure 11 NCCIC Reporting Attributes ..................................................................................................................... 41

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
3

Introduction
The Standards Project 2018-02 – Modifications to CIP-008 Standard Drafting Team (SDT) prepared this
Implementation Guidance to provide example approaches for compliance with the modifications to CIP008-6. Implementation Guidance does not prescribe the only approach but highlights one or more
approaches that would be effective in achieving compliance with the standard. Because Implementation
Guidance only provides examples, entities may choose alternative approaches that better fit their
individual situations. 1
Responsible entities may find it useful to consider this Implementation Guidance document along with
the additional context and background provided in the SDT-developed Technical Rationale and
Justification for the modifications to CIP- 008-6.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) issued Order No. 848 on July 19, 2018,
calling for modifications to the NERC Reliability Standards to augment the mandatory reporting of Cyber
Security Incidents, including incidents that might facilitate subsequent efforts to harm the reliable
operation of the BES.2 The Commission directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standards to require the reporting of Cyber
Security Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s Electronic Security
Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).3
The Commission’s directive consisted of four elements intended to augment the current Cyber Security
Incident reporting requirement: (1) responsible entities must report Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity’s ESP or associated EACMS; (2) required
information in Cyber Security Incident reports should include certain minimum information to improve
the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring that each report includes specified
fields of information; (3) filing deadlines for Cyber Security Incident reports should be established once a
compromise or disruption to reliable BES operation, or an attempted compromise or disruption, is
identified by a responsible entity; and (4) Cyber Security Incident reports should continue to be sent to
the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), rather than the Commission, but the
reports should also be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) now known as NCCIC4. Further, NERC must file an annual,
public, and anonymized summary of the reports with the Commission.
The minimum attributes to be reported should include: (1) the functional impact, where possible to
determine, that the Cyber Security Incident achieved or attempted to achieve; (2) the attack vector that
was used to achieve or attempted to achieve the Cyber Security Incident; and (3) the level of intrusion
that was achieved or attempted as a result of the Cyber Security Incident.
The Project 2018-02 SDT drafted Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to require responsible entities to meet the
directives set forth in the Commission’s Order No. 848.
1

NERC’s Compliance Guidance Policy
16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5). The NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (June 12, 2018) (NERC Glossary) defines a Cyber
Security Incident as “A malicious act or suspicious event that: Compromises, or was an attempt to compromise, the Electronic Security
Perimeter or Physical Security Perimeter or, Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.”
3 The NERC Glossary defines “ESP” as “[t]he logical border surrounding a network to which BES Cyber Systems are connected using a routable
protocol.” The NERC Glossary defines “EACMS” as “Cyber Assets that perform electronic access control or electronic access monitoring of the
Electronic Security Perimeter(s) or BES Cyber Systems. This includes Intermediate Systems.”
4 The DHS ICS-CERT underwent a reorganization and rebranding effort and is now known as the National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center (NCCIC).
2

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
4

Definitions
CIP-008-6 has two related definitions, as well as language for “attempts to compromise” that is specific to
CIP-008-6 within Requirement R1 Part 1.2.2. Cyber Security Incidents are not reportable until the
Responsible Entity determines one rises to the level of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or meets the
Responsible Entity’s established criteria for attempts to compromise pursuant to Requirement R1 Part
1.2.1 and 1.2.2. When these thresholds are reached reporting to both E-ISAC and NCCIC (Formerly DHS’s
ICS-CERT) is required. These definitions and requirement language are cited below for reference when
reading the implementation guidance that follows.
Cyber Security Incident:
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 For high or medium Impact BES Cyber Systems, compromises, or attempts to compromise (1) an
Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, (3) an Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring System; or
 Disrupts, or was an attempt to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber System.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident:
A Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or
 An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System.

CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part
1.2

Applicable
Systems

Requirements

High Impact BES
One or more processes:
Cyber Systems and
1.2.1 That include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
their associated:
compromise;
 EACMS
1.2.2 To determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
Medium Impact
BES Cyber Systems
and their
associated:


EACMS



A Reportable Cyber Security Incident, or



An attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the
criteria from Part 1.2.1, one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for this Part; and

1.2.3 To provide notification per Requirement R4.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
5

The determination of reportability for compromises or disruptions (by definition), or for attempts to
compromise (pursuant to the requirement language), becomes a function of applying criteria that builds
upon the parent definition of Cyber Security Incident.
A color code that progresses from no reportability to greatest reportability is used in Figure 1.

The below Venn diagram illustrates the relationships between the elements of each definition, and the
Requirement R1 Part 1.2.2 requirement language. In this example, one potential option could be to
leverage the EACMS function descriptors noted in FERC Order 848 Paragraph 54 as criteria. This could
serve as an approach to assess operational impact and/or functionality of cybersecurity controls that
cause a Cyber Security Incident to rise to either level of reportability:

Figure 1 Relationship of Cyber Security Incidents

As shown in the above diagram, there is a progression from identification through assessment and
response before a detected event or condition elevates to a reportable level.
First, the Registered Entity must determine the condition meets the criteria for a Cyber Security Incident.
Once the response and assessment has led to a Registered Entity’s determination that events or
conditions meet the definition of Cyber Security Incident, additional evaluation occurs to determine if
established criteria or thresholds have been met for the Registered Entity to determine the Cyber Security
Incident qualifies for one of the two reportable conditions:
1. Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
2. An attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column
for Requirement R4 Part 4.2 (pursuant to Responsible Entity processes and established attempt
criteria documented in accordance with Requirement R1 Part 1.2)
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
6

Once the response and investigation has led to a Registered Entity’s determination that the Cyber Security
Incident has targeted or impacted the BCS performing reliability tasks and/or cybersecurity functions of
the Applicable Systems, associated Cyber Assets, and/or perimeters, the notification and reporting
timeframes and obligations begin. Note: Initial (or preliminary) notification is needed within the specified
timeframe after this determination, even if required attributes (functional impact, level or intrusion,
attack vector) are not yet known.
Once this initial notification is made, if all attributes were known, they should have been included in the
initial notification and the reporting obligation ends.
If all attributes were not known by the time the initial notification had to be made, the update timeframes
trigger from the time the next attribute(s) is determined to be learned/known.
A Registered Entity’s reporting obligations are met once known information for the three required
attributes is reported to E-ISAC and NCCIC, either during the initial notification or subsequently through
one or more updates made commensurate with the reporting timeframes.

Determination and Classification of Cyber Security Incidents
Registered Entities may want to consider developing tools illustrating established process criteria that
must be met, by definition, as well as the impacted/targeted operational task/cybersecurity functions
considered to reach each incident classification and reporting threshold. The below decision tree is one
potential approach Registered Entities could employ as a tool to assess events and make the Registered
Entity determinations according to process(es) and established criteria documented pursuant to
Requirement R1 Parts 1.1 and 1.2. Note: Where the term “criteria” is used in the optional tool examples, it
is intended to serve as a section the entity may tailor to match the criteria they have included in their
process(es). What is included in this guidance is not prescriptive and only one potential approach.
A similar color code to the diagram depicting the relationships between definitions and requirement
language has been used to illustrate a progression from no reportability to greatest reportability inclusive
of the respective reporting obligations and timeframes for initial notifications and updates for Figure 2 and
Figure 3.

The blue shading in Figure 2 simply represents the distinction between phases in the incident response
process as analysis and investigative actions occur and information unfolds.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
7

Figure 2 Potential Approach Tool

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
8

A second potential approach could be a flow diagram illustrating an entity’s criteria and determination
process as depicted in the example below:

Figure 3: Flow Diagram for Cyber Security Incidents
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
9

Example of a Cyber Incident Classification Process

Entities may use a risk analysis-based method for the classification of cyber incidents and determination of
Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or, Cyber Security Incidents that attempted
to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. The risk analysisbased approach allows entities the flexibility to customize the appropriate response actions for their
situation without being administratively burdened by a one size fits all solution. Entities also have the
flexibility to incorporate their existing incident management processes which may already define how they
classify and determine cyber incidents.
A risk-based approach considers the number of cyber security related event occurrences, the probability
that the events will have an impact on their facilities, and severity of the impact of the event. This allows
the entity to decide when cyber events should be investigated as cyber incidents, the classification of
cyber incidents and the determination of when a cyber incident should be reported; either as part of a
voluntary action, as part of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.
Entities should also consider that appropriate reporting of cyber incidents helps other entities in similar
situations. The reporting of the details of an incident serves to alert other entities so they may increase
their vigilance and take timely preventive or mitigating actions. All entities stand to benefit from such
shared information in the long run.
As an example, a typical infrastructure installation is depicted in Figure below.

Internet

Corporate
Firewall

Corporate
Zone

EACMS
Corporate
Assets

EACMS
IRA
Corporate
Assets

ESP
BCS

SCADA
Zone

Figure 4 Typical Infrastructure
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
10



A SCADA security zone consists of BES Cyber System (BCS), behind an Electronic Security
Perimeter (ESP). The Electronic Access Point (EAP) is an interface of the SCADA firewall which is
an Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System (EACMS).



A Corporate security zone consists of regular corporate assets and other EACMS such as
Intermediate Systems with Interactive Remote Access (IRA). A corporate firewall protects the
corporate assets against intrusions from the Internet. The SCADA security zone is nested inside
the corporate security zone.

Sample Classification Schema

A risk analysis could produce the incident categories below:


Regular cyber events that represent a normal level of events where no further investigation is
required such as random port-scans.



Low risk incidents may be cyber events that become cyber incidents because they are beyond the
normal level of events and require some type of investigation. Cyber incidents that are blocked at
a firewall and found not to be malicious or suspicious could fall into this category.



Medium risk incidents may be those cyber incidents that the entity has determined were
malicious or suspicious and required mitigation activities.
Note that while these cyber incidents were malicious or suspicious, they might not meet the
definition of a Cyber Security Incident because the entity investigated and determined that the
target was not a BCS, ESP, PSP or EACMS.
For example, a corporate asset infected with well-known corporate malware and, as a result, is
scanning the network to find other corporate assets. Although this activity is also being seen at
the SCADA firewall (EACMS), the entity investigated and determined that this activity was not a
Cyber Security Incident.



High risk incidents may be those cyber incidents that the entity has determined were malicious or
suspicious and did meet the definition of Cyber Security Incidents. For example, malicious
malware on a corporate asset that repeatedly attempts to log into a SCADA IRA Intermediate
System but is unsuccessful. This would be a Cyber Security Incident and should also fall into the
entity’s definition of a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part with the target being an EACMS (SCADA IRA
Intermediate System).



Severe risk incidents may be those Cyber Security Incidents that involves successful compromise
of an ESP or EACMS and hence meet the criteria for Reportable Cyber Security Incident. These
may also escalate into Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part such as the BCS.



Emergency risk incidents may be those Cyber Security Incidents that compromised or disrupted a
BCS that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. These incidents may
represent an immediate threat to BES reliability and may require emergency actions such as
external assistance.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
11

These incident categories can be mapped into a standard incident classification and reporting schema like
the NCCIC Cyber Incident Scoring System5. This is a common schema used by the United States Federal
Cybersecurity Centers for describing the severity of cyber incidents and is available to industry to leverage.
Utilizing the NCCIC schema as a basis for identification and classification of Cyber Security Incidents could
be adapted to produce the schema below for application to CIP-008-6:

Level 5
Emergency
Black

Level 4
Severe
Red

Level 3
High
Orange

Level 2
Medium
Yellow

Level 1
Low
Green
Level 0
Baseline
White

General Definition

Consequences

A cyber incident that investigation
found was a Cyber Security Incident
that has compromised or disrupted
a BCS that performs one or more
reliability tasks of a functional entity.
A cyber incident that investigation
found was a Cyber Security Incident
involving a compromise or
disruption of an ESP or EACMS;
OR
A cyber incident that investigation
found was a Cyber Security Incident
that attempted to compromise a
BCS.
A cyber incident that investigation
found met the entity’s defined
criteria for a Cyber Security Incident
that attempted to compromise or
disrupt an EACMS or ESP
A cyber incident that investigation
found was malicious or suspicious
but was not a Cyber Security
Incident because it did not target an
Applicable System or perimeter.
A cyber incident that investigation
found was not malicious or
suspicious.
Inconsequential cyber events.

Incidents that result in imminent threat to public
safety and BES reliability.
A Reportable Cyber Security Incident involving a
compromise or disruption of a BCS that performs
one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity.
Cyber Security Incidents that have the potential to
result in a threat to public safety and BES reliability
if malicious or suspicious activity continues or
escalates. Immediate mitigation is required.
A Reportable Cyber Security Incident involving a
compromise or disruption of a EACMS or ESP
OR
A Cyber Security Incident that must be reported as
an attempt to compromise or disrupt a BCS
An attempt to compromise an EACMS does not
result in a threat to public safety or BES reliability,
but still requires mitigation.
A Cyber Security Incident that must be reported as
an attempt to compromise or disrupt an EACMS
A cyber incident that does not represent a threat
to public safety or BES reliability, even though it is
malicious or suspicious and required mitigation.

A cyber incident that does not represent a threat
to public safety.
Cyber events that require no investigation and are
not cyber incidents. These do not represent a
threat to public safety.

Figure 5 Example of Classification Schema

Reliability tasks may be those tasks that a Responsible Entity determines are associated with the BES
Reliability Operating Services (BROS) listed in the NERC Functional Model.

5

https://www.us-cert.gov/NCCIC-Cyber-Incident-Scoring-System
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
12

Examples of the use of the Sample Classification Schema

Some examples of the use of the classification schema are listed below. The event number corresponds to the events depicted in the
subsequent figures. The color code defined in the sample schema in Figure 5 is carried through Figures 6- 8.
Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Mitigation

External
firewall scan
(N1 – no
color)

External IPS log

External IPS

Review of F/W
log

Corporate
F/W rules

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone internal
scan by nonmalicious
source
(existing
network
monitoring
Tool) (N2 - no
color)

Review of
EACMS – IRA
host F/W Log
(CIP-007 R4)

Corporate
IPS

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Comments

No

No

No

Determined by entity as
regular background
activity

No

No

No

Determined by entity as
regular background
activity – previously
investigated and
determined to be known
source

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part

EACMS IRA
Host F/W

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
13

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Mitigation

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Corporate
IPS

Yes

No

No

Investigation found new
network monitoring tool.
Added to regular
background activity.

Corporate
IPS

Yes

No

No

Investigation by entity
determined malware in
Corporate zone was
targeting other
corporate assets and not
specifically the
Applicable Systems. (via
the entity’s criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to
compromise)

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone internal
scan by
unknown
source (N3 green)

Review of
EACMS IRA host IRA EACMS
F/W Log
Host F/W

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source (N4 yellow)

Corporate
Antivirus

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part

IRA EACMS
Host F/W

Review of
EACMS IRA host Corporate
F/W Log
Anti-virus
Review of
EACMS SCADA
F/W Log

Comments

SCADA F/W
EACMS

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
14

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Detection
method

Mitigation

Corporate

Corporate IPS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source
followed by
EACMS IRA
login
attempts (N5
- orange)

Review of
EACMS IRA host EACMS host
F/W Log
F/W
Review of
EACMS IRA
failed Logins
(CIP-007 R4)

Corporate
IPS

EACMS
login 2
factor

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

EACMS –
IRA
targeted

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
Investigation found
malware in Corporate
Cyber Security Incidents that
zone was an attempt to
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable compromise one or more
Applicable Systems - IRA
Systems” column for the Part
Intermediate System EACMS (via the entity’s
criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to
compromise)

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
15

Type of Event
(Event
number)

Corporate

Detection
method

SCADA IPS log

Mitigation

SCADA IPS
(CIP-005
Review of
EACMS IRA host R1.5)
Logins (CIP-007 BCS user/
R4)
password
login
Review of BCS

Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source
followed by
successful
failed Logins
EACMS IRA
(CIP-007 R4)
login and
attempted
BCS logins (N6
- red)

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
EACMS – IRA host compromised or
disrupted

Investigation found
malware compromised
or disrupted EACMS IRA.

Reportable Cyber Security Incident
BCS host failed logins
Cyber Security Incidents that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part such
as BCS

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
16

Attempt to compromise
a BCS. (via the entity’s
criteria to evaluate and
define attempts to
compromise)

Type of Event
(Event
number)

BCS – SCADA
system failure
following
Corporate
Zone Internal
scan by
unknown
source,
successful
EACMS IRA
login and
successful
BCS login (N7
- black)

Detection
method

SCADA system
log
Review of
EACMS IRA host
Logins (CIP-007
R4)

Mitigation

None

Cyber
incident that
requires
investigation

Meets
attributes
of Cyber
Security
Incident

Meets attributes of Reportable
Cyber Security Incident

Yes

Yes

Yes

Comments

OR
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part
Comprise or disruption of a BCS
performing one or more reliability
tasks of a functional entity
Reportable Cyber Security Incident

Review of BCS
Logins (CIP-007
R4)

Figure 6 Examples of the Use of the Classification Schema

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
17

Investigation found
malware compromised a
BCS performing one or
reliability tasks of a
functional entity

Corporate
Firewall

Internet

Corp
Asset

Corporate
Zone

Malware
Corp
Asset

New Network
Monitoring
Tool

EACMS

N2

EACMS
IRA

ESP

Existing Network
Monitoring Tool

BCS

Corporate
Assets

SCADA
Zone

Figure 7 Examples of Non-Reportable Cyber Incidents

The figure above depicts examples of non-reportable cyber incidents using the sample classification
schema and examples in Figure 6.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
18

Corporate
Firewall

Internet

Corp
Asset

Malware
Corp
Asset

Malware
Corp
Asset

Corporate
Zone

Malware
Corp
Asset
EACMS
IRA

EACMS
EACMS
IRA

ESP
Corporate
Assets

EACMS
IRA
BCS

SCADA
Zone

BCS

Figure 8 Examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempt to compromise one or more applicable systems

The figure above depicts examples of Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or attempts to compromise one
or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part using the sample classification
schema and examples in Figure 6.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
19

Attempts to Compromise and Cyber Security Incidents
Registered Entities should evaluate and determine what is normal within their environment to help scope
and define what constitutes ‘an attempt to compromise’ in the context of CIP-008, and should document
established criteria within the entity processes. This can help Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) identify
deviations from normal, and assist a Registered Entity in timely and effective incident determination,
response, and vital information sharing.
Entities are encouraged to explore solutions designed to take the guess work out of the process without
being overly prescriptive as to create undue administrative burden or remove needed discretion and
professional judgment from the SMEs. Entities may want to consider options like a decision tree or a
checklist for SMEs to apply defined criteria used to determine reportability.
As an example, an entity could define an “attempt to compromise” as an act with malicious intent to gain
access or to cause harm to normal operation of a Cyber Asset in the “Applicable Systems” column. Using
this sample definition, some criteria could be:
1. Actions that are not an attempt to compromise an applicable Cyber Asset/System electronically are:
a. An entity’s own equipment scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that
is performed expected on demand or on an approved periodic schedule.
b. Broadcast traffic as part of normal network traffic. A firewall may block and log this traffic, but it
does not have malicious intent.
c. Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by an authorized user that have been determined to fail due to
human error.
2. Actions that are an attempt to compromise an applicable Cyber Asset/System electronically are:
a. Scanning a Cyber Asset for vulnerabilities or to verify its existence that is not approved by the
entity’s management nor process(es). This could be from an entity’s own equipment due to an
upstream compromise or malware.
b. Attempts to access a Cyber Asset by a user that fails due to not being authorized and intending to
gain access where no approval has been given.
c. Attempts to escalate privileges on a Cyber Asset by an authorized user that has been determined
to fail due to not being authorized for that privilege level.
Registered Entities may also want to evaluate system architecture for ways to limit exposure for ‘attempts
to compromise’. Techniques like the implementation of security zones and/or network segmentation can
minimize the level of traffic that can get to applicable Cyber Assets and help minimize the attack surface.
Registered Entities with implementations that involve an EACMS containing both an Electronic Access
Point (EAP) and a public internet facing interface are strongly encouraged to change this configuration in
favor of architectures that offer layers of safeguards and a defense in depth approach.
Similarly, Registered Entities with implementations involving an EACMS containing both an EAP and a
corporate facing interface to their business networks may also want to consider options to re-architect to
reduce cyber events from the corporate environment such as broadcast traffic from causing extra
administrative workload.
A color code that progresses from no reportability to greatest reportability is used in Figure 9.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
20

Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

to detect deviations from baseline is scanning an EACMS or BCS at an unexpected time
and the Registered Entity has determined this as suspicious. (Cyber Security Incident
pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
21

RED

to detect deviations from baseline is repeatedly scanning an EACMS or BCS and the
Registered Entity determines it is targeting specific ports relevant to the BCS.
(determination of an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)
 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans
to detect deviations from baseline is repeatedly scanning an EACMS or BCS and the
Registered Entity determines it gained unauthorized access to the EACMS or BCS.
(Reportable Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)

ORANGE

GREEN

 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans

YELLOW

 Registered Entity owned monitoring tool that normally runs scheduled periodic scans

RED

gained unauthorized access and disrupted a reliability task. (Reportable Cyber Security
Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)

ORANGE

(determination of an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)

YELLOW

 Registered Entity determines the unauthorized Removable Media contains malware

 Registered Entity determines the malware has harvested the credentials of a BCS,

GREEN

Registered Entity owned monitoring
Port

Scanning tool that runs scheduled periodic
scans to detect deviations from
baseline is scanning an EACMS or BCS
at the expected time.
A Registered Entity performs a port

scan of an EACMS or BCS during a
scheduled Cyber Vulnerability
Assessment activity.

GREEN

 An equipment operator loses control
of a backhoe and crashes into a
control house, breaching the PSP and
the Registered Entity determines it
was accidental; cybersecurity controls
were not targeted and remain in
place.

GREEN

GREEN

The table below contains examples of various degrees of events or conditions at varied levels of determination:
Event
Normal or Benign
Malicious / Confirmed Suspicious
 Unauthorized user breaks into a Substation control house (CIP-006-6 R1.5 activates
PSP
 Unauthorized user compromises the
breach
PSP to steal copper and the Registered
BES Cyber Security Incident response plan within 15 minutes of detection.)
Entity determines cybersecurity
controls were not targeted and
 Unauthorized user breaks into a Substation control house and inserts unauthorized
remain in place.
Removable Media into an EACMS or BCS and the Registered Entity determines no
interaction between the USB and the EACMS or BCS occurred. (Cyber Security Incident
pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)

RED

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
22

ORANGE

Figure 9 Examples of Cyber Security Incidents, attempts to compromise “Applicable Systems”, and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents

YELLOW

and the Registered Entity’s investigation determines that activity is being initiated from
an external IP address and it continues aggressively with additional passwords and
failed login attempts. (Determination of an attempt to compromise one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2).
 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or BCS,
and the Registered Entity’s investigation determines that activity is being initiated from
an external IP address and it continues aggressively with additional passwords and
successfully gains unauthorized access to an EACMS or BCS. (Reportable Cyber
Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination).

RED

 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or BCS,

ORANGE

specific known ICS ports and has attempted to gain unauthorized access to the EACMS
or BCS. (determination of an attempt to compromise one or more systems identified
in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for
specific known ICS ports and exploited/compromised specified ICS ports that perform
command and control functions of a BCS. (Reportable Cyber Security Incident
pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.2 determination)
 Unknown individual attempts to login to a known default account on an EACMS or BCS,
and the Registered Entity investigates that activity as a Cyber Security Incident because
it is deemed suspicious. (Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1
determination).

ORANGE

 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for

GREEN

Registered Entity defined threshold
(CIP-007-6 R5.7) for unsuccessful login
attempts against an EACMS or BCS
and the Registered Entity confirmed
the user incorrectly entered his/her
password after performing annual
password changes.
 A system exceeds the Registered
Entity defined threshold (CIP-007-6
R5.7) for unsuccessful login against an
EACMS or BCS and locks out a system
account and the Registered Entity
confirmed the system account’s
password had changed but the
accessing application/service had not
yet been updated to use the new
password.

specific known ICS ports. (determination of an attempt to compromise one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for CIP-008-6 R1.2)

YELLOW

 Authorized user exceeded the

Malicious / Confirmed Suspicious
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for
well-known ports and determined to be a suspicious event by the Registered Entity.
(Cyber Security Incident pursuant to CIP-008-6 R1.1 determination)
 An infected corporate machine is scanning all local hosts including an EACMS or BCS for

GREEN

Login
activity

GREEN

Event
Normal or Benign
Detected  A corporate machine infected by a
malware
known Windows-specific vulnerability
is scanning all local hosts including
non-Windows-based EACMS or BCS
and is determined by the Registered
Entity to be an SMB exploit applicable
to only Windows-based machines.

Example of Sample Criteria to Evaluate and Define Attempts to Compromise

An entity may establish criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise based on their existing
capabilities and facilities associated with the other CIP Standards.
The sample criteria listed below are examples and are not intended to be exhaustive.
CIP-005 R1.5:
Have one or more methods for detecting known or suspected malicious communications for both
inbound and outbound communications.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:


Detected known malicious or suspected malicious communications for both inbound
and outbound communications.

CIP-005 R2.1:
Require multi-factor authentication for all Interactive Remote Access sessions.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:


Repeated attempts to authenticate using multi-factor authentication

CIP-007 R4.1:
Log events at the BES Cyber System level (per BES Cyber System capability) or at the Cyber Asset
level (per Cyber Asset capability) for identification of, and after-the-fact investigations of, Cyber
Security Incidents that includes, as a minimum, each of the following types of events:
4.1.1. Detected successful login attempts;
4.1.2. Detected failed access attempts and failed login attempts;
4.1.3. Detected malicious code.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/or malicious:
 Successful login attempts outside of normal business hours
 Successful login attempts from unexpected personnel such as those who are on vacation
or medical leave
 Detected failed access attempts from unexpected network sources
 Detected failed login attempts to default accounts
 Detected failed login attempts from authorized personnel accounts exceeding X per day
 Detected failed login attempts from authorized personnel accounts where the account
owner was not the source
 Detected malicious code on applicable systems
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
23

CIP-007 R5.7:
Where technically feasible, either:
 Limit the number of unsuccessful authentication attempts; or
 Generate alerts after a threshold of unsuccessful authentication attempts.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/ or malicious:
 Account locked due to limit of unsuccessful authentication attempts exceeded more than
X times per day
 Threshold of unsuccessful authentication attempts exceeds more than X every Y minutes
CIP-010 R2.1:
Monitor at least once every 35 calendar days for changes to the baseline configuration (as
described in Requirement R1, Part 1.1). Document and investigate detected unauthorized changes.
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity was not able to determine that the source of the following was not
suspicious and/ or malicious:


Detected unauthorized changes to the baseline configuration

An entity may establish additional criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise based on their
infrastructure configuration:
Sample criteria:
Where investigation by entity determines that the specific activity, while malicious or/and
suspicious:


Attempt to compromise was not intended to target the “Applicable Systems”

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
24

Other Considerations
Protected Cyber Assets

A Protected Cyber Asset (PCA) is defined as:
One or more Cyber Assets connected using a routable protocol within or on an Electronic Security
Perimeter that is not part of the highest impact BES Cyber System within the same Electronic
Security Perimeter. The impact rating of Protected Cyber Assets is equal to the highest rated BES
Cyber System in the same ESP.6
It should be noted that PCAs are not one of the Applicable Systems and as such cyber incidents solely
involving PCAs are not Cyber Security Incidents and are not reportable. Entities are encouraged to
voluntarily report cyber incidents involving PCAs.
PCAs do reside within the ESP and as a result, some cyber incidents may be initiated on PCAs and later
escalate into Cyber Security Incidents involving a BCS, the ESP or an EACMS.
Some examples are as follows:
1 A PCA is compromised or there was an attempt to compromise a PCA locally via removable media.
This is not a Cyber Security Incident and is not reportable.
2 A PCA is compromised or there was an attempt to compromise a PCA from a source external to the
ESP using an existing firewall rule.
The compromise or attempt to compromise the ESP must be evaluated against the entity’s
classification process (R1.2) to determine if this is a Cyber Security Incident, a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or an attempt to compromise.
3 A PCA is compromised or there was an attempt to compromise a PCA via an EACMS that has been
compromised.
The compromise of the EACMS must be evaluated against the entity’s classification process (R1.2)
to determine if this is a Cyber Security Incident or a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
4 A PCA is compromised and is also subsequently used as a pivot point to compromise or attempt to
compromise a BCS.
The compromise or attempt to compromise of the BCS must be evaluated against the entity’s
classification process (R1.2) to determine if this is a Cyber Security Incident, a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident or an attempt to compromise.

6

NERC Glossary of Terms https://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
25

Requirement R1
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that
collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber
Security Incident Response Plan Specifications. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long
Term Planning].
1.1. One or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
1.2. One or more processes:
1.2.1.

That include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to compromise;

1.2.2.

To determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
 A Reportable Cyber Security Incident or
 An attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Part

1.2.1, one or more systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for
this Part; and
1.2.3.

Provide notification per Requirement R4.

1.3. The roles and responsibilities of Cyber Security Incident response groups or individuals.
1.4. Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents.

Applicable Systems for the four collective Parts in Requirement R1 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R1

Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis
An enterprise or single incident response plan for all BES Cyber Systems may be used to meet the
Requirement.
The following guidelines are available to assist in addressing the required components of a Cyber
Security Incident response plan:


Department of Homeland Security, Control Systems Security Program, Developing an
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Security Incident Response Capability, 2009, online at
http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/practices/documents/finalRP_ics_cybersecurity_incident_response_100609.pdf



National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide,
Special Publication 800-61 revision 1, March 2008, online at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-61-rev1/SP800-61rev1.pdf

For Part 1.2, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is a Cyber Security Incident that has compromised or
disrupted one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity. It is helpful to distinguish Reportable Cyber
Security Incidents as one resulting in a necessary response action.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
26

A response action can fall into one of two categories: Necessary or elective. The distinguishing
characteristic is whether or not action was taken in response to an event. Precautionary measures that
are not in response to any persistent damage or effects may be designated as elective. All other
response actions to avoid any persistent damage or adverse effects, which include the activation of
redundant systems, should be designated as necessary.
Implementation Guidance for R1
Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2)

The figure below is an example of a process that is used to identify, classify and respond to Cyber Security
Incidents. This process uses the sample classification schema shown earlier that the entity uses to identify
and classify Cyber Security Incidents as well as the sample criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
compromise, if they are Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. In this example, the
yellow shading is intended to bring emphasis to the steps in this process example where definitions or
entity process criteria are met as well as where reporting timelines are triggered. This color scheme is
independent from the color keys used in other Figures within this document.
This process is adapted from those related to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). ITIL
is a set of detailed practices for IT service management (ITSM) that focuses on aligning IT services with the
needs of business.
Note: There is recognition that the organizational structure and resource composition is unique to each
entity and that roles and responsibilities may vary. The process diagram to follow is not intended to be
prescriptive, and instead constitutes merely one potential approach where the assignments/functions in
the cross functional swim lanes could be tailored to meet the unique needs of any entity.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
27

Incident Management
Service Desk

Issue Date: November 9, 2018

CIP-008 Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning

Triggers: Cyber Events
 External notifications
 Reports by Security desk
 Internal notifications
Create incident
ticket (SD1)

Close ticket when
incident investigation
completed (SD5)

Escalate due
to BCS, ESP
EACMS or
PSP? (SD3)
Yes

Incident Management
Coordinator

Monitor Ticket Status
Escalate if needed
(SD4)

Assess incident (SD2)

No

Potential
Cyber
Security
Incident ?
(IC2)

Assess if incident is a
potential Cyber
Security Incident
Update Ticket (IC1)

Start Timer
1 Hr Reportable
End Next Day – attempted
7 Days – Updates
Update Ticket (IC4)

Review Information
and forward to
Reporting Coordinator
Update Ticket (IC3)

No

Stop Incident Timer
Update Ticket (IC5)

Yes

E-ISAC / NCCIC
Reporting Coordinator

Reportable or
attempted? (R3)
Yes

Incident Determination
and Classification for
CIP
(R2)

Review preliminary
Information and track
ticket updates (R1)

Report to E-ISAC and
NCCIC (R4)

No

Yellow Tasks = Classification, Determination
and Reporting
Potential
Cyber Security
Incident ? (SME2)

Investigating Subject
Matter Experts

Yes

Yes

Investigate incident
Update Ticket (SME1)
No

Draft of incident
information
including updates
to three
reportable
attributes (SME5)

Draft of incident
information
including three
reportable
attributes (SME3)

Continue to investigate to
determine root cause and
record findings in original
ticket (SME4)

Figure 10 Sample Process to Identify, Classify and Respond to Cyber Security Incidents

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
28

Conclude incident
Complete Lessons Leaned
Update procedures
Inform stakeholders (IC6)

Supporting Narrative Description of Sample Process to Identify, Classify, and Respond to Cyber
Security Incidents (R1.1, R1.2)

1.

The Incident Management Service Desk identifies that a cyber event that requires investigation has
occurred.

2.

Incident Management Service Desk creates an incident ticket to log the suspected cyber incident
(SD1).
Incident Management Service Desk performs initial assessment of the suspected cyber incident and
performs any initial triage or service restoration as needed (SD2).

3.
4.

If the suspected cyber incident involves BES Cyber Systems (BCS), Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring Systems (EACMS), Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or Physical Security Perimeters
(PSP), the Incident Management Service Desk will escalate the incident to an Incident Management
Coordinator whom will act as the coordinator until the incident is closed (SD3)

5.

The Incident Management Coordinator performs a secondary initial assessment to determine if the
incident has the potential to be a Cyber Security Incident, a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, or a
Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part.
They update the incident ticket, assigning the appropriate Investigating Subject Matter Experts (IC1).

6.

If the Incident Management Coordinator determines that the incident has the potential to be
reportable, the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator is alerted and copied on the information
contained in the incident ticket. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator continues to monitor the
updates to the incident ticket (IC2).

7.

The Incident Management Service Desk ensures the assigned Investigating SMEs are notified, and the
incident ticket information is updated (SD2, SD4).

8.

The assigned SMEs investigate the incident ticket updating with the Incident Management
Coordinator as appropriate (SME1). The Incident Management Coordinator will monitor the progress
of the investigation and assign additional SMEs or escalate as needed.

9.

If initial investigation by SMEs finds that the incident may be a Cyber Security Incident and has the
potential to be reportable (SME2), the SMEs will inform the Incident Management Coordinator and
forward the known information including the required three attributes (SME3). Attributes which are
unknown at the current time will be reported as “unknown”.

10. The SMEs will continue their investigation to determine the root cause of the incident, performing
triage or service restoration as needed, continue to investigate the three required attributes and
update incident ticket information (SME4).
11. If the incident is found to be potentially reportable, the Incident Management Coordinator reviews
the information, adds any details collected by other investigating SMEs and resolves any missing
information as needed. The information is forwarded to the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator
(IC3).
12. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator reviews the information received, performs classification of
the incident (R2). They determine if the incident is a Cyber Security Incident and determine if it is
either a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
29

a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. The information to be reported
is finalized (R3).
13. Upon determination that the incident is reportable, E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs
the Incident Management Coordinator to begin a clock timer set to the appropriate time frame
(IC4) and performs the required notification including the three required attributes. The incident
ticket is updated with the incident classification and determination time for compliance evidence
purposes:


Within 1 hour for initial notification of Reportable Cyber Security Incident,



By end of the next day for a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a
system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part, and



Within 7 calendar days of determination of new or changed attribute information
required in Part 4.1, if any.

14. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the Incident Management Coordinator when
notification is completed and time that the notifications occurred at. The Incident Management
Coordinator will stop the appropriate timer and updates the incident ticket with the appropriate
information for compliance evidence purposes (IC5).
15. If Incident Management Coordinator that has not received confirmation of notification, they may
escalate, as needed, prior to expiry of the applicable timer. Upon expiry of the timer, the Incident
Management Coordinator must inform the CIP Senior Manager (IC4).
16. During the continued investigation of the incident (SME4), the SMEs may find that an update of any
of the three required attributes is potentially required. The SMEs will inform the Incident
Management Coordinator and forward a draft of the updated information (SME5)
17. The Incident Management Coordinator reviews the draft update information including adding other
details, and then informs E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator, forwarding the potential update
information (IC3).
18. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator reviews the potential updated information and determine
if the update to any of the three required attributes is reportable (R3).
19. Upon determination that the update is reportable, E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the
Incident Management Coordinator to begin a timer set to the appropriate time frame (i.e. 7 calendar
days). The incident ticket is updated with the determination time for compliance evidence purposes
(IC4).
20. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator updates both E-ISAC and NCCIC with the information
associated with any of the three required attributes (R4).
21. The E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator informs the Incident Management Coordinator that the
update to E-ISAC and NCCIC is completed and times that the updates occurred at. The Incident
Management Coordinator will stop the appropriate timer and update the incident ticket with the
appropriate information for compliance purposes (IC5).

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
30

22. If the Incident Management Coordinator has not received confirmation that the update is completed,
prior to the expiration of the timer, they may escalate as needed. Upon expiry of the timer, the
Incident Management Coordinator must inform the CIP Senior Manager (IC4).
23. Upon closure of the incident, the Incident Management Coordinator will ensure that the last
reportable update to the three required attributes accurately reflects the closure information. If a
further update of the three required attributes is required, the Incident Management Coordinator
will inform the appropriate Subject Matter Expert to initiate an update (SME5).
24. The Incident Management Coordinator informs the Incident Management Service Desk that the
incident ticket may be closed (SD5).
25. The Incident Management Coordinator will initiate a “Lessons Leaned” session and update to the
Cyber Incident Reporting and Response Plan and any other documentation, procedures, etc. within
90 days (IC6). They will inform all stakeholders of any updates to the Cyber Incident Reporting and
Response Plan and any other applicable documentation.
Roles and Responsibilities (R1.3)

In the example process, the defined Roles and Responsibilities are as follows, but can be tailored by any
entity to align with their unique organization:


Incident Management Service Desk is responsible for initial activities, incident ticketing and
incident logging:
o Initial identification, categorization and prioritization,
o Initial diagnosis and triage/service restoration,
o Initial assignment of incident tickets to Investigating Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
o Initial escalation to an Incident Management Coordinator upon assessment (if needed)
o Monitoring incident ticket status and initiating further escalation (if needed)
o Incident ticket resolution and closure
o General incident status communication with the user community



Incident Management Coordinator is responsible for the over-all coordination of activities related
to an assigned incident:
o Detailed assignment of tasks to Investigating SMEs
o Ensure that all assigned activities are being performed in a timely manner
o Ensuring regulatory reporting time limits are met and initiating escalation if needed
o Communicating incident status with major affected stakeholders
o Coordinating with the Incident Management Service Desk to update incident tickets with
status and the logging of required details and assisting them to perform general incident
status communications with the user community

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
31

o Coordinating with the E-ISAC/NCCIC Reporting Coordinator for cyber incidents with the
potential of being Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber
Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part. Assisting the E-ISAC/NCCIC Reporting Coordinator with
information to aid in the classification of the cyber incident.
o Escalation as needed according to the priority and severity of the issue
o Coordination of service restoration and incident closure
o Coordination of incident review following closure of incidents, identification of potential
problems and documenting the “Lessons Learned”
o Initiating update of processes or procedures as needed and communicating the updates
to stakeholders


E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator is responsible for the coordination of regulatory reporting
activities such as those related to E-ISAC and NCCIC:
o Review of completeness incident information for classification and reporting purposes
o Incident classification for reporting purposes
o Determination if this incident is a Cyber Security Incident, Reportable Cyber Security
Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part
o Completeness of the required three attributes to be reported
o Notification to E-ISAC and NCCIC and submission of the three required attributes
o Coordinating with Incident Management Coordinator to ensure timing is in accordance
with regulatory requirements and that incident logging is complete for compliance
evidence purposes



Investigating Subject Matter Experts are responsible for detailed technical tasks related to the
investigation of the incident and performing the needed recovery actions:
o Perform investigation tasks related to the incident as assigned by the Incident
Management Coordinator to determine the root cause of the incident
o Perform service restoration tasks related to the incident as assigned
o Update incident ticket and ensure all required details are logged
o

Obtaining information on the three required attributes for both initial notification and
updates

o

After incident closure, participate in “Lessons Learned” sessions and update procedures as needed

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
32

Incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents (R1.4)

Each of the defined roles in the example process may have specific procedures covering various aspects of
their tasks being accomplished within the process. The sample process documents “what” the overall
required steps are whereas the procedures document “how” each step is carried out:


Incident Management Service Desk Procedures:
o Procedures of when to classify cyber events as possible cyber incidents
o Procedures to determine if BCS, PSP, ESP or EACMS are involved and decision criteria of
when to escalate to an Incident Management Coordinator.
o Procedures for initial diagnosis, triage and service restoration
o Procedures for incident ticketing, assignment, escalation and closure



Incident Management Coordinator Procedures:
o Procedures for finding if cyber events or incidents could be possible Cyber Security
Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted
to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. These
potential incidents require notification to the E-ISAC/ NCCIC Coordinator
o Procedures for the assignment and tracking of tasks to Investigating SMEs
o Procedures associated with regulatory reporting time limits
o Procedures for incident review, documentation of lessons learned, tracking of completion
of documentation update status



E-ISAC/ NCCIC Reporting Coordinator Procedures:
o Procedures on how to use the Entity’s own classification and reporting schema to classify
cyber incidents and determine Cyber Security Incidents, Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents or Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in
the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part
o Procedures on the review of information to be used for reporting the three required
attributes to be included for E-ISAC or NCCIC notification including the handling of any
BES Cyber System Information
o Procedures for the notification of updates to E-ISAC and NCCIC including the submission
of the three required attributes



Investigating Subject Matter Experts Procedures:
o Procedures for the classification of cyber incidents to possible Cyber Security Incidents,
possible Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or possible Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the
Part and the required information needed to be obtained.
o Procedures for troubleshooting tasks to determine root cause of an incident
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
33

o Procedures for service restoration tasks after an incident
o Procedures for triggering the forensic preservation of the incident
o Procedures on when updates are necessary to information on the required attributes
associated with a Reportable Cyber Security Incident or a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the
Part

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
34

Requirement R2
R2. Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response
plans to collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber
Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time
Horizon: Operations Planning and Real-Time Operations]
2.1.

Test each Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) at least once every 15 calendar months:


By responding to an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident;



With a paper drill or tabletop exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident; or



With an operational exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.

2.2.

Use the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1 when responding to
a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, responding to a Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this
Part, or performing an exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken during the response to the incident or exercise.

2.3.

Retain records related to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Incidents
that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for
this Part as per the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1.

Applicable Systems for the three collective Parts in Requirement R2 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R2
Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis

If a plan is written at a high enough level, then every action during the response should not be subject to
scrutiny. The plan will likely allow for the appropriate variance in tactical decisions made by incident
responders. Deviations from the plan can be documented during the incident response or afterward as
part of the review.
For more specific types of exercises, refer to the FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation
Program (HSEEP). It lists the following four types of discussion-based exercises: seminar, workshop,
tabletop, and games. In particular, it defines that, “A tabletop exercise involves key personnel discussing
simulated scenarios in an informal setting. Table top exercises (TTX) can be used to assess plans,
policies, and procedures.”
The HSEEP lists the following three types of operations-based exercises: Drill, functional exercise, and
full-scale exercise. It defines that, “[A] full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional, multidiscipline exercise involving functional (e.g., joint field office, Emergency operation centers, etc.) and
‘boots on the ground’ response (e.g., firefighters decontaminating mock victims).”

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
35

In addition to the requirements to implement the response plan, Part 2.3 specifies entities must retain
relevant records for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents. There are several examples of specific types of
evidence listed in the measure. Entities should refer to their handling procedures to determine the types
of evidence to retain and how to transport and store the evidence. For further information in retaining
incident records, refer to the NIST Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response
(SP800-86). The NIST guideline includes a section (Section 3.1.2) on acquiring data when performing
forensics.
Implementation Guidance for R2
Acceptable Testing Methods

The SDT made no changes to the testing requirements located in Requirement Parts 2 and 3. The
applicable system expansion to include EACMS was the only change. The SDT purposefully did not expand
the acceptable testing methods to include an actual response to a Cyber Security Incident that attempted
to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part. This was based on
incident risk level and benefits of exercising the full response plan(s).
Annual testing of the incident response plan(s) are important because they may reveal weaknesses,
vulnerabilities, and opportunity for improvement. The current test options include: a paper drill
(coordinated tabletop exercise), an operational exercise (a full-scale, multiple entity exercise), and actual
response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident is self-explanatory, whereas the other two types
of exercises may carry more subjectivity. To help assure internal organizational alignment, Registered
Entities could consider establishing supporting internal definitions for the various types of planned testing.
Documentation like this can help participants understand the scope and expectations of those exercises
that are not actual response to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and can aid in the audit process as a
supporting evidence for exercise scenarios. It should be noted that definitions in the NERC Glossary of
Terms are authoritative, and entities documenting internal definitions for consistency in their process
should assure they do not contradict nor attempt to supersede and authoritative NERC-defined terms. The
table below includes some potential ideas that could be used:
Incident Response
Exercise – Paper
Drill/Tabletop

Incident Response
Exercise –
Operational

An activity that is facilitated, where personnel are gathered to discuss various
simulated emergency situations including roles, responsibilities, coordination, and
decision making based on the scenario. This typically happens in a conference
room or office environment and not in the personnel’s normal working
environment. No interaction with equipment is expected.
An activity that is facilitated, where personnel are gathered to discuss and respond
to various simulated emergency situations including roles, responsibilities,
coordination, and decision making based on the scenario. This may occur in a test
environment or actual operational area. There may be interaction with
equipment. The exercise may involve test equipment, actual operational
equipment, or training simulators. If operational equipment is used, it will be in a
manner as to not jeopardize operational functionality.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
36

All of these options, especially the latter, involve a complete, step-by-step run-through of the plan
components. Many problems that would occur in a real incident also will be present in the test exercise or
drill7. In fact, it is recommended that drills and exercises go to the extreme and simulate worst-case
scenarios.
Conversely, a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part, may only exercise several components and would likely not result in the
same level of response action. Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise an applicable
system, by their very nature, have less risk than an actual compromise. A Responsible Entity’s actual
response to unauthorized access attempts and suspicious activities does not rise to the same level of
required response that actual disruption of a BCS performing one or more reliability tasks would. For
these reasons, the SDT did not change the acceptable testing methods of a response plan(s), and using
records associated to attempts to compromise are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance
with the 15-month testing requirements.
The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident is
documented using the entity’s incident management system including how each role defined in
Requirement R1.3 updates the incident ticket. The incident ticket is a permanent record of the incident
including any actions undertaken. The Incident Management Coordinator is responsible for documenting
deviations from the Cyber Incident response plan and initiating any corrections required in the process or
documentation for meeting the Requirement. In addition, to assure sufficient evidence, records should be
dated and should include documentation that sufficiently describes the actual or simulated scenario(s),
response actions, event identifications and classifications, the application of Cyber Security Incident and
reportability criteria, reportability determinations, and reporting submissions and timeframes.

7

2009, Department of Homeland Security, Developing an Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity Incident
Response Capability, page 13.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
37

Requirement R3
R3.

3.1.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans
according to each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security
Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time
Horizon: Operations Assessment].
No later than 90 calendar days after completion of a Cyber Security Incident response
plan(s) test or actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident response:
3.1.1.

Document any lessons learned or document the absence of any lessons learned;

3.1.2.

Update the Cyber Security Incident response plan based on any documented
lessons learned associated with the plan; and

Notify each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident
response plan of the updates to the Cyber Security Incident response plan based
on any documented lessons learned.
No later than 60 calendar days after a change to the roles or responsibilities, Cyber Security
Incident response groups or individuals, or technology that the Responsible Entity
determines would impact the ability to execute the plan:
3.1.3.

3.2.

3.2.1.

Update the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s); and

3.2.2.

Notify each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident
response plan of the updates.

Applicable Systems for the two collective Parts in Requirement R3 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R3

Preserved CIP-008-5 Version History from Guidelines and Technical Basis
The process of conducting lessons learned can involve the response team discussing the incident to
determine gaps or areas of improvement within the plan. Any documented deviations from the plan
from Part 2.2 can serve as input to the lessons learned. It is possible to have a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident without any documented lessons learned. In such cases, the entity must retain
documentation of the absence of any lessons learned associated with the Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.
Entities should consider meeting with all of the individuals involved in the incident and documenting
the lessons learned as soon after the incident as possible. This allows more time for making effective
updates to the plan, obtaining any necessary approvals, and distributing those updates to the incident
response team.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
38

This may include changes to the names or contact information listed in the plan. Technology changes
affecting the plan may include referenced information sources, communication systems or ticketing
systems.
Implementation Guidance for R3

The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident results
in an update to Cyber Security Incident response plan, incorporating the “lessons learned”. The role of
Incident Management Coordinator includes the responsibility for meeting Requirement R3. Registered
Entities should assure updated plans are dated in demonstration of the timelines mandated by
Requirement R3. It may help to append these records to the dated Lessons Learned from an actual
response or an exercise to test the plan to further demonstrate plan update timelines were met and
relevant areas of the plan were updated to align with the outcomes and conclusions in the Lessons
Learned.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
39

Requirement R4
R4. Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC)
and, if subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security
Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to compromise, as determined by
applying the criteria from Requirement R1 Part 1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each of the applicable requirement parts in
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor:
Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].
4.1.

Initial notifications and updates shall include the following attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:
4.1.1 The functional impact;
4.1.2 The attack vector used; and
4.1.3 The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.

4.2.

4.3.

After the Responsible Entity’s determination made pursuant to documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, provide initial notification within the following timelines:


One hour after the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.



By the end of the next calendar day after determination that a Cyber Security Incident
was an attempt to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column
for this Part.

Provide updates, if any, within 7 calendar days of determination of new or changed
attribute information required in Part 4.1

Applicable Systems for the three collective Parts in Requirement R4 are the same, those being high
impact BES Cyber Systems and their associated EACMS as well as medium impact BES Cyber Systems and
their associated EACMS.
General Considerations for R4

Registered Entities may want to consider designing tools or mechanisms to assure incident responders
have the information needed to efficiently and timely report events or conditions that rise to the level of
reportability. A potential approach is to include the E-ISAC/NCCIC phone numbers in response plans,
calling trees, or even within corporate directories for ease of retrieval. Another potential approach is to
develop a distribution list that includes both entities so one notification can easily be sent at the same
time. Certainly, Registered Entities should consider implementing secure methods for transit if using
email. Another approach could be to incorporate website URLs into processes to have them at hand.
Finally, for Registered Entities that prefer to leverage secure portals for E-ISAC or NCCIC, advance planning
by having individual user portal accounts requested, authorized, configured, and tested is encouraged ad
can be a time saver in emergency situations.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
40

Implementation Guidance for R4

The sample process in Requirement R1.1 shows how initial notification and updates of the required
attributes is performed within the specified time lines (yellow colored tasks).
For attributes that are not known, these should be reported as “unknown”
NCCIC Reporting
NCCIC reporting guidelines for reporting events related to Industrial Control Systems can be found here:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/Report-Incident
https://www.us-cert.gov/incident-notification-guidelines
NCCIC prefers the reporting of 10 attributes, although they will accept any information that is shared. A
potential mapping between the NCCIC preferred attributes and the attributes required to comply with
CIP-008-6 standard could be represented are as follows:
CIP-008-6 Reporting
Functional Impact

Functional Impact

Functional Impact
Level of Intrusion

Level of Intrusion

Level of Intrusion
Level of Intrusion
Level of Intrusion
Attack Vector
Name and Phone

NCCIC Reporting
Identify the current level of impact on
agency functions or services (Functional
Impact).
Identify the type of information lost,
compromised, or corrupted (Information
Impact).
Identify when the activity was first detected.

Comment

Estimate the scope of time and resources
needed to recover from the incident
(Recoverability).
Provide any indicators of compromise,
including signatures or detection measures
developed in relationship to the incident
Identify the number of systems, records, and
users impacted.
Identify the network location of the
observed activity.
Provide any mitigation activities undertaken
in response to the incident.
Identify the attack vector(s) that led to the
incident.
Identify point of contact information for
additional follow-up.
Figure 11 NCCIC Reporting Attributes

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
41

Example of a Reporting Form

Entities may wish to create an internal standard form to be used to report Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents and Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for the Part. The advantages of using a standard internal form are:


A standard internal format for the communications of cyber incident information between the
various internal roles with respect to obligations of CIP-008-6, Requirement R4



A standard written record of the notification of the minimum 3 attributes having been reported
to E-ISAC and NCCIC in accordance with CIP-008-6, Requirement R4 which can be easily stored,
sorted and retrieved for compliance purposes

An example of an internal standard form is shown. The instructions on how to complete this form are
included after it.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
42

CIP-008-6 Requirement R4
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form
This form may be used to report Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber Security Incidents that were an
attempt to compromise a system listed in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.

Contact Information
Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Phone Number:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Incident Type
☐ Reportable Cyber Security Incident
☐ Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for the Part

Reporting Category
☐ Initial Notification
☐ Update

Required Attribute Information
1. Attack Vector

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

2. Functional Impact

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

3. Level of Intrusion

☐ Initial

☐ Update

Click or tap here to enter text.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
43

Instructions for Example of a Reporting Form

These are instructions on one way to complete the optional form.
CIP-008-6
Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section
Contact
Information

Incident Type

Reporting
Category

Required
Attribute
Information
(Attack Vector
fields)

Field Name

Instructions

Name

Enter the First and Last Name of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident. This field
could also be used to identify the company name of the
Registered Entity.

Phone Number

Enter the Phone Number(s) of the Responsible Entity’s
primary point of contact for the reported incident.

Reportable Cyber
Security Incident

Check this box if report includes information for a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.

Cyber Security
Incident that
attempted to
compromise a
system identified
in the
“Applicable
Systems” column
for the Part

Check this box if report includes information for a Cyber
Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for the Part.

Initial
Notification

Check this box if report is being submitted to satisfy initial
notification obligations of Requirement R4 Part 4.2.

Update

Check this box if report is being submitted to satisfy
subsequent follow-up or update obligations of Requirement
R4 Part 4.3.

Attack Vector



If known, enter a narrative description of the Attack
Vector for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Note: Do not check this box for incidents related solely to a
PSP(s).

Examples include, but are not limited to, malware, use of
stolen credentials, etc.
NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
44

CIP-008-6– Reportable Cyber Security Incident Reporting Form Instructions
Form Section

Field Name
Attack Vector
Initial Checkbox

Instructions
If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Attack Vector
If report is being used to provide an update report, select the
Update Checkbox ‘Update’ checkbox.
Required
Attribute
Information

Functional
Impact

(Functional
Impact fields)

Required
Attribute
Information



If known, enter a narrative description of the functional
impact for the compromise or attempt to compromise to
satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement R4
Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

Examples include, but are not limited to, situational
awareness, dynamic response, ability to perform Real-time
Assessments, or Real-time monitoring etc.
Functional
Impact Initial
Checkbox

If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Functional
Impact Update
Checkbox

If report is being used to provide an update report, select the
‘Update’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion



If known, enter a narrative description of the level of
intrusion for the compromise or attempt to compromise
to satisfy the required attribute specified in Requirement
R4 Part 4.1.



If not known, specify ‘unknown’ in the field.

(Level of
Intrusion fields)

Examples include, but are not limited to, whether the
compromise or attempt to compromise occurred on
Applicable Systems outside the Electronic Security Perimeter
(ESP), at the ESP, or inside the ESP. Additionally, level of
intrusion may include the Applicable System impact level and
Cyber System classification level.
Level of Intrusion
Initial Checkbox

If report is being used to provide the preliminary report,
select the ‘Initial’ checkbox.

Level of Intrusion If report is being used to provide an update, select the
Update Checkbox ‘Update’ checkbox.

NERC | DRAFT CIP-008-6 Implementation Guidance | January 2019
45

Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet1
CIP-008-6 – Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority.
Audit ID:
Registered Entity:
NCR Number:
Compliance Enforcement Authority:
Compliance Assessment Date(s)2:
Compliance Monitoring Method:
Names of Auditors:

Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
Registered name of entity being audited
NCRnnnnn
Region or NERC performing audit
Month DD, YYYY, to Month DD, YYYY
[On-site Audit | Off-site Audit | Spot Check]
Supplied by CEA

Applicability of Requirements
R1
R2
R3
R4

BA
X
X
X
X

DP
*
*
*
*

GO
X
X
X
X

GOP
X
X
X
X

PA/PC

RC
X
X
X
X

RP

RSG

TO
X
X
X
X

TOP
X
X
X
X

TP

TSP

*CIP-008-6 is only applicable to DPs that own certain UFLS, UVLS, RAS, protection systems, or cranking paths.
See CIP-003-8 Section 4, Applicability, for details.
Legend:
Text with blue background:
Text entry area with Green background:
Text entry area with white background:

Fixed text – do not edit
Entity-supplied information
Auditor-supplied information

1

NERC developed this Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet (RSAW) language in order to facilitate NERC’s and the Regional Entities’ assessment of a registered entity’s
compliance with this Reliability Standard. The NERC RSAW language is written to specific versions of each NERC Reliability S tandard. Entities using this RSAW should
choose the version of the RSAW applicable to the Reliability Standard being assessed. While the information included in this RSAW provides some of the methodology
that NERC has elected to use to assess compliance with the requirements of the Reliability Standard, this document should not be treated as a substitute for the
Reliability Standard or viewed as additional Reliability Standard requirements. In all cases, the Regional Entity should rely on the language contained in the Reliability
Standard itself, and not on the language contained in this RSAW, to determine compliance with the Reliability Standard. NERC’s Reliability Standards can be found on
NERC’s website. Additionally, NERC Reliability Standards are updated frequently, and this RSAW may not necessarily be updat ed with the same frequency. Therefore,
it is imperative that entities treat this RSAW as a reference document only, and not as a substitute or replacement for the Reliability Standard. It is t he responsibility
of the registered entity to verify its compliance with the latest approved version of the Reliability Standards, by the applicable governmental authority, relevant to its
registration status.
The RSAW may provide a non-exclusive list, for informational purposes only, of examples of the types of evidence a registered entity may produce or may be asked to
produce to demonstrate compliance with the Reliability Standard. A registered entity’s adherence to the examples contained within this R SAW does not necessarily
constitute compliance with the applicable Reliability Standard, and NERC and the Regional Entity using this RSAW reserve the right to request additional evidence from
the registered entity that is not included in this RSAW. This RSAW may include excerpts from FERC Orders and other regulatory references which are provided for ease
of reference only, and this document does not necessarily include all applicable Order provisions. In the event of a discrepancy between FERC Orders, and the language
included in this document, FERC Orders shall prevail.
2

Compliance Assessment Date(s): The date(s) the actual compliance assessment (on-site audit, off-site spot check, etc.) occurs.

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Findings
(This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority)
Req.
Finding
Summary and Documentation
R1
P1.1
P1.2
P1.3
P1.4
R2
P2.1
P2.2
P2.3
R3
P3.1
P3.2
R4
P4.1
P4.2
P4.3

Req.

Areas of Concern

Req.

Recommendations

Req.

Positive Observations

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
2

Functions Monitored

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Subject Matter Experts
Identify the Subject Matter Expert(s) responsible for this Reliability Standard.
Registered Entity Response (Required; Insert additional rows if needed):
SME Name
Title
Organization

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
3

Requirement(s)

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R1 Supporting Evidence and Documentation
R1.

Each Responsible Entity shall document one or more Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) that collectively
include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Specifications. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long Term Planning].

M1.

Evidence must include each of the documented plan(s) that collectively include each of the applicable
requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications.

R1 Part 1.1
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part

1.1

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

One or more processes to
identify, classify, and respond to
Cyber Security Incidents.

Measures

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that include
the process(es) to identify, classify, and
respond to Cyber Security Incidents.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
4

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R1, Part 1.1
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the Responsible Entity has documented one or more Cyber Security Incident response plans
which include one or more processes to identify, classify, and respond to Cyber Security Incidents.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
5

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R1 Part 1.2
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part

1.2

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

One or more processes:
1.2.1. That include criteria to
evaluate and define
attempts to compromise;
1.2.2. To determine if an
identified Cyber Security
Incident is:
 A Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
 An attempt to
compromise, as
determined by applying
the criteria from Part
1.2.1, one or more
systems identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for this Part; and
1.2.3. To provide notification
per Requirement R4.

Examples of evidence may include, but
are not limited to, dated
documentation of Cyber Security
Incident response plan(s) that provide
guidance or thresholds for determining
which Cyber Security Incidents are also
Reportable Cyber Security Incidents or
a Cyber Security Incident that is
determined to be an attempt to
compromise a system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column including
justification for attempt determination
criteria and documented processes for
notification.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
6

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R1, Part 1.2
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the Responsible Entity has documented one or more Cyber Security Incident response plans
which include one or more processes that include criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
compromise.
Verify the Responsible Entity has documented one or more Cyber Security Incident response plans
which include one or more processes to determine if an identified Cyber Security Incident is:
 A Reportable Cyber Security Incident; or
 an attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Part 1.2.1, one or more
systems identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part.
Verify the Responsible Entity has documented one or more Cyber Security Incident response plans
which include one or more processes to provide notification per Requirement R4.
Note to Auditor:
If the Responsible Entity is prohibited by law from reporting to the E-ISAC, then the process need not
include a provision for reporting to the E-ISAC. If this provision is invoked, the audit team should verify that
the Responsible Entity is prohibited by law from reporting to the E-ISAC.
If the Responsible Entity is within U.S. jurisdiction, but is prohibited by law from reporting to the NCCIC,
then the process need not include a provision for reporting to the NCCIC. If this provision is invoked, the
audit team should verify that the Responsible Entity is prohibited by law from reporting to the NCCIC.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
7

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R1 Part 1.3
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part

1.3

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

The roles and responsibilities of
Cyber Security Incident response
groups or individuals.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that define roles and
responsibilities (e.g., monitoring,
reporting, initiating, documenting, etc.)
of Cyber Security Incident response
groups or individuals.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R1, Part 1.3
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the Responsible Entity has documented one or more Cyber Security Incident response plans
which define the roles and responsibilities of Cyber Security Incident response groups or individuals.
Auditor Notes:
DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
8

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
9

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R1 Part 1.4
CIP-008-6 Table R1 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Specifications
Part

1.4

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Incident handling procedures for
Cyber Security Incidents.

Measures

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated Cyber
Security Incident response process(es)
or procedure(s) that address incident
handling (e.g., containment,
eradication, recovery/incident
resolution).

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R1, Part 1.4
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the Responsible Entity has documented one or more Cyber Security Incident response plans
which include incident handling procedures for Cyber Security Incidents.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
10

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R2 Supporting Evidence and Documentation
R2.

Each Responsible Entity shall implement each of its documented Cyber Security Incident response plans to
collectively include each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident
Response Plan Implementation and Testing. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning
and Real-Time Operations].

M2.

Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates implementation of
each of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Implementation and Testing.

R2 Part 2.1
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part

2.1

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Test each Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) at least once
every 15 calendar months:
 By responding to an
actual Reportable Cyber
Security Incident;
 With a paper drill or
tabletop exercise of a
Reportable Cyber
Security Incident; or
 With an operational
exercise of a Reportable
Cyber Security Incident.

Examples of evidence may include, but
are not limited to, dated evidence of a
lessons-learned report that includes a
summary of the test or a compilation of
notes, logs, and communication
resulting from the test. Types of
exercises may include discussion or
operations based exercises.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
11

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R2, Part 2.1
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the Responsible Entity has tested each Cyber Security Incident response plan at least once every
15 calendar months:
 By responding to an actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident;
 with a paper drill or tabletop exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident; or
 with an operational exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
12

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R2 Part 2.2
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part

2.2

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Use the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) under
Requirement R1 when
responding to a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident, responding to a
Cyber Security Incident that
attempted to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems” column for
this Part, or performing an
exercise of a Reportable Cyber
Security Incident. Document
deviations from the plan(s) taken
during the response to the
incident or exercise.

Examples of evidence may include, but
are not limited to, incident reports,
logs, and notes that were kept during
the incident response process, and
follow-up documentation that describes
deviations taken from the plan during
the incident response or exercise.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
13

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6 R2 Part 2.2
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the Responsible Entity used the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) reviewed under
Requirement R1 when responding to a Reportable Cyber Security Incident, when responding to a Cyber
Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column
for this Part, or when performing an exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Verify the Responsible Entity has documented deviations from the plan(s), if any, taken during the
response to the Reportable Cyber Security Incident, to the Cyber Security Incident that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part, or during the
performance of an exercise of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
Note to Auditor:
The practice of incident response requires the ability to be flexible when responding to Cyber Security
Incidents. This is acknowledged by this Part’s provision for documenting deviations from the Responsible
Entity’s incident response plan. The auditor should note that, while deviations from the incident response
plan are permissible, deviations from the language of the Requirement (testing of the plan at least once
every 15 calendar months, notification to the E-ISAC and NCCIC of applicable incidents, etc.), are not
permissible.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
14

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R2 Part 2.3
CIP-008-6 Table R2 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Implementation and Testing
Part

2.3

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Retain records related to
Reportable Cyber Security
Incidents and Cyber Security
Incidents that attempted to
compromise a system identified
in the “Applicable Systems”
column for this Part as per the
Cyber Security Incident response
plan(s) under Requirement R1.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, dated
documentation, such as security logs,
police reports, emails, response forms
or checklists, forensic analysis results,
restoration records, and post-incident
review notes related to Reportable
Cyber Security Incidents and a Cyber
Security Incident that is determined to
be an attempt to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
15

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R2, Part 2.3
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the Responsible Entity has retained records related to Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and
Cyber Security Incidents that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems”
column for this Part as per the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s) under Requirement R1.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
16

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R3 Supporting Evidence and Documentation
R3.

Each Responsible Entity shall maintain each of its Cyber Security Incident response plans according to each of
the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update,
and Communication. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M3.

Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates maintenance of each
Cyber Security Incident response plan according to the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R3 –
Cyber Security Incident Response Plan Review, Update, and Communication.

R3 Part 3.1
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part

3.1

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

No later than 90 calendar days
after completion of a Cyber
Security Incident response
plan(s) test or actual Reportable
Cyber Security Incident response:
3.1.1. Document any lessons
learned or document the
absence of any lessons
learned;
3.1.2. Update the Cyber
Security Incident
response plan based on
any documented lessons
learned associated with
the plan; and
3.1.3. Notify each person or
group with a defined role
in the Cyber Security
Incident response plan of
the updates to the Cyber
Security Incident
response plan based on
any documented lessons
learned.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to, all of the following:
1. Dated documentation of post
incident(s) review meeting notes
or follow-up report showing
lessons learned associated with
the Cyber Security Incident
response plan(s) test or actual
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident response or dated
documentation stating there were
no lessons learned;
2. Dated and revised Cyber Security
Incident response plan showing
any changes based on the lessons
learned; and
3. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution system;
or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
17

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R3, Part 3.1
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify that no later than 90 calendar days after completion of a Cyber Security Incident response plan(s)
test or actual Reportable Cyber Security Incident response, the Responsible Entity has:
1. Documented any lessons learned or documented the absence of any lessons learned;
2. updated the Cyber Security Incident response plan based on any documented lessons learned
associated with the plan; and
3. notified each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident response plan of
the updates to the Cyber Security Incident response plan based on any documented lessons
learned.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
18

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R3 Part 3.2
CIP-008-6 Table R3 – Cyber Security Incident Response Plan
Review, Update, and Communication
Part

3.2

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

No later than 60 calendar days
after a change to the roles or
responsibilities, Cyber Security
Incident response groups or
individuals, or technology that
the Responsible Entity
determines would impact the
ability to execute the plan:
3.2.1. Update the Cyber
Security Incident
response plan(s); and
3.2.2. Notify each person or
group with a defined role
in the Cyber Security
Incident response plan of
the updates.

An example of evidence may include,
but is not limited to:
1. Dated and revised Cyber
Security Incident response plan
with changes to the roles or
responsibilities, responders or
technology; and
2. Evidence of plan update
distribution including, but not
limited to:
 Emails;
 USPS or other mail service;
 Electronic distribution
system; or
 Training sign-in sheets.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
19

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R3, Part 3.2
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify that no later than 60 calendar days after a change to the roles or responsibilities, Cyber Security
Incident response groups or individuals, or technology that the Responsible Entity determines would
impact the ability to execute the plan, the Responsible Entity has:
1. Updated the Cyber Security Incident response plan(s); and
2. notified each person or group with a defined role in the Cyber Security Incident response plan of
the updates.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
20

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R4 Supporting Evidence and Documentation
R4.

Each Responsible Entity shall notify the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and, if
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center (NCCIC), or their successors, of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security
Incident that was an attempt to compromise, as determined by applying the criteria from Requirement R1 Part
1.2.1, a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column, unless prohibited by law, in accordance with each
of the applicable requirement parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security
Incidents. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Assessment].

M4.

Evidence must include, but is not limited to, documentation that collectively demonstrates notification of each
determined Reportable Cyber Security Incident and a Cyber Security Incident that was an attempt to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column according to the applicable requirement
parts in CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents.

R4 Part 4.1
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part

4.1

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Initial notifications and updates
shall include the following
attributes, at a minimum, to the
extent known:
4.1.1. The functional impact;
4.1.2. The attack vector used;
and
4.1.3. The level of intrusion
that was achieved or
attempted.

Measures

Examples of evidence may include, but
are not limited to, dated
documentation of initial notifications
and updates to the E-ISAC and NCCIC.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document
DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
21

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R4, Part 4.1
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
Verify the initial notifications and updates included, to the extent known at the time:
1. The functional impact;
2. The attack vector used; and
3. The level of intrusion that was achieved or attempted.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
22

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R4 Part 4.2
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part

4.2

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

After the Responsible Entity’s
determination made pursuant to
documented process(es) in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2,
provide initial notification within
the following timelines:
 One hour after the
determination of a
Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.
 By the end of the next
calendar day after
determination that a Cyber
Security Incident was an
attempt to compromise a
system identified in the
“Applicable Systems”
column for this Part.

Examples of evidence may include, but
are not limited to, dated
documentation of notices to the E-ISAC
and NCCIC.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
23

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R4, Part 4.2
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
For each Reportable Cyber Security Incident as identified pursuant to the process(es) specified in
Requirement R1, Part 1.2, verify that the initial notification was submitted to each applicable agency
within one hour after the determination of a Reportable Cyber Security Incident.
For each Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system identified in the “Applicable
Systems” column for this Part, as identified pursuant to the process specified in Requirement R1, Part
1.2, verify that the initial notification was submitted to each applicable agency by the end of the next
calendar day after a determination of a Cyber Security Incident that attempted to compromise a system
identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
24

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

R4 Part 4.3
CIP-008-6 Table R4 – Notifications and Reporting for Cyber Security Incidents
Part

4.3

Applicable Systems

High Impact BES Cyber Systems
and their associated:
 EACMS
Medium Impact BES Cyber
Systems and their associated:
 EACMS

Requirements

Measures

Provide updates, if any, within 7
calendar days of determination
of new or changed attribute
information required in Part 4.1.

Examples of evidence may include, but
are not limited to, dated
documentation of submissions to the EISAC and NCCIC.

Registered Entity Response (Required):
Compliance Narrative:
Provide a brief explanation, in your own words, of how you comply with this Requirement. References to supplied
evidence, including links to the appropriate page, are recommended.

Registered Entity Evidence (Required):
The following information is requested for each document submitted as evidence. Also, evidence submitted
should be highlighted and bookmarked, as appropriate, to identify the exact location where evidence of
compliance may be found.
Relevant
Revision
Page(s)
or
Document
or
Description of Applicability
File Name
Document Title
Version
Date
Section(s)
of Document

Audit Team Evidence Reviewed (This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority):

Compliance Assessment Approach Specific to CIP-008-6, R4, Part 4.3
This section to be completed by the Compliance Enforcement Authority
For each Reportable Cyber Security Incident and each Cyber Security Incident that attempted to
compromise a system identified in the “Applicable Systems” column for this Part, verify updates, if any,
were provided within 7 calendar days of determination of new or changed attribute information.
Auditor Notes:

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
25

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Additional Information:
Reliability Standard
The full text of CIP-008-6 may be found on the NERC Web Site (www.nerc.com) under “Program Areas &
Departments”, “Standards”, “Reliability Standards.”
In addition to the Reliability Standard, there is an applicable Implementation Plan available on the NERC Web
Site.
In addition to the Reliability Standard, there is background information available on the NERC Web Site.
Capitalized terms in the Reliability Standard refer to terms in the NERC Glossary, which may be found on the
NERC Web Site.
Sampling Methodology
Sampling is essential for auditing compliance with NERC Reliability Standards since it is not always possible or
practical to test 100% of either the equipment, documentation, or both, associated with the full suite of
enforceable standards. The Sampling Methodology Guidelines and Criteria (see NERC website), or sample
guidelines, provided by the Electric Reliability Organization help to establish a minimum sample set for
monitoring and enforcement uses in audits of NERC Reliability Standards.
Regulatory Language
See FERC Order 706
See FERC Order 791
See FERC Order 848

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
26

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Selected Glossary Terms
The following Glossary terms are provided for convenience only. Please refer to the NERC web site for the
current enforceable terms.
Cyber Security Incident
A malicious act or suspicious event that:
 For a high or medium impact BES Cyber System, compromises, or attempts to compromise, (1) an
Electronic Security Perimeter, (2) a Physical Security Perimeter, or (3) an Electronic Access Control or
Monitoring System; or
 Disrupts, or attempts to disrupt, the operation of a BES Cyber system.
Reportable Cyber Security Incident
A Cyber Security Incident that compromised or disrupted:
 A BES Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks of a functional entity;
 An Electronic Security Perimeter of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System; or
 An Electronic Access Control or Monitoring System of a high or medium impact BES Cyber System.

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
27

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet

Revision History for RSAW
Version
0
1

Date
10/12/2018
10/12/2018

Reviewers
RSAW Task Force

2
3

11/19/2018
12/11/2018

RSAW Task Force
SDT

4
5

1/11/2019
1/17/2019

RSAW Task Force
RSAW Task Force

Revision Description
New Document, based on CIP-008-5 RSAW
Revisions for CIP-008-6:
 Updated version number
 Minor text corrections
 Added EACMS to applicability for all Parts
 Modified wording for Parts 1.2, 2.2, and 2.3
 Added new R4
 Added new and revised Glossary terms
Revised for Draft 2
Removed Item 1 under the 2.2 CAA as it is not
needed. Revised 2.2 Note to Auditor. Minor text
corrections.
Revised for Draft 3 (“Final” draft)
Revised for final version as posted

DRAFT NERC Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet
Audit ID: Audit ID if available; or REG-NCRnnnnn-YYYYMMDD
RSAW Version: RSAW_CIP-008-6_Final_v5 Revision Date: January 17, 2019 RSAW Template: RSAW2018R4.0
28

Standards Announcement

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security
Incident Reporting
Final Ballot Open through January 22, 2019
Now Available

An 8-day final ballot for CIP-008-6 - Cyber Security — Incident Reporting and Response Planning is open
Tuesday, January 15, 2019 through 8 p.m. Eastern, Tuesday, January 22, 2019.
Balloting

In the final ballot, votes are counted by exception. Votes from the previous ballot are automatically carried
over in the final ballot. Only members of the applicable ballot pools can cast a vote. Ballot pool members who
previously voted have the option to change their vote in the final ballot. Ballot pool members who did not
cast a vote during the previous ballot can vote in the final ballot.
Members of the ballot pools associated with this project can log in and submit their vote here. If you
experience any difficulties using the Standards Balloting & Commenting System (SBS), contact Wendy Muller.
•

If you are having difficulty accessing the SBS due to a forgotten password, incorrect credential
error messages, or system lock-out, contact NERC IT support directly at https://support.nerc.net/
(Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern).

•

Passwords expire every 6 months and must be reset.

•

The SBS is not supported for use on mobile devices.

•

Please be mindful of ballot and comment period closing dates. We ask to allow at least 48 hours for
NERC support staff to assist with inquiries. Therefore, it is recommended that users try logging into
their SBS accounts prior to the last day of a comment/ballot period.

Next Steps

The voting results will be posted and announced after the ballot closes. If approved, the standard will be
submitted to the Board of Trustees for adoption and then filed with the appropriate regulatory authorities.
For information on the Standards Development Process, refer to the Standard Processes Manual.
For more information or assistance, contact Senior Standards Developer, Alison Oswald (via email) or at
404-446-9668.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com

ÿ7ÿÿ$1%

010210345

b8ÿ$1% '9

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ



aa97ÿ9a

&7ÿ$1'91&7%ÿ1ÿ99ÿ$1'9199%

RSTTUVÿXYZ[TVZÿÿ
()**+,ÿ.)/01ÿ034230ÿ3847ÿÿ65332ÿ69ÿ79!6ÿ67897ÿ97ÿ653328ÿ9
ÿ"ÿ7
:+,;<=ÿ>,)?,ÿ@),01ÿ414210345ÿ403828ÿ53
:+,;<=ÿA0?;0I1ÿ"
C+,)*ÿJÿ:+,0I1ÿ"40
C+,)*ÿ()**+,ÿK++*1ÿ"0L
MN+?N/1ÿ58"
MN+?N/ÿAI,)O*;IP0Bÿ@),01ÿ414210345ÿLL222ÿ53
Q0;=P,0Bÿ>0=/0<,ÿ:)*N01ÿ##25
ÿ
()**+, >0=/0<, F\\;?/),;H0 F\\;?/),;H0 .0=),;H0ÿ:+,0I .0=),;H0ÿ]?)G,;+<
>0=/0<, K++* Q0;=P, :+,0I
]?)G,;+< ^_ÿ`+//0<, ^_ÿ`+//0<,
88
3#28
42
304L
79a97 53 4
4
79a97 #
3#
"
3"
L
3L
0
2L
32"4
44
3485
79a97 #0 4
"
79a97 42 4
4L
320L
"
34#8
L
79a97 #L 4
22
3235
4"
3454
2
cÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿd9ÿL"33ÿ379ÿ
a9ÿebd77f30
11797919!16789
1"4#

.0=),;H0ÿ:+,0I
^_+ÿ`+//0<,
3

.+
FOI,);< :+,0
0
L

3

3

3

3

"

L

3

3

4

3

2

4
4104

010210345

*+,,-)
$%&'%() .--,
@9A97 2"
B
@9A97 4
#
@9A97 3
C
@9A97 4
5
@9A97 C
43
 "0D

ÿ
ÿ7ÿ
$%&'%() 23304'+)05% 23304'+)05% :%&+)06578%9ÿ
6ÿ-)
%7 :%&+)05%ÿ84+9)0-( :%&+)05%ÿ6-)%7
/%0&1) 6-)%7
84+9)0-( <=ÿ>-''%() <=ÿ>-''%()
<=-ÿ>-''%()
4
"C
3#50
43
303C
3

:2?7)+0( 6-)%
"
0

34

3

3

4

34

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

34

4

34

3

3

3

3

3

3#

#

3#

3

3

3

4

3

BB

0"C

24D4

B3

4D25

3

4D

40

EFGGHIÿKHHGÿLMLEMNO
@Pÿ Q

@9 @9

ÿ979

$%&'%() R4&+(0S+)0-(
4
Q[ÿÿQ[ÿ@9\9ÿ7
_ÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿ`9ÿD"33ÿa79ÿ
A9ÿb]`@@c30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6-)%4
]977ÿ@!

T%70&(+)%U
.4-VW

:XY>
*+,,-)
Z%'Q^^A\9
1Q
0104

010210345

$%&'%()
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

*+&,(-.,)-/(
>?997ÿÿ>?997ÿ@9A9
>?97ÿ7?7ÿ?7BCÿDD
>H@ÿÿ>I7ÿH!ÿ@9A9ÿ
>K7ÿ9ÿ9A9ÿ7
>98ÿ9ÿ9A9Cÿ67
>!7ÿ79B
77ÿ>!BÿGÿ
97ÿG7
7ÿ9ÿHN9ÿ9A9
ÿOB8ÿ78ÿHN9ÿ>!B
99ÿ79Bÿ@9A9

4

0/)%+
ÿ@ 
E!ÿF77
J99ÿ>?7
F977G9ÿD7
B7ÿL99
?ÿ@78G!
M9A7ÿ@?
EA8ÿ!8
>87ÿ>789!
E7ÿ!9A

9K9ÿONBÿ79BÿÿJ8>?97ÿ79B 9BÿO!

4
779A9ÿHN9ÿ>8?77
M??Bÿ9
O8B
4
Iÿ9ÿHN9ÿ9A9Cÿ67
7BÿMK9B
4
979H7ÿ79BÿO!7ÿ9CÿDD
E79ÿO??7
4
97ÿ9ÿHN9ÿ9A9ÿPJ!Q
J9ÿ

4
97ÿO!87ÿRÿSÿ9ÿ
T7KÿH9
4
BÿU9ÿGÿ@7G98CÿJ!
J9ÿ!B9
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿX"33ÿJ79ÿ
?9ÿYEW@@Z30
11797919!16789
1"4#

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

F9ÿ77

787
J ?K

7,88/)

79
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>7
>GG?A9

9:;<
=%'/

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>

9A9

1>

>GG?A9
1>
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9
>GG?A9

1>

1>

1>

1>

1>
"104

010210345

%&'(&)*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

+,'-)./-*.0)
9ÿ7
GHÿ79Aÿÿ7!E9ÿ79AÿE7A
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿDÿ
9JÿKL
7ÿ9ÿMJ9ÿ9F9
IA78ÿMJ9ÿ9F9
IE77ÿÿIE77ÿN7ÿMJ9
I!L9ÿ79A
87ÿ67977ÿÿH!97ÿD7ÿ87
E7A
79Aÿÿ79AÿH9F9Oÿ67
F9!9ÿ79A

97
R79AÿÿR79Aÿ7
B79F9ÿ97ÿS9

4
4
4

B9ÿ7E7ÿ7
B979ÿ@ÿ78ÿMJ9ÿEE7
B9ÿM7ÿ79AÿÿT7ÿAÿMJ9ÿ78ÿ@

4
VA8ÿP79ÿ
9JLOÿ67
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿN9ÿ$"33ÿG79ÿ
E9ÿPINHHU30
11797919!16789
1"4#

10*&,
?7ÿ@789A
I78ÿ@A78
I9EÿHEA
Aÿ!9!
9799ÿ@989
@Aÿ

@!ÿ@99
H9F97ÿGF
PF9ÿ!L9
Q!77ÿ@99
ÿH 77
?!9ÿH9F97
IF8ÿPJ97
B9ÿIF
9AÿNLE77
?E9ÿG 99
MAEÿRL

2&3.')-*&4
5,067
@!ÿB!8A

787
G EL

I!ÿU9

8-990*
CDDEF9

9F9
CDDEF9

9F9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9

:;<=
>&(0

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

CDDEF9
1C

9F9
1C
CDDEF9
1C
CDDEF9
1C
$104

010210345

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
4
>?8@!A9ÿ7799
4
6FBGHÿÿ68ÿHI9ÿD7?
4
6D9ÿ67ÿF
4

67977ÿ7D7ÿD7?ÿ>87
7
4
KB
4
OBNGÿ9ÿ9E9
4
JP978ÿ9
4
J77ÿ9ÿL?9D
4
J7ÿ678ÿHI9ÿB!?
4
JÿB799ÿF9D97ÿCÿQ9ÿ78ÿHI9
4
JI9ÿ8ÿE9ÿB!?
4
Nÿ78ÿBÿ9ÿHI9ÿ9E9
4
N7ÿ>?8
4
NBRÿHI9
4
N77PÿHI9ÿ9E9ÿ67
4
N!79ÿHI9ÿ78ÿQ9
4

Qÿ9ÿHI9ÿ9E9Tÿ67
ÿR
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿW9ÿX

"337ÿN
87ÿ9ULB
ÿ
D9ÿGFWLLQ30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0/)%+

ÿ!9
J!ÿ
97
K9!ÿLDD?
BM
N9ÿN79
98ÿ>7
Nÿ998E9
J?ÿQ
F77?ÿH!897M
9ÿR79?
C7PÿM
N9IÿJ9I
QDÿH9
NP9ÿLD
FE8ÿQ99P9?
99ÿB8
B78?ÿO!9
NPÿD9?
N9ÿK79

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

9:;<
7,88/)
=%'/
BCCDE9
1B

79

1B

9E9
1B

L979ÿ!7

BCCDE9
1B

L ÿN9
B78?ÿS!D7

9E9
BCCDE9
BCCDE9
BCCDE9

9E9

9E9
BCCDE9
BCCDE9
BCCDE9
BCCDE9
BCCDE9

9E9
BCCDE9
BCCDE9

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

2104

010210345

%&'(&)*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

+,'-)./-*.0)

9?ÿ@!ÿ@A9ÿB

9A?ÿ78ÿI9!Eÿ979

9AÿK?ÿ@A9ÿF!E

9
ÿ79EÿÿL8ÿ@A9ÿ78ÿJÿ

9ÿM!ÿ9ÿ@A9ÿ9H9
NQÿ79EÿÿN?DÿQÿ78ÿ9ÿ
NDÿ@!ÿ@A9ÿB
N@ÿÿN9ÿÿ@A9ÿD7E
@9?ÿ9E
@9ÿH9ÿ@A9ÿF!E
@
Mÿ9!9ÿÿ@!ÿI9H9ÿD7EÿGÿ
9A
M9

4
@78ÿQ979ÿ9ÿ
4
@@Jÿ9ÿR9ÿ7
4
@IQÿÿ@!ÿI9H9ÿ9ÿ78ÿQÿ
4
@!ÿREÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿGÿ97ÿ!7E
4
@!ÿREÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿGÿ@978ÿN99ÿ!7E
4
@!ÿREÿBÿ
ÿ4ÿGÿI7Dÿ!7E
4
@!9ÿI!78ÿ79ESÿ67
Tÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿV"33ÿM79ÿ
D9ÿNBUIIP30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

10*&,
CD7ÿA9E

ÿJ!
IH9ÿI7
M?9ÿN
9
O9H7ÿP9
9ÿ@E9
B!ÿ@99!?
9ÿP?!78
I ÿBA79E
MÿD7
J!9ÿPD

79ÿ!9
978ÿ!9
C9ÿID
C9GGÿOD9
O9H7ÿ7AE
J7ÿB!7
99ÿ?A?E

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

8-990*
FGGDH9

9H9

9H9

79
FGGDH9
FGGDH9
FGGDH9
FGGDH9

79
FGGDH9

9H9

:;<=
>&(0

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

FGGDH9
FGGDH9
FGGDH9

9H9
FGGDH9

9H9
FGGDH9

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F
$104

010210345

$%&'%()
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

*+&,(-.,)-/(
>?97ÿ@!7ÿABÿC
>ÿF9ÿIJ9
>799ÿ9
>EIL9
>D
Dÿÿ>!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿMÿ
>99ÿBÿP
>9?79ÿ9ÿ9F9Rÿ67
>9?ÿÿ>7ÿC9ÿMÿ78ÿ9
>@9ÿIL9ÿ9ÿ9F9
>!97ÿ?7Bÿÿ>!97ÿ?7Bÿ>9F9R
67
4
>!97ÿ6787ÿMÿ78ÿ9ÿ
4
>!7HL9ÿ9ÿIL9ÿ7
4
?ÿI!ÿA9ÿS?RÿKDT
4
977999ÿU9BÿD!B
4
>9ÿMÿ78ÿÿD7Rÿ67
4
A>ÿ!9!ÿHÿ9?7
4
K9ÿ79B
4
K997ÿD9ÿIL9ÿD8?77
Vÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿW"33ÿ@79ÿ
?9ÿXCU>>K30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0/)%+
D!ÿ>EF
>9F97ÿ
ÿK79
KB79ÿM!?7
?ÿN7OE
IL9ÿQ!
@Eÿ!
@ÿC9
I99ÿCL7
Q979ÿI9L
>9F9ÿL77
I!ÿ@9HH
G7ÿ@99
M9ÿQ!O
Bÿ>?7
8ÿGE7
D97ÿQ97
97ÿ9E7

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
G9ÿ77

C!ÿK9

7,88/)
DHH?F9
DHH?F9

9F9
DHH?F9
DHH?F9

9F9

9F9
DHH?F9
DHH?F9
DHH?F9

9:;<
=%'/

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

DHH?F9
D7
DHH?F9
DHH?F9
DHH?F9

9F9
DHH?F9
DHH?F9

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D
#104

010210345

%&'(&)*
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

+,'-)./-*.0)
? 9ÿ79@Aÿ67
E7ÿ6CH
9ÿ9@ÿ!7ÿEÿ9
Aÿ67
678997897ÿ9@ÿC@9FÿH9
6CHÿ
9Mÿ778Aÿ67
N87797ÿ6CHAÿ67
OQNÿ6797797AÿKK
C!M9ÿOM9ÿOAÿ67ÿTHU
DO
DF997ÿÿDF997ÿC9G9
DOCÿÿDW7ÿO!ÿC9G9ÿ
D98ÿ9ÿ9G9Aÿ67
D!7ÿ79@
DGÿÿDGÿ7
7ÿ9ÿOM9ÿ9G9
ÿS@8ÿ78ÿOM9ÿD!@
9R9ÿSM@ÿ79@ÿÿN8DF97ÿ79@

"
RÿSÿ7
Yÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿI9ÿZ"33ÿN79ÿ
F9ÿHBICCX30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

10*&,
B97ÿC 
8ÿI79
787ÿJ97
K978ÿL!
N9ÿO!
BG8ÿPM99
NRÿSF7
9ÿV9!7
K977ÿKF9
BG8ÿQ978
IG7ÿI
88ÿ9779
XÿBM@79ÿO97
C ÿL779@
Q99F@ÿI
S7ÿQ
B79WÿJ9F
ÿ9

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

8-990*
DEEFG9

9G9

9G9
DEEFG9

9G9
DEEFG9

9G9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9
DEEFG9

79
DEEFG9
D7

9G9

:;<=
>&(0

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

DEEFG9
1D
$104

010210345

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
779>9ÿ?@9ÿA8B77
"
97ÿ9ÿ?@9ÿ9>9ÿDE!F
"
HÿCÿIB77
"

HÿCÿM9ÿ9

0/)%+
99 ÿ98
A8BÿG99
J78ÿK7
L!77
N77Hÿ99

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

HÿP9ÿCÿQ7C98RÿE!
Oÿ?!ÿP9
9ÿ7
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿCÿ
9@ÿSO
TB77ÿÿTB77ÿ9!9Rÿ67
T!O9ÿ79H

97
I79HÿÿI79Hÿ7
I8ÿE!7ÿ?@9ÿA97H

Q ÿGB
KOÿQB9
E99ÿ9H
?99ÿS
779ÿJ@9
J99ÿQ !9
K7ÿ99
A7ÿN8B
K9ÿE U779H

"

N79>9ÿ97ÿP9

TOÿU>

"
N9ÿQH9BÿV97ÿ7
Q ÿE N!
"
N9ÿ?7ÿ79HÿÿU7ÿHÿ?@9ÿ78ÿJ K7ÿ7

Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿM9ÿX"33ÿE79ÿ
B9ÿVTMQQG30
11797919!16789
1"4#

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

9:;<
7,88/)
=%'/
ACCB>9
1A
ACCB>9
1A
A7
1A

787
E BO

ACCB>9
1A

J!ÿN!8H

787
E BO
787
E BO
T!ÿG9

ACCB>9
A7
ACCB>9
ACCB>9
ACCB>9
ACCB>9
ACCB>9
ACCB>9
ACCB>9

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

ACCB>9
1A
ACCB>9
1A
ACCB>9
1A
5104

010210345

$%&'%()
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

*+&,(-.,)-/(
>?8ÿ@79ÿ
9ABCÿ67
679I!77ÿG
LGE@ÿ9ÿ9J9
MB978ÿ9
M77ÿ9ÿN?9I
Eÿ78ÿGÿ9ÿDA9ÿ9J9
EGQÿDA9
E!79ÿDA9ÿ78ÿR9

7ÿQ8ÿSNG

9BÿD!ÿDA9ÿK

9AÿTBÿDA9ÿG!?

N!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿD!ÿN9J9ÿ

9ÿE!ÿ9ÿDA9ÿ9J9

Rÿ9ÿDA9ÿ9J9Cÿ67
@ ÿS?ÿN9J9

0/)%+
D!ÿEF9AB
KJ8ÿE9
98ÿ>I9
Dÿ8?
O7ÿPB
N997ÿD!9
9ÿ78
N9ÿN9IB9
7ÿN77
7?ÿ889I7
KJ8ÿJ9
KI?ÿF??!B
NB?9ÿR9I77
O7ÿNB9?

9J9ÿA97

"
@Qÿ79?ÿÿ@BIÿQÿ78ÿ9ÿ
"
@IÿD!ÿDA9ÿK
"
@Dÿÿ@9ÿÿDA9ÿI7?
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿW"33ÿE79ÿ
I9ÿ@KVNNR30

K78ÿ>J9
G7ÿNI
R978ÿ@7

11797919!16789
1"4#

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
@7ÿD79

N ÿE9

787
E IB

7,88/)
GHHIJ9

79
GHHIJ9
GHHIJ9
GHHIJ9
GHHIJ9
GHHIJ9

9J9
GHHIJ9
GHHIJ9

9J9

9J9
GHHIJ9
GHHIJ9
GHHIJ9

9:;<
=%'/

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

GHHIJ9
1G
GHHIJ9
1G
GHHIJ9
1G
43104

010210345

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
>?97ÿ@!7ÿA9
"
H9ÿG9ÿH?9ÿE!D
"
H
@ÿ9!9ÿÿH!ÿJ9G9ÿB7DÿFÿ
9?
@9

"
H78ÿK979ÿ9ÿ
"
HHCÿÿC!G9ÿKÿ78ÿ9ÿ
"
HJKÿÿH!ÿJ9G9ÿ9ÿ78ÿKÿ
"
H!ÿADÿLÿ
ÿ4ÿFÿ97ÿ!7D
"
H!9ÿJ!78ÿ79DNÿ67
"
!9F8ÿ@
"
JB97ÿ@!7ÿADÿL
"
JÿG9ÿHR9
"
J799ÿ9
"
JE
EÿÿJ!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿKÿ
"
J99ÿDÿC
"
J9B79ÿ9ÿ9G9Nÿ67
"
J9BÿÿJ7ÿL9ÿKÿ78ÿ9
"
J@9ÿH?9ÿ9ÿ9G9
"
J7ÿV9DÿH?9ÿÿDÿFÿJ7ÿ
Wÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿX"33ÿ@79ÿ
B9ÿ>LVJJO30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0/)%+
BÿCD7
I9FFÿC78
CD77ÿK897
L7ÿM79
I9ÿ97B
IB9ÿ@9D9
ID9ÿK!78D
BÿOBP
BÿQ9

9ÿC79D
9ÿS78TP
IB9ÿH7
J ÿHP9
!7ÿ7
IB9ÿU!97
89ÿJG
I9FFÿ
9
Vÿ88

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

I9ÿ77

I9FFÿI77

9:;<
7,88/)
=%'/
EFFBG9
1E
EFFBG9
1E

9G9
1E
EFFBG9
EFFBG9
EFFBG9

9G9
EFFBG9

79
EFFBG9
EFFBG9

9G9

9G9

9G9

9G9
EFFBG9
EFFBG9
EFFBG9

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E

1E
44104

010210345

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
"
>7?ÿ!7@ÿABCÿ
ÿ4
"
>!97ÿ?7@ÿÿF?ÿAG9ÿ?7@
"
>!97ÿ6787ÿKÿ78ÿ9ÿ
"
?ÿA!ÿB9ÿM?NÿOFP
"
Rÿÿ?ÿ9ÿ
"
977999ÿS9@ÿF!@
"
>9ÿKÿ78ÿÿF7Nÿ67
"
Oÿ79@ÿK!Nÿ67
"
O9ÿ79@
"
T 9ÿ79@Nÿ67
U
F7ÿ79@ÿ7ÿ>9E9Nÿ67
U
F?97ÿA!ÿAG9ÿF7
U
FI7ÿ9ÿ9E9ÿ7
U
F!7ÿ79@
U
@ÿB9ÿJÿ>7J98NÿQ!
U
Q>ÿ79@ÿÿ7!?9ÿ79@ÿ?7@
U
L79@ÿÿL79@ÿ7
U
L8ÿQ!7ÿAG9ÿF97@
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿS9ÿU"33ÿQ79ÿ
?9ÿRCS>>O30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0/)%+
D@ÿ79@
H9ÿC9?GI
L98ÿL989I
QÿC787
78ÿC79@
67ÿK7
H799ÿQÿK
?ÿ9979
@7ÿ
Q9ÿ68
V@ÿD9I9
HIÿ7
F9ÿO
9ÿO99I9
H7ÿF97
99ÿQ79W
F!9@ÿ>
ÿ77

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

C!ÿO9

787
Q ?I

7,88/)

9E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9

79
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9

79
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9

9E9
FJJ?E9
FJJ?E9

9:;<
=%'/

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F

1F
40104

010210345

$%&'%()
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

*+&,(-.,)-/(
?9ÿ@A9BÿC97ÿ7
G?97
H?ÿ79AÿÿH87ÿ?ÿ78ÿ9ÿ
H89ÿ67ÿJ

7ÿ!ÿ9ÿ9F9ÿD7
K!ÿNAÿJÿ
ÿ4ÿEÿ@7Bÿ!7A
@B97ÿH!7ÿNAÿJ
@99ÿAÿG
NAÿ@9F9Pÿ67

>
Qÿ79Aÿ?!Pÿ67
2
DK
2
DB997ÿÿDB997ÿH!
2
DK@ÿÿDS7ÿK!ÿ@9F9ÿ
2
DL7ÿ9ÿ9F9ÿ7
2
D!7ÿ79A
2
DFÿÿDFÿ7
2
7ÿ9ÿKM9ÿ9F9
2
ÿOA8ÿ78ÿKM9ÿD!A
Uÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿV9ÿ>"33ÿH79ÿ
B9ÿCJV@@Q30
11797919!16789
1"4#

0/)%+
D789ÿA
8ÿB9!

I9ÿJ9K9
@979ÿL9
AÿGM7
I7ÿH797
9ÿ79
OÿG
7ÿF7
H797
H9Mÿ9E!
BÿRS
@BÿJMA9
T9ÿA
H9ÿO
@9AÿH9M
?97ÿRB9
HL9ÿTE
O997ÿOB7
O87

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

I9ÿ77

7,88/)
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9

9F9
DEEBF9

9F9
DEEBF9

9:;<
=%'/

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
DEEBF9
D7

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D

1D
4"104

010210345

%&'(&)* +,'-)./-*.0)
2
9?9ÿ@ABÿÿ
Cÿ79B
2
?ÿ@ÿ7
2
9D!7ÿ67ÿKÿÿL!?BÿM9?ÿMA9
M7ÿMN9
2
779E9ÿMA9ÿG8J77
2
AÿH9797ÿLJ98ÿM79QÿLLLM
2
BÿP9QÿLÿ78ÿMA9ÿIÿF7I98Qÿ6L
2
9ÿ7
2
OFÿ79Bÿÿ7!J9ÿ79BÿJ7B
2
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿIÿ
9AÿR?
2
ASÿ!7BÿMTK
2
KB78ÿMA9ÿ9E9
2
KJ77ÿÿKJ77ÿ9!9Qÿ67
2
Kÿ79BÿÿK9ÿ87ÿJ7B
2
K!?9ÿ79B
2
87ÿ67977ÿÿF!97ÿI7ÿ87
J7B
2
KMÿ979A9ÿ
ÿGJ9ÿLL
2

97
9Bÿ7ÿ9W
7
BÿF!7 0
Xÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿC9ÿ$W
"337
ÿO
ÿ

J99ÿUKCFFP3
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

10*&,
D9E7ÿF!B
H99ÿ
O?9ÿD!?
F ÿP779
ÿP7
F9E9ÿ9
F979ÿ@!IIJ7
KE8ÿH9B99
PJÿP79
K977ÿ7
JJBÿK9
L!ÿU9?
V9II9BÿK9M9
K9ÿH8A79
F9979ÿP
@99ÿO7
!ÿO9
9ÿLB

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

L!ÿH!8B
K79ÿC9

:;<=
8-990*
>&(0

9E9
1G
GIIJE9
1G

9E9
1G
GIIJE9
GIIJE9
GIIJE9
GIIJE9

9E9
GIIJE9
G7
GIIJE9
GIIJE9
GIIJE9
GIIJE9
GIIJE9

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

1G

GIIJE9
1G
GIIJE9
1G
GIIJE9
1G

4$104

010210345

$%&'%() *+&,(-.,)-/(
2
>8ÿ?!7ÿ@A9ÿB97C
D9ÿ@7ÿ79CÿÿI7ÿCÿ@A9ÿ78ÿJ

2
D9ÿH9ÿ79C
2
K9ÿN C!97
2
KC8O!P9ÿ@8!7
2
6E9ÿ67ÿM
2
QB
2
JF978ÿ9
2
J77ÿ9ÿNC9E
2
JÿB799ÿM9E97ÿGÿL9ÿ78ÿ@A9
2
JA9ÿ8ÿH9ÿB!C
2
?!9ÿ?!7ÿL99ÿ9
E7C
2
?BDÿ@A9
2

7ÿD8ÿVNB
2

!79ÿVNBWÿJJ
2

ÿ@A9ÿ7
2

9Fÿ@!ÿ@A9ÿM
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿY9ÿZ"33ÿ?79ÿ
E9ÿ[MYNNL30
2

11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0/)%+
ÿDA89
K8ÿLC9

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56
787
? EF
M!ÿL9

@97ÿL
K9ÿN C!97
Q!7RÿSE!
7ÿTU
Q7ÿF
QEÿKA8
IC9ÿLF97
D977ÿC
99ÿ7A9
MH8ÿD87
N9H97ÿD9
U9ÿNHF
ÿNE
J!ÿ? J98
M7ÿN E

N ÿ?9

9:;<
7,88/)
=%'/
BGGEH9
1B
BGGEH9
1B
BGGEH9
BGGEH9
BGGEH9

9H9

9H9

9H9
BGGEH9
BGGEH9
BGGEH9

9H9

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B

BGGEH9
BGGEH9
BGGEH9
B7
BGGEH9

1B

1B

1B

1B

1B
42104

010210345

%&'(&)*
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

+,'-)./-*.0)

9?ÿ@AÿB?9ÿC!D

Hÿÿ
Hÿ79DIÿ67
MHÿ79DÿÿMALÿHÿ78ÿ9ÿ
M99ÿB?9ÿ7
MLÿB!ÿB?9ÿO
M7ÿB?9ÿH9797ÿ67
MBÿÿM9ÿÿB?9ÿL7D
B9ÿF9ÿB?9ÿC!D
B78ÿH979ÿ9ÿ
BBJÿÿJ!F9ÿHÿ78ÿ9ÿ

2
2
2
2

BEHÿÿBEHÿTÿJJ
B!ÿRDÿOÿ
ÿ4ÿKÿ97ÿ!7D
B!ÿRDÿOÿ
ÿ4ÿKÿE7Lÿ!7D
B!ÿRDÿOÿ
ÿ0ÿKÿH7ÿ!7DI
N77
2
B!9ÿE!78ÿ79DIÿ67
2
EL97ÿQ!7ÿRDÿO
2
EÿF9ÿBV9
ÿ79ÿ
L9ÿMOXEEN30
Wÿ03425ÿÿ
ÿX9ÿYE
"3739ÿ9Q
11797919!16789
1"4#

10*&,
EFGÿ
BÿJD7
BAÿN9
O77ÿP77
QL8ÿEK
777ÿ9!
9ÿP
D7ÿC9
D7ÿM7
PRJ6
SMEC
O
LÿU!9D
Q97ÿ779
ELÿ
9K98
C9
ÿ@
97ÿ?D
E!7ÿM
U9F7ÿ
997
LLDÿ!

2&3.')-*&4
5,067

P9ÿ77

8-990*

9F9
CKKLF9
CKKLF9
CKKLF9
CKKLF9

9F9
CKKLF9
CKKLF9
CKKLF9
CKKLF9

:;<=
>&(0

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

CKKLF9

9F9

9F9
CKKLF9

1C

1C

1C

1C

CKKLF9
CKKLF9
CKKLF9

9F9

1C

1C

1C

1C

4$104

010210345

$%&'%()
2
2
2
2

*+&,(-.,)-/(
>?
?ÿÿ>!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿ@ÿ
>9Dÿÿ>7ÿF9ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9
>7ÿJ9AÿKL9ÿÿAÿCÿ>7ÿ
>!97ÿD7Aÿÿ>!97ÿD7A
@9797
2
>!97ÿ6787ÿ@ÿ78ÿ9ÿ
2
DÿK!ÿP9ÿQDRÿM?S
2
977999ÿJ9Aÿ?!A
2
>9ÿ@ÿ78ÿÿ?7Rÿ67
2
P>ÿ!9!ÿCÿ9D7
2
Jÿ79A
2
Mÿ79Aÿ@!Rÿ67
2
M9ÿ79A
2
V 9ÿ79ARÿ67
W
?D997ÿÿ?D997ÿ>9E9
W
?K>ÿÿ?N7ÿK!ÿ>9E9ÿ
W
?H7ÿ9ÿ9E9ÿ7
W
?98ÿ9ÿ9E9Rÿ67
W
9H9ÿBLAÿÿKC
Yÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿJ9ÿZ"33ÿO79ÿ
D9ÿTFJ>>M30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0/)%+
?AÿB!8
F79ÿG7H
>78ÿK9
MDÿFÿ>!N

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

7,88/)
?CCDE9
?789AÿIDE ?7

79
?CCDE9

OHÿO F78
TN7ÿG97
OÿU99ÿD
8ÿ> D77
M978Aÿ979
F7ÿ99D9A9
U78ÿB7
F99HÿL7
F!ÿM9
@9AÿB!
9ÿX!7E7
798!ÿT 7
!9ÿMH!
7ÿ? H9D77
>78ÿ>CC9

?CCDE9
?CCDE9
?CCDE9
?CCDE9

9E9
?7
?CCDE9
?CCDE9
?CCDE9
?CCDE9
?CCDE9
?CCDE9
?CCDE9

9E9

9:;<
=%'/

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?

1?
4#104

010210345

%&'(&)*
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

+,'-)./-*.0)
@ÿAÿ7
779F9ÿGH9ÿC8E77
9ÿ7
7ÿ8ÿÿ7898ÿ87ÿÿDÿ
9HÿM@
OE77ÿÿOE77ÿ9!9Pÿ67
O!@9ÿ79J
87ÿ67977ÿÿB!97ÿD7ÿ87
E7J
79J

97
T79JÿÿT79JÿB!7
T8ÿI!7ÿGH9ÿC97J

2&3.')-*&4
10*&,
5,067
ÿB 9
C789HÿI9J9
9ÿA@
K!ÿL!8J
9ÿNF99
B97ÿ8@7
L9ÿ9
Q97JÿB999

R!9ÿA
9@JÿS9
C77ÿ6F7
8ÿI7E9J 787
I E@
?
T8ÿI!7ÿGH9ÿG
Eÿ998J
787
I E@
?
L9ÿG7ÿ79JÿÿQ7ÿJÿGH9ÿ78ÿK R977D9
O!ÿS9

T789E9J9
?
6E9ÿ67ÿO
O7ÿ9
?
K@978ÿ9
G!ÿB
?
K77ÿ9ÿBJ9E
ÿ!@E
Vÿ034?5ÿÿ
ÿU9ÿWK"3ÿ3C7
ÿI
9ÿ

ÿNOUBBS3
0H9
997ÿO9
E9
E9
7ÿDÿS9ÿ78ÿG
C77ÿU!
11797919!16789
1"4#

8-990*
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9

:;<=
>&(0

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9

1C

1C

1C

1C

CDDEF9
1C
CDDEF9
1C

9F9
CDDEF9
CDDEF9

79

1C

1C

1C

1C

4$104

010210345

$%&'%()
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

*+&,(-.,)-/(
?!@77ÿÿ?!@77ÿ79A
D7ÿEA8
D89ÿ67ÿI
D!79ÿLM9ÿ78ÿN9

9MÿPFÿLM9ÿC!A

O!9ÿÿ
97ÿ6787ÿL!ÿO9H9ÿ

97ÿG7ÿLM9ÿC97A

Sÿÿ
Sÿ79ATÿ67
QSÿ79AÿÿQF@ÿSÿ78ÿ9ÿ
L9ÿH9ÿLM9ÿC!A
L78ÿS979ÿ9ÿ
LM99
ÿ7
LL?ÿÿ?!H9ÿSÿ78ÿ9ÿ
LOSÿÿLOSÿ79Aÿ9!9ÿ78ÿ89ÿ??
L!ÿVAÿIÿ
ÿ4ÿGÿ97ÿ!7A
L!ÿVAÿIÿ
ÿ0ÿGÿS7ÿ!7AT
N77
>
O@97ÿD!7ÿVAÿI
>
OÿH9ÿLW9
Xÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿY9ÿZ"33ÿD79ÿ
@9ÿQIYOON30
11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

1%2-&(,)%3
0/)%+
4+/56
Bÿ!9
ÿD!F7F
J@9ÿD K
9799ÿB79
A7ÿO9F
@ÿOH7
J9ÿQR97
I977ÿO@9
D7ÿO8
O7ÿA
O7ÿDU
I79ÿD7
S87ÿI7DF
?77ÿQ9F9
?!ÿ99
IHÿJ9!
?9AÿL97

7,88/)
C7
CGG@H9
CGG@H9

9H9

9H9

9H9
C7
CGG@H9
CGG@H9
CGG@H9
CGG@H9
C7
CGG@H9
CGG@H9

9H9
CGG@H9

J@9ÿ!
AÿQ97

CGG@H9
1C
CGG@H9
1C

J9ÿ77

9:;<
=%'/

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

45104

010210345

$%&'%()
>
>
>
>
>
>

*+&,(-.,)-/(
?799ÿ9
?C
Cÿÿ?!ÿ7ÿ9ÿ78ÿDÿ
?99ÿIÿJ
?9G79ÿ9ÿ9B9Kÿ67
?7Gÿ!7IÿMNOÿ
ÿ4
?!97ÿG7Iÿÿ?!97ÿG7I
D9797ÿ78ÿ79Iÿ@L97
>
?!97ÿ6787ÿDÿ78ÿ9ÿ
>
GÿM!ÿN9ÿPGKÿQCR
>
977999ÿS9IÿC!I
>
Qÿ79IÿD!Kÿ67
>
Q9ÿ79I
>
Q997ÿC9ÿMA9ÿC8G77
>
V 9ÿ79IKÿ67
#
J!G77ÿ@77ÿG7IÿJJ
5
GG7A9ÿHÿ@!9ÿO9G97ÿH
M!ÿN9
43
F8ÿ9Iÿ877ÿ!7
43
@8A9ÿ9IÿX7W7
Lÿ?
ÿ9G9
ÿXOS??Q3
Iÿ!7 0
Zÿ03453ÿÿ
ÿS9ÿ[
9
"3Aÿ
3Yÿ@
799ÿ

11797919!16789
1"4#

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

0/)%+
@9ÿA7
E7ÿFG
9ÿF99G7
!8Iÿ
BL
F7L7ÿJ!
E977H9ÿ?IL9
8ÿJ9G99
LÿC99
@T9ÿM7
OB8ÿUAI
D7ÿQL97
9ÿF!
9ÿO
7
CG78ÿFW9
O78ÿ
97
M99ÿU98
!9ÿ@!7TI
CJC
ÿCOC@?X

1%2-&(,)%3
4+/56

O!ÿQ9

7,88/)

9B9
CHHGB9

9B9

9B9

9B9
CHHGB9

9:;<
=%'/

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

79
CHHGB9
CHHGB9
CHHGB9
CHHGB9
CHHGB9
CHHGB9

9B9
CHHGB9

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

1C

CHHGB9
1C
CHHGB9
1C
CHHGB9
1C

03104

010210345

*+,-+./
43
43
43
43
43

6789
ÿÿ
ÿ7ÿ

01,2.342/35.

9ÿ(%9ÿ877ÿ!7
9EJ
$ÿ9Eÿ7
9
ÿ9Eÿ7ENÿ67
O997ÿ9Eÿ877ÿ!7

$%7ÿ4ÿÿ"0&ÿ'ÿ"0&ÿ979

Pÿ0345ÿÿ
ÿF9ÿ&"33ÿQ79ÿ
I9ÿRMF$$O30
11797919!16789
1"4#

65/+1
D!EÿFÿG
H77EÿK7L
M9%ÿ$!
9ÿE79
$9)97ÿ!9L9

7+83,.2/+9
:15;<

=2>>5/
H''I)9
H7
H''I)9
H''I)9
H''I)9

?@AB
C+-5

1H

1H

1H

1H

1H

(9)! 4
9


04104

Exhibit I
Standard Drafting Team Roster

Standard Drafting Team Roster

Project 2018-02 Modifications to CIP-008 Cyber Security Incident
Reporting
Name

Entity

Chair

Dave Rosenthal

MISO

Vice Chair

Kristine Martz

Exelon

Members

Katherine Anagnost

Minnkota Power

Steve Brain

Dominion Energy

John Breckenridge

Kansas City Power & Light Co; Westar Energy,
Evergy companies

Norm Dang

Independent Electricity System Operator of
Ontario

John Gasstrom

Georgia System Operations Corporation

Tony Hall

LG&E and KU Energy

Ian King

Xcel Energy

Sharon Koller

American Transmisison Company, LLC

Jennifer Korenblatt

PJM Interconnection

Tina Weyand

EDP Renewables

Colby Bellville

Duke Energy

Amy Casuscelli

Xcel Energy

Alison Oswald – Senior Standards
Developer

North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Marisa Hecht – Counsel

North American Electric Reliability Corporation

PMOS Liaisons

NERC Staff