October 29-31, 2008 Jim Marshall , Utah State University Research Foundation

1. CyberSMARTScenario Modeling And Reporting Tool Technologies for Critical Incident Preparedness Conference 2008 October 29-31, 2008 Jim Marshall, Utah State University Research Foundation Ernest Drew, Dennis McGrath, Norwich University Applied Research Institutes Chris Fogle, Delta Risk

2. Acknowledgments • The development team would like to thank the following individuals for their support of the project: • Douglas Maughan, PhD/DHS Science & Technology Directorate • Glenn Fiedelholtz, Annabelle Lee/DHS National Cyber Security Division • John Foti, Tracy Carruth, Scott Keifer, Bridgette Spencer Walsh/Booz Allen Hamilton • Tim Guerriero and the Massachusetts “Mass Panic” Exercise Team • Contract No. NBCHC060088 • The underlying concepts presented today are protected under patents or other means by the team members.

3. Who we are …

4. Team Experience • Livewire/DHS • TOPOFF/National Exercise Program • Bulwark Defender/Air Force • State, Regional, and Local Exercises • International Exercises

5. Why CyberSMART?

6. CyberStorm II: National Level Exercise • Conducted March 10-14, 2008 in Washington, DC by DHS National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) • $6.4M Budget • Five Countries • 18 Federal Departments and Agencies • 40+ Private Sector Companies • 1,800 Detailed Scenario Events (“injects”)

7. Cyber Exercises

8. Cyber Exercise Challenges • Participation is voluntary; players may withdraw if their expectations aren’t being met. • Player perception of risk: • Security breaches • Embarrassment • Return on investment • For the players to find the exercise credible, (1) the scenario must be true to life and (2) the events should not contradict each other. • Events should proceed at a pace that engages each player without overwhelming him. • The flow of events must not overwhelm the control team. • The scenarios are complex, the events themselves may not be observable to some of the participants, the problem chains are often non-intuitive.

9. Discussion-Based Exercises Seminars Workshops Tabletop Exercises (TTX) Games Operations-Based Exercises Drills Functional Exercises Full-Scale Exercises …involves mobilization and response Exercise Types CyberSMART is suitable for both types of exercises.

10. CyberSMART Scope CyberSMART Scenario Validation Initial Decision Exercise Objectives MSEL Exercise Execution After Action Analysis Scenario Development Exercise Inputs Example: Needs Assess-ment Ground Truth Gamespace Definition Game Space Scenario Planning

11. How Does CyberSMART Work?

12. Approach The CyberSMART Methodology Aligns to HSEEP Milestones and is Organized according to Three Parallel and Iterative Planning Tracks

13. Features • Developed tool around the scenario design concepts outlined above • Web-based tool that can be used by a distributed team • Users can query, edit, save their own scenarios • Participant data is segregated within the system, access based on user roles and authentication • Validation/visualization tools allow users to view scenarios and timelines as they develop, check for inconsistencies, etc.

14. Planning View and Data View The Planning View guides users through the planning process. The Data View focuses on objectives, gamespace, and scenario. Data View: Organized Functionally Planning View: Organized Chronologically

15. CyberSMART Testing & Deployment

16. Beta Testing • Vermont State-Level Exercise, December 2007 • NCSD Support Contractor Focus Group, December 2007 • Massachusetts “Mass Panic” State-Level Exercise, May 2008

17. CyberSMART Hosting • CyberSMART is currently hosted on a server at Utah State University • Planned for hosting on FEMA’s Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation (HSEEP) Toolkit website • At FEMA’s request, the team drafted an annex to the HSEEP guidance documents titled “Cyber Exercises” • Currently at FEMA in draft status

18. Contact Information Jim Marshall Space Dynamics Laboratory Utah State University (435) 797-4725 jim.marshall@sdl.usu.edu