Request
1. Do you have a formal IT security strategy? (Please provide a link to the strategy)
A) Yes
B) No
2. Does this strategy specifically address the monitoring of network attached device configurations to identify any malicious or non-malicious change to the device configuration?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Don’t know
3. If yes to Question 2, how do you manage this identification process – is it:
A) Totally automated – all configuration changes are identified and flagged without manual intervention.
B) Semi-automated – it’s a mixture of manual processes and tools that help track and identify configuration changes.
C) Mainly manual – most elements of the identification of configuration changes are manual.
4. Have you ever encountered a situation where user services have been disrupted due to an accidental/non malicious change that had been made to a device configuration?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Don’t know
5. If a piece of malware was maliciously uploaded to a device on your network, how quickly do you think it would be identified and isolated?
A) Immediately
B) Within days
C) Within weeks
D) Not sure
6. How many devices do you have attached to your network that require monitoring?
A) Physical Servers: record number
B) PC’s & Notebooks: record number
7. Have you ever discovered devices attached to the network that you weren’t previously aware of?
A) Yes
B) No
If yes, how do you manage this identification process – is it:
A) Totally automated – all device configuration changes are identified and flagged without manual intervention.
B) Semi-automated – it’s a mixture of manual processes and tools that help track and identify unplanned device configuration changes.
C) Mainly manual – most elements of the identification of unexpected device configuration changes are manual.
8. How many physical devices (IP’s) do you have attached to your network that require monitoring for configuration vulnerabilities?
Record Number:
9. Have you suffered any external security attacks that have used malware on a network attached device to help breach your security measures?
A) Never
B) Not in the last 1-12 months
C) Not in the last 12-36 months
10. Have you ever experienced service disruption to users due to an accidental, non-malicious change being made to device configurations?
A) Never
B) Not in the last 1-12 months
C) Not in the last 12-36 months
11. When a scheduled audit takes place for the likes of PSN or Cyber Essentials, how likely are you to get significant numbers of audit fails relating to the status of the IT infrastructure?
A) Never
B) Occasionally
C) Frequently
D) Always
Outcome
Some information held.
Response
1. Do you have a formal IT security strategy?
Yes.
(Please provide a link to the strategy)
Disclosing information specific to our IT Security Strategy may reveal information that would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is exempt under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act.
2. Does this strategy specifically address the monitoring of network attached device configurations to identify any malicious or non-malicious change to the device configuration?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Don’t know
Disclosing information specific to our IT Security Strategy may reveal information that would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is exempt under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act.
3. If yes to Question 2, how do you manage this identification process – is it:
A) Totally automated – all configuration changes are identified and flagged without manual intervention.
B) Semi-automated – it’s a mixture of manual processes and tools that help track and identify configuration changes.
C) Mainly manual – most elements of the identification of configuration changes are manual.
Disclosing information specific to our IT security stance, processes and actions may reveal information that would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is exempt under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act.
4. Have you ever encountered a situation where user services have been disrupted due to an accidental/non malicious change that had been made to a device configuration?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Don’t know
The National Archives can confirm it holds information relating to all user service disruption including any that may have been caused by accidental/non malicious change to a device configuration.
5. If a piece of malware was maliciously uploaded to a device on your network, how quickly do you think it would be identified and isolated?
A) Immediately
B) Within days
C) Within weeks
D) Not sure
Disclosing information specific to our IT security stance, processes and actions may reveal information that would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is exempt under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act.
6. How many devices do you have attached to your network that require monitoring?
A) Physical Servers: record number
B) PC’s & Notebooks: record number
Disclosing information specific to our network may reveal information that would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is exempt under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act.
7. Have you ever discovered devices attached to the network that you weren’t previously aware of?
A) Yes
B) No
If yes, how do you manage this identification process – is it:
A) Totally automated – all device configuration changes are identified and flagged without manual intervention.
B) Semi-automated – it’s a mixture of manual processes and tools that help track and identify unplanned device configuration changes.
C) Mainly manual – most elements of the identification of unexpected device configuration changes are manual.
Disclosing information specific to our network may reveal information that would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is exempt under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act.
8. How many physical devices (IP’s) do you have attached to your network that require monitoring for configuration vulnerabilities?
Record Number:
Disclosing information specific to our network may reveal information that would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and is exempt under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act.
9. Have you suffered any external security attacks that have used malware on a network attached device to help breach your security measures?
A) Never
B) Not in the last 1-12 months
C) Not in the last 12-36 months
The National Archives can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information in respect to this question by virtue of Section 31 (3) Law Enforcement of the FOI Act (please see the end of document for an explanation of the neither confirm nor deny exemptions applied).
10. Have you ever experienced service disruption to users due to an accidental, non-malicious change being made to device configurations?
A) Never
B) Not in the last 1-12 months
C) Not in the last 12-36 months
See the answer to Question 4.
11. When a scheduled audit takes place for the likes of PSN or Cyber Essentials, how likely are you to get significant numbers of audit fails relating to the status of the IT infrastructure?
A) Never
B) Occasionally
C) Frequently
D) Always
The National Archives can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information in respect to this question by virtue of Section 31 (3) Law Enforcement of the FOI Act (please see the end of document for an explanation of the neither confirm nor deny exemptions applied).
EXPLANATORY ANNEX
Exemptions applied:
Section 31(1)(a): Law Enforcement: Prevention or detection of crime
We are unable to provide you with information in respect to questions 1-3 & 5-8 because this information is exempt from disclosure under section 31 (1) (a) of the FOI Act. Section 31 (1) (a) exempts information if its disclosure is likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.
Section 31 is a qualified exemption and we are required to conduct a public interest test when applying any qualified exemption. This means that after it has been decided that the exemption is engaged, the public interest in releasing the information must be considered. If the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in withholding it then the exemption does not apply and the information must be released. In the FOI Act there is a presumption that information should be released unless there are compelling reasons to withhold it.
The public interest has now been concluded and the balance of the public interest has been found to fall in favour of withholding information covered by the section 31 (1) (a) exemption. Considerations in favour of the release of the information included the principle that there is a public interest in transparency and accountability in disclosing information about government procedure and contracts. However, release of this information would make The National Archives more vulnerable to crime. The crime in question here would be a malicious attack on The National Archives’ computer systems. As such release of this information would be seen to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime by making The National Archives’ computer system more vulnerable to hacking. There is an overwhelming public interest in keeping government computer systems secure which would be served by non-disclosure. This would outweigh any benefits of release. It has therefore been decided that the balance of the public interest lies clearly in favour of withholding the material on this occasion.
Section 31(3): Law Enforcement: Duty to confirm or deny
Section 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act requires a public authority to inform a requester whether it holds information specified in the request. This is known as the ‘duty to confirm or deny’. In most cases, a public authority will be able to comply with its duty to confirm or deny under section 1 (1) (a) – in other words, it will be able to respond to a request by at least informing the requester whether or not it holds the information. In most cases where information is held, a public authority will go on to consider whether information should be provided under section 1 (1) (b) or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of the Act. However, there may be occasions when complying with the duty to confirm or deny under section 1 (1) (a) would in itself disclose sensitive or potentially damaging information that falls under an exemption. In these circumstances, the Act allows a public authority to respond by refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. This is called a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) response.
The National Archives can neither confirm nor deny, that it holds information in respect to questions 9 and 11, as the duty in section 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of section 31 (3) Law Enforcement.
Section 31 is a qualified exemption and we are required to conduct a public interest test when applying any qualified exemption. This means that after it has been decided that the exemption is engaged, the public interest in releasing the information must be considered. If the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in withholding it then the exemption does not apply and the information must be released. In the FOI Act there is a presumption that information should be released unless there are compelling reasons to withhold it.
The public interest has now been concluded and the balance of the public interest has been found to fall in favour of confirming an NCND response for information covered by the section 31(3) exemption. Considerations in favour of confirming/denying that the requested information is held included the principle that there is a public interest in transparency and accountability in disclosing information about government procedure and contracts. However, such a confirmation or denial would make The National Archives more vulnerable to crime. The crime in question here would be a malicious attack on The National Archives’ computer systems. Such an action would be seen to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime by making The National Archives’ computer systems more vulnerable to hacking. There is an overwhelming public interest in keeping government computer systems secure. It has therefore been decided that the balance of the public interest lies clearly in favour of not confirming whether or not the requested information is held.
Further guidance on section 31 can be found here:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1207/law-enforcement-foi-section-31.pdf.