# Cybersecurity Risk Assessment for Government
Government organizations operate under a distinct set of pressures that make cybersecurity risk assessment both more complex and more consequential than in most private-sector contexts. They hold sensitive citizen data, administer critical infrastructure, execute national security functions, and must satisfy overlapping statutory and regulatory obligations simultaneously. A cybersecurity risk assessment for government is a structured, repeatable process that identifies, measures, and prioritizes cyber risks specific to the public sector operating environment, and maps those risks to governance obligations, threat intelligence, and operational continuity requirements. Without this kind of sector-specific assessment, agencies default to generic frameworks that miss the political, legal, and mission-critical dimensions that define government risk exposure. The goal is not compliance theater; it is actionable risk intelligence that decision-makers can act on.
---
A cybersecurity risk assessment for government is a formal analytical process that identifies assets critical to public-sector mission delivery, enumerates credible threats targeting those assets, evaluates existing controls against known vulnerability classes, calculates risk exposure using quantitative or semi-quantitative methods, and produces a prioritized remediation and risk-acceptance record aligned to applicable regulatory frameworks.
This definition distinguishes government risk assessment from several adjacent concepts. A general IT risk assessment evaluates technology risk without accounting for sovereignty, classified data handling, or statutory risk-acceptance authority. A compliance audit verifies whether specific controls are in place; it does not measure residual risk or mission impact. A penetration test reveals exploitable vulnerabilities but does not contextualize them within an organizational risk tolerance or a regulatory obligation. A business continuity plan addresses recovery from disruptions but does not assess the likelihood or source of those disruptions in a structured way.
Government risk assessment is also not a one-time deliverable. Treating it as a project with an end date is one of the most common and damaging errors agencies make. Risk in the government sector evolves continuously: threat actors shift tactics, legacy systems accumulate new exposures, and regulatory requirements update on legislative cycles. The assessment must be designed as a perpetual monitoring capability rather than a periodic report.
Variants of this assessment type include: agency-wide enterprise risk assessments, system-level assessments tied to Authorization to Operate (ATO) processes under the Risk Management Framework (RMF), supply chain risk assessments focused on third-party vendors providing critical services, and sector-specific assessments for government-operated utilities, transportation systems, or healthcare agencies. Each variant shares a common methodological spine but differs in scope, data sources, and the regulatory standards it must satisfy.
---
The mechanics of a government cybersecurity risk assessment follow a structured sequence. Each phase builds on the last, and skipping or compressing any phase produces gaps that undermine the validity of the final risk picture.
Phase 1: Scoping and Asset Inventory
The process begins by defining the assessment boundary. For a federal agency, this might encompass all systems covered under a specific FISMA system boundary. For a state government, it might include all systems processing personally identifiable information (PII) under state privacy statutes. The scoping decision determines what threat actors are relevant, what data classification levels apply, and which regulatory frameworks govern risk acceptance.
Asset inventory in the government context must capture hardware, software, data repositories, personnel roles, third-party connections, and operational technology where applicable. A county government running supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems for water treatment has a fundamentally different asset profile than a federal benefits administration office. The inventory must reflect that difference.
Common tools for asset discovery include automated scanning platforms like Nessus or Rapid7, configuration management databases (CMDBs), and manual interviews with system owners. Government agencies often have surprisingly incomplete asset inventories. Shadow IT proliferates because official procurement processes are slow, and departmental users find commercial cloud services faster than waiting for central IT approval. The assessment must account for both official systems and the unofficial technology that mission-critical operations actually depend on.
Phase 2: Threat Identification and Intelligence Mapping
Threat identification in government must draw on sector-specific intelligence sources rather than generic commercial threat feeds alone. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) publishes advisories and Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalogs that are directly relevant to public-sector systems. The FBI's Cyber Division issues advisories targeting government entities. The MITRE ATT&CK framework provides adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) that can be mapped to government-targeting threat actors, including nation-state groups known to target defense contractors, election systems, or tax administration platforms.
Insider threat modeling is especially important in government. Personnel with security clearances, access to classified information, or privileged system access represent a threat profile that differs materially from insider threats in retail or financial services. Personnel subject to financial pressure, foreign influence, or ideological motivation require threat scenarios that most commercial assessments do not address. The 2010 Bradley Manning incident at the Department of Defense and the 2013 Edward Snowden breach at the National Security Agency demonstrate that trusted insiders represent an existential threat class for government operations.
Nation-state actors represent a persistent threat that most private-sector organizations do not face. Chinese state-sponsored groups target agencies with research data or intellectual property. Russian groups target election infrastructure and energy sector agencies. Iranian groups target state and local government networks as practice for disrupting U.S. civil infrastructure. A government risk assessment that omits nation-state threats or treats them as low-probability events misunderstands the threat environment.
Phase 3: Vulnerability Evaluation
With assets inventoried and threats mapped, assessors evaluate current control effectiveness against identified vulnerabilities. This includes reviewing patch currency against CISA KEV catalogs, configuration baselines against CIS Benchmarks or DISA Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), access control implementation, and physical security controls where relevant.
For government systems, this phase must also evaluate supply chain vulnerabilities. The SolarWinds incident of 2020 demonstrated that trusted software update mechanisms could become vectors for nation-state intrusion. Russian intelligence services compromised the SolarWinds Orion software build process and distributed malicious updates to approximately 18,000 customers, including multiple federal agencies. A government risk assessment that omits vendor risk from its vulnerability scope is incomplete by definition.
Legacy system vulnerabilities require special attention in government environments. Federal agencies operate mainframe systems commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s that predate modern security architectures but remain critical for benefits processing, tax collection, and personnel management. These systems often cannot be patched using standard enterprise patch management tools and may not support modern authentication mechanisms like multi-factor authentication.
Phase 4: Risk Calculation
Risk is calculated as a function of threat likelihood and potential impact. Government assessors often use the NIST SP 800-30 framework, which provides structured tables for rating threat-source characteristics, threat event likelihoods, and adverse impact levels across mission, legal, financial, and reputational dimensions.
The calculation must account for government-specific impact categories. Mission impact includes disruption to citizen services that have no private-sector equivalent. Legal impact includes regulatory violations that trigger congressional oversight, inspector general investigations, or Government Accountability Office audits. Reputational impact includes loss of public trust that affects political leadership and agency budgets.
A concrete scenario: a state unemployment insurance agency discovers that its legacy mainframe payment system runs an unpatched version of middleware with a publicly documented vulnerability. The threat landscape includes organized criminal groups known to target state benefit systems for fraudulent payments. Threat likelihood is rated high based on active exploitation documented in the CISA KEV catalog. Impact is rated very high because disruption would delay payments to hundreds of thousands of citizens, trigger immediate regulatory scrutiny, and create potential liability for wrongful denial of benefits. The composite risk rating is critical, and that rating drives remediation priority and escalation to the agency Chief Information Officer and legal counsel for risk-acceptance deliberation.
Phase 5: Documentation, Risk Acceptance, and Reporting
The final phase produces a formal risk register, a remediation plan with assigned ownership and deadlines, and a risk-acceptance record signed by the authorizing official. In the federal context, this aligns to the RMF Authorization to Operate process. In state and local contexts, documentation requirements vary but the governance principle is the same: risk acceptance must be an informed, documented, and accountable decision.
The documentation must be usable by both technical staff implementing remediations and executives making resource allocation decisions. Technical findings must be translated into mission impact language that non-technical leadership can act on. A vulnerability description that reads "unpatched Apache Struts framework with CVE-2017-5638 exposure" means nothing to a county administrator. The same finding translated as "web application vulnerability that could allow unauthorized access to property tax records" provides actionable context.
---
The absence of a structured government cybersecurity risk assessment does not mean risk disappears. It means risk accumulates invisibly until a breach, a regulatory finding, or an operational failure makes it visible at the worst possible moment.
Government agencies hold data that, once compromised, cannot be recalled or reissued. Voter registration records, tax filings, benefits eligibility data, and law enforcement records carry consequences for citizens that extend years beyond the breach event itself. Financial institutions can reissue credit cards and reset account numbers. Government agencies cannot reissue Social Security numbers, criminal records, or immigration files. The personal information in government databases enables identity theft, tax fraud, and social engineering attacks that private-sector breaches typically do not.
The 2015 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) breach remains the most instructive case in recent government cybersecurity history. Attackers, attributed to Chinese state-sponsored actors, exfiltrated background investigation records on approximately 21.5 million federal employees and contractors. The data included fingerprints, foreign contacts, financial history, and psychological evaluations: precisely the information used to assess trustworthiness for security clearances. The breach occurred across a period of months, and the agency lacked both the visibility to detect it promptly and the mature risk assessment infrastructure to have prioritized protecting those systems in the first place.
A rigorous risk assessment that accurately rated the sensitivity and threat exposure of background investigation systems would have placed those systems at the top of the remediation priority list years earlier. Instead, OPM treated the systems as routine administrative databases rather than high-value intelligence targets. The failure was not technical; it was analytical. OPM did not understand what it had or who wanted it.
A common misconception is that regulatory compliance is equivalent to security. Agencies that achieve FISMA compliance ratings or successfully complete an ATO process sometimes treat that outcome as evidence of adequate security posture. It is not. Compliance frameworks set minimum baselines; they do not guarantee that residual risk is tolerable or that emerging threats have been addressed. FISMA compliance confirms that documented controls exist; it does not confirm that those controls are effective against current threat actors.
Another misconception is that small government entities represent low-value targets. Ransomware actors have demonstrated repeatedly that government entities at every level are attractive targets precisely because they lack resources to resist attacks and face public pressure to restore services quickly. The 2019 ransomware attack against Baltimore disrupted city services for weeks and cost an estimated $18 million in recovery expenses. The attackers demanded $76,000 in cryptocurrency. The city's refusal to pay resulted in costs 237 times larger than the ransom demand.
---
CDA approaches cybersecurity risk assessment for government through the Planetary Defense Model (PDM), treating risk not as a periodic measurement but as a continuous operational condition requiring perpetual management. The governing methodology is Perpetual Compliance Assurance (PCA), which holds a foundational principle: compliance is not an event. It is a state.
Within the PDM, the Risk Governance and Assurance (RGA) domain owns the risk assessment function for government clients. RGA does not produce a risk assessment as a deliverable and close the engagement. It establishes the instruments, cadence, and governance accountability structures that keep risk assessment alive between formal assessment cycles. This means automated asset tracking that updates the risk register when new systems are commissioned or decommissioned, continuous vulnerability ingestion from authoritative sources including CISA KEV and NIST NVD, and threat intelligence feeds aligned to the specific adversary profiles relevant to the client agency's mission and data holdings.
The Identity Assurance and Trust (IAT) domain contributes insider threat modeling and privileged access risk analysis, which are disproportionately important in government contexts where personnel hold security clearances or have access to sensitive operational systems. IAT maintains behavioral baselines for privileged users and provides anomaly detection capabilities that flag potential insider threat indicators before they become security incidents.
The Threat Intelligence and Defense (TID) domain provides the adversary mapping function, ensuring that threat identification in Phase 2 of the assessment methodology is grounded in current, sector-relevant intelligence rather than historical base rates. TID maintains profiles on nation-state actors known to target government entities and provides tactical intelligence on their preferred attack vectors, target selection criteria, and operational timelines.
What CDA does differently from standard assessment vendors is that it treats the risk register as a living instrument, not a report. Government clients receive a continuously updated risk posture view that reflects changes in their environment, the threat landscape, and regulatory requirements in near real time. When a new CISA advisory identifies active exploitation of a vulnerability present in a client's environment, that finding enters the risk register immediately and triggers a defined escalation process, not a wait until the next scheduled assessment cycle. This operational posture is what distinguishes PCA from periodic compliance theater.
---
---
---