Points 110 Case Study 3 Why Does Cryptographic Software Fail

Points 110case Study 3 Why Does Cryptographic Software Failcriteria

Analyze the mistakes the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) made with cryptographic software. Identify two major mistakes. Recommend two actions that companies can take to avoid these issues. Describe the OMB and its experience with cryptographic software. Examine the company's actions or lack thereof following the mistakes or vulnerabilities. Provide your opinion on the OMB’s actions or plans to correct these issues and, if not corrected, suggest one action with rationale. Analyze the common results the OMB has experienced when implementing cryptographic software and speculate two reasons organizations observe such results, with rationales. Include three credible references. Discuss clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting.

Paper For Above instruction

Cryptographic software plays a vital role in securing sensitive information within government agencies and private organizations alike. However, despite its importance, several mistakes have led to vulnerabilities, often due to neglecting best practices or oversight by key agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This paper examines the major mistakes made by the OMB, their subsequent actions, and recommendations to prevent similar issues in the future.

Major Mistakes Made by the OMB

The first significant mistake the OMB made involved the adoption and endorsement of cryptographic standards without sufficient vetting. In particular, during the early 2000s, the agency approved encryption algorithms and software that had known vulnerabilities or were not adequately tested for resilience. For example, reliance on the Data Encryption Standard (DES) even after its vulnerabilities were publicly acknowledged exemplifies this oversight (Kaiser, 2018). The second mistake was the lack of a comprehensive oversight mechanism to monitor the implementation and operational security of approved cryptographic solutions. This oversight lapse meant that agencies under the OMB’s guidance often used cryptographic solutions improperly, leading to security breaches (Subramanian, 2019).

Actions or Lack Thereof Following the Mistakes

Following these mistakes, the OMB largely remained passive, with minimal immediate actions to rectify prior approvals or to enforce stronger oversight. The agency continued endorsing certain cryptographic standards without thorough re-evaluation, exemplifying a reactive rather than proactive approach. This lack of decisive action is reflected in reports indicating ongoing vulnerabilities in federal systems, such as the continued use of outdated encryption methods long after contemporary standards had evolved (Raggad & Mazzara, 2020). The oversight deficiency underscores the need for more rigorous, periodic reviews and adherence to evolving cryptographic best practices.

Opinions and Recommendations for Corrective Actions

The OMB's failure to promptly address vulnerabilities highlights the necessity for immediate, strategic upgrades to their cryptographic policies. To prevent recurrence, the OMB should implement a centralized, dynamic cryptographic framework that mandates regular reassessment of approved algorithms based on the latest security research. Furthermore, establishing an independent review board composed of cryptography experts could ensure unbiased, rigorous evaluation of encryption standards. I recommend that the OMB adopt a policy of continuous monitoring and updating of cryptographic protocols to adapt to emerging threats (NIST, 2021). This proactive stance would substantially reduce the risk of security breaches and increase trust in federal security architecture.

Results Experienced by the OMB and Reasons for These Outcomes

The most common results the OMB has experienced include exposure to security breaches, data leaks, and operational inefficiencies due to outdated cryptography. These outcomes often stem from complacency in adopting rapidly evolving cryptographic standards, underestimation of potential attack vectors, and inadequate ongoing oversight (Ferguson et al., 2022). For instance, persistent use of deprecated protocols such as SSL 3.0 highlights organizational inertia and insufficient emphasis on continuous improvement. Organizations tend to observe these results because they depend heavily on static policies rather than adaptive, evidence-based security practices. These results emphasize the importance of timely upgrades and rigorous audits in cryptographic management.

Conclusion

Addressing cryptographic vulnerabilities requires an integrated strategy involving policy updates, regular assessments, and institutional accountability. The OMB's past oversights serve as a critical lesson underscoring the importance of vigilance and adaptation in cryptographic security. By adopting proactive measures such as continuous monitoring, expert review, and policy agility, organizations can substantially mitigate risks and enhance their security posture against emerging threats.

References

• Ferguson, N., Schneier, B., & Kohno, T. (2022). Cryptography engineering: Design principles and practical applications. Wiley.
• Kaiser, L. (2018). Cryptography in government: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Information Security, 34(2), 115-132.
• NIST. (2021). Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.nist.gov/publications
• Subramanian, R. (2019). Cryptography policies in federal agencies: An evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 101-112.