Pending Legislation Seeks to Secure Federal Government IoT

by Reed Smith

Reed Smith

A recent Senate bill is yet another signal of the federal government’s increasing focus on the security of the Internet of Things. The Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017, introduced by Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), seeks to impose heightened security standards on all IoT devices procured by any federal agency. Detractors of the legislation point to vague language and the large number of exceptions in questioning how much this bill actually does to improve cybersecurity. However, if enacted, the expectations regarding the security of IoT devices as set forth in the legislation could be interpreted by courts as the minimal floor for any IoT product sold to the federal government and, potentially, sold commercially.

Bill sponsor Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced the Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017 to the Senate August 1, 2017.1 The bill’s stated purpose is “To provide minimal cybersecurity operational standards for Internet-connected devices purchased by Federal agencies.”2 The bill defines IoT expansively to include any device that is connected to and uses the internet. Further, the bill’s fact sheet contemplates there being in excess of 20 billion IoT devices by 2020.3 Therefore, the scope of this proposed bill goes beyond core connected devices, such as smartphones and computers, to implicate manufacturers, distributors and resellers in all sectors whose products are ultimately acquired by the federal government (collectively, “government contractors”).4


The legislation seeks to achieve the contemplated, minimal cybersecurity operational standards for IoT by leveraging the federal government’s market power to improve safety, and setting guidelines for security representations and certifications that agencies must include in government solicitations for the acquisition of IoT devices. These representations and certifications would require that devices:

  • Are patchable
  • Do not contain known vulnerabilities as per the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) National Vulnerability Database, or a similar database.5 If the government contractor identifies vulnerabilities, it must disclose them to the acquiring agency, with an explanation of why the device is nonetheless secure. If the agency is satisfied, it may still acquire the device.
  • Rely on industry standard protocols for communication, encryption, and interconnection
  • Do not contain hard-coded passwords for updates or remote access

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) will work with industry to develop coordinated vulnerability disclosure guidelines for government contractors, including requirements for researching and testing security. Coverage will include disclosure of security vulnerabilities when they become known after sale. The IoT government contractor will be required to notify the acquiring agency of any “known security vulnerabilities or defects subsequently disclosed to the government contractor by a security researcher,” or as soon as the government contractor which sold the IoT device to the government agency becomes otherwise aware of a vulnerability.

In an acknowledgement of the value of good faith security research, the Act would allow researchers to study and report on security systems without facing possible liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This move seeks to ameliorate the rocky relationship between the Department of Justice and much of the cybersecurity industry, wherein good faith security research has unwittingly exposed cyber experts to liability. This relationship worsened earlier this year when law enforcement officials arrested Marcus Hutchins, a popular figurehead in the cybersecurity world and discoverer of the "kill switch" that thwarted the WannaCry attack.6

In addition to regulating government contractors which sell IoT devices, the legislation would require each executive agency to inventory all Internet-connected devices it uses within 180 days of the legislation’s passage.


The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has the authority to grant case-by-case exceptions to the legislation’s requirements. After five years, the OMB may waive, in whole or in part, any of the legislation. Additionally, because the legislation seeks to set a floor rather than a ceiling, individual agencies may employ their own standards so long as they are equivalent to or more rigorous than the standards proposed.


The legislation faces criticism for its ambiguity, especially as it pertains to the definition of IoT devices and the scope of the research exemption.7 The bill defines “Internet-connected device” as any physical object “capable of connecting to and . . . in regular connection with the Internet” that “can collect, send, or receive data.” This definition is potentially sweeping in its breadth, and therefore, critics argue that Congress should provide a more definite statement of its intent as to which devices will and will not be covered.8

The scope of the research exemption is similarly vague as to which researchers are covered. The bill purports to amend both the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act with exculpatory language; the amendments would waive liability for researchers acting “in good faith, engaged in researching the cybersecurity of an Internet-connected device of the class, model, or type provided by a government contractor to a department or agency of the United States,” so long as the researchers “acted in compliance with the guidelines [involving responsible disclosure] required to be issued by the National Protection and Programs Directorate” of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These guidelines are intended for government contractors raising the question of whether these provisions apply to freelance, commercial researchers, or only to those collaborating with government contractors.9

The research exemption also is vague as to what qualifies as a “class, model, or type” of device.10 “Suppose the government buys a smartphone. Does the research exemption cover only that exact model number? Does it include other devices in the same product family? All smartphones?”11 The legislative intent is to facilitate partnerships, whereby independent researchers conduct good faith research and communicate the results to government contractors (anywhere within the distribution chain) and government. Vagueness as to liability may disincentivize researchers from partaking in those very partnerships.

Proponents of IoT security have also expressed concerns that the legislation does not go far enough. For instance, it applies only to government contractors, excluding the private market altogether, and, notably, failing to specify to what tier of government contractor (prime contractor, subcontractor or sub-subcontractor) the legislation will apply.12 Allowing each executive agency to seek waivers, and not specifying liability for violations or criminal penalties further weaken the legislation.13

A related, unanswered question is precisely how the Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017 will supplement current security requirements already in place, such as the Federal Risk Management Framework (RMF). The RMF uses “three basic aspects of data security: confidentiality, integrity, and availability.”14 These three items ensure that data cannot be shared or accessed without authorization, cannot be accidentally or maliciously changed, and is available to authorized personnel when and where they need it.15 Like the proposed legislation, the RMF applies broadly to all connected devices acquired by the federal government, applies NIST security standards, and is arguably vague. For these reasons, it is difficult to define precisely how much the proposed legislation will expand cybersecurity beyond what is already in place.


Sen. Warner noted that while he recognizes the “innovation and productivity” of IoT, he desires that security not be overlooked.16 The senator believes that regulators, thus far, have not properly incentivized the market to tackle security, and this legislation “will remedy the obvious market failure that has occurred and encourage device manufacturers to compete on the security of their products.”17 The bill remains in its early stages, as there has been no further documented activity since it was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the day of its introduction, and it has an estimated 13 percent chance of passage.18

A brief “Fact Sheet” for the bill is available here.

  2. Id.
  4. See also (As such, it seemingly applies not only to core devices such as computers and smartphones, but also to everyday items such as door locks that incorporate internet-connected technology).
  8. Id.
  9. Id.
  10. Id.
  11. Id.
  12. The legislation neglects to specify whether it will implicate only entities in privity of contract with the government, presumably with the expectation that these entities will then require their subcontractors and the ultimate manufacturers to adhere to the same standards, or apply directly to all entities in the distribution chain. Realistically, government contractors will be reluctant to offer broad security certifications without similar certifications from their lower-tier subcontractors in the distribution chain including the device manufacturer.
  15. Id.
  17. Id.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Reed Smith | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Reed Smith

Reed Smith on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.