fedramp

Category: Testing & Security | Uploader: Sushegaad | Downloads: 0 | Version: v1.0（Latest）
Expert guidance for FedRAMP certification and compliance. Use this skill whenever a user asks about FedRAMP authorization, ATO (Authority to Operate), cloud security for federal government, NIST SP 800-53 controls, CSP compliance, or any of the core
Changelog: Source: GitHub https://github.com/Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance
Directory Structure

Current level: plugins/fedramp/skills/fedramp/
📁 references/
- 📄 poam-guide.md 3.8 KB
- 📄 readiness-checklist.md 6.1 KB
- 📄 sap-sar-guide.md 4.3 KB
- 📄 ssp-guide.md 5.5 KB
📄 SKILL.md 12.6 KB
SKILL.md

---
name: fedramp
description: >
  Expert guidance for FedRAMP certification and compliance. Use this skill whenever
  a user asks about FedRAMP authorization, ATO (Authority to Operate), cloud security
  for federal government, NIST SP 800-53 controls, CSP compliance, or any of the core
  FedRAMP document types: SSP, SAP, SAR, POA&M, CIS/CRM workbooks. Also trigger for
  questions about FedRAMP impact levels (Low, Moderate, High, LI-SaaS), FedRAMP 20x,
  OSCAL, 3PAO assessments, continuous monitoring (ConMon), gap assessments, system
  boundary definition, FedRAMP readiness, or architecture reviews for federal cloud.
  When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full FedRAMP lifecycle from readiness
  through continuous monitoring.
---

# FedRAMP Certification Skill

A comprehensive guide for helping users navigate FedRAMP authorization — from initial
readiness through ATO and ongoing continuous monitoring.

## Quick Reference: What Does the User Need?

Identify the user's goal and jump to the appropriate section:

| User Goal | Go To |
|---|---|
| "Are we ready for FedRAMP?" / gap assessment | → [Readiness & Gap Assessment](#1-readiness--gap-assessment) |
| Writing SSP, POA&M, SAR, SAP, or other docs | → [ATO Documentation](#2-ato-documentation) |
| "Which controls apply to us?" / control mapping | → [NIST 800-53 Control Mapping](#3-nist-800-53-control-mapping) |
| Cloud architecture / AWS/Azure/GCP config | → [Architecture Guidance](#4-architecture-guidance) |
| Already authorized, ongoing compliance | → [Continuous Monitoring](#5-continuous-monitoring) |

---

## Current FedRAMP State (as of 2025–2026)

- **Baseline**: NIST SP 800-53 **Rev 5** (approved May 2023, fully in effect)
- **Control counts** (Rev 5): Low = ~156, Moderate = 323, High = 410
- **OSCAL mandate**: RFC-0024 requires all CSPs to transition to machine-readable OSCAL packages by **September 2026**
- **Security Inbox**: As of January 5, 2026, all authorized CSPs must maintain a dedicated Security Inbox for urgent vulnerability directives (no CAPTCHAs or barriers)
- **FedRAMP 20x**: A modernization initiative in progress; introduces continuous authorization and modular/API-driven submissions. Traditional SSP/SAP/SAR templates remain required for non-20x paths.
- **Key templates updated**: SSP, SAR, SAP, POA&M, CIS/CRM, IIW, ISCP — all updated to align with Rev 5 (Dec 2024 releases)

---

## 1. Readiness & Gap Assessment

### Approach
1. **Clarify scope** — Ask the user: What is the CSO (Cloud Service Offering)? IaaS/PaaS/SaaS? Target impact level?
2. **Identify authorization path** — Agency Authorization (sponsor needed) vs. JAB (Joint Authorization Board, now limited) vs. FedRAMP 20x pilot
3. **Run through the readiness checklist** — See `references/readiness-checklist.md`
4. **Surface gaps** — Map current state to required controls; flag missing documentation, unimplemented controls, and architectural deficiencies
5. **Prioritize** — Group gaps by: (a) blockers for readiness review, (b) items addressable before 3PAO assessment, (c) POA&M candidates

### Key Readiness Questions to Ask the User
- What cloud platform (AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCP, on-prem hybrid)?
- Are you leveraging any existing FedRAMP-authorized IaaS/PaaS (e.g., AWS GovCloud FedRAMP High)?
- Do you have FIPS 140-2/3 validated encryption in place?
- Is your authorization boundary defined and documented?
- Do you have a vulnerability scanning program (OS, DB, web app, container)?
- Are security policies and procedures documented?
- Do you have an Incident Response Plan (IRP) and Contingency Plan (CP) that have been tested?

### Output Format
- Produce a **gap table**: Control Family | Current State | Gap | Priority | Owner
- Summarize top 5–10 high-priority gaps as prose
- Recommend whether to pursue Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) first

---

## 2. ATO Documentation

The core FedRAMP authorization package consists of:

```
Authorization Package
├── System Security Plan (SSP) + Appendices A–Q
├── Security Assessment Plan (SAP) + Appendices A–D  [3PAO-prepared]
├── Security Assessment Report (SAR) + Appendices A–F  [3PAO-prepared]
└── Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)  [SSP Appendix O]
```

> **Important**: CSPs must use official FedRAMP PMO templates. Reviewers are trained on
> standardized formats; non-standard submissions risk rejection or delays.
> Templates: https://www.fedramp.gov/rev5/documents-templates/

### Document Guidance

For detailed guidance on each document type, read the appropriate reference file:

- **SSP** → `references/ssp-guide.md`
- **POA&M** → `references/poam-guide.md`
- **SAP / SAR** → `references/sap-sar-guide.md`
- **Supporting appendices** → `references/appendices-guide.md`

### General Writing Principles for All ATO Docs
1. **Describe only what is implemented** — Do not document planned or aspirational controls; these trigger findings and must go in POA&M instead
2. **Be specific** — Reference exact tools, filenames, section numbers, policy names; vague language causes findings
3. **Mind the verbs** — Each control requirement uses specific verbs (track, document, enforce, test). Address each verb explicitly
4. **Shared responsibility** — For any customer-configurable or shared control, create a clear "Customer Responsibility" section
5. **Keep it consistent** — Architecture diagrams, data flows, inventory, and control statements must all be internally consistent

---

## 3. NIST 800-53 Control Mapping

### Control Families (Rev 5)

| ID | Family | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| AC | Access Control | IAM, RBAC, least privilege, remote access |
| AT | Awareness & Training | Security + **privacy** training (new in Rev 5) |
| AU | Audit & Accountability | Log retention, SIEM, audit review |
| CA | Assessment, Authorization & Monitoring | ConMon, 3PAO, ATO |
| CM | Configuration Management | Baselines, change control, CMDB |
| CP | Contingency Planning | BCP/DR, tested annually |
| IA | Identification & Authentication | MFA, PIV, FIPS 140-2/3 crypto |
| IR | Incident Response | IRP, tested annually, reporting SLAs |
| MA | Maintenance | Remote maintenance controls |
| MP | Media Protection | Data at rest, media sanitization |
| PE | Physical & Environmental | Datacenters; often inherited from IaaS |
| PL | Planning | SSP, rules of behavior |
| PM | Program Management | Enterprise-level security program |
| PS | Personnel Security | Screening, termination procedures |
| PT | PII Processing & Transparency | **New family in Rev 5** — privacy controls |
| RA | Risk Assessment | Vulnerability scanning, MITRE ATT&CK scoring |
| SA | System & Services Acquisition | SDLC, supply chain |
| SC | System & Communications Protection | Encryption in transit, network segmentation |
| SI | System & Information Integrity | Patching, malware, integrity monitoring |
| SR | Supply Chain Risk Management | **New family in Rev 5** — SCRM |

### Impact Level Mapping

When the user describes their system, recommend the impact level:

- **LI-SaaS** (Low-Impact SaaS): No PII, no sensitive federal data, limited scope — uses a simplified template combining SSP + assessment
- **Low**: Federal information where loss of CIA has limited adverse effect
- **Moderate**: Most common — federal information where loss has serious adverse effect; covers the majority of CSPs handling non-classified government data
- **High**: Federal information where loss has severe or catastrophic effect (e.g., law enforcement, financial, health data)

### Mapping Workflow
1. Ask: What types of federal data will the system process/store/transmit?
2. Run FIPS 199 categorization (Confidentiality / Integrity / Availability × Impact)
3. Select baseline (Low/Moderate/High) based on high-water mark
4. Cross-reference with FedRAMP parameter requirements (FedRAMP often sets stricter parameters than base NIST)
5. For inherited controls, identify which are fully/partially inherited from leveraged FedRAMP IaaS/PaaS and document in CIS/CRM workbook

### Rev 4 → Rev 5 Key Changes to Highlight
- **New control families**: PT (Privacy), SR (Supply Chain)
- **Password controls revised**: No more forced rotation schedules; now requires compromised-password lists and password strength meters (NIST 800-63b alignment)
- **Privacy integrated**: AT-3 now mandates privacy training; many families have privacy-specific enhancements
- **Threat-based methodology**: MITRE ATT&CK framework now informs control prioritization
- **Moved/merged controls**: Some Rev 4 controls were merged — don't assume 1:1 mapping

---

## 4. Architecture Guidance

### Authorization Boundary
The boundary defines what is IN scope for FedRAMP. This is one of the most common sources of findings and delays.

Key principles:
- **Everything that processes, stores, or transmits federal data** must be inside the boundary
- External services connected to in-scope systems must be FedRAMP-authorized OR documented with compensating controls
- Boundary must be depicted in a clear **network/data flow diagram** (required in SSP)

### Cloud Platform Considerations

**AWS GovCloud (US)**
- AWS GovCloud is FedRAMP High authorized — most PE and some SC controls are fully inherited
- Use AWS Config, CloudTrail, GuardDuty, Security Hub to satisfy AU, RA, SI controls
- Ensure use of GovCloud region endpoints (not standard commercial) to stay in boundary
- FIPS endpoints available for IA controls

**Azure Government**
- Azure Government is FedRAMP High authorized
- Azure Policy + Defender for Cloud maps well to CM, RA, SI
- Use Azure Blueprints / Policy Initiatives aligned to FedRAMP Moderate/High

**Google Cloud (FedRAMP-authorized regions)**
- Assured Workloads for FedRAMP compliance
- Chronicle SIEM for AU controls

### Architecture Patterns That Support FedRAMP
- **Zero Trust** — aligns directly with AC, IA, SC control families
- **Immutable infrastructure** — simplifies CM (configuration drift is a common finding)
- **Centralized logging** — SIEM/log aggregation addresses AU family comprehensively
- **Automated vulnerability scanning** — Required; must cover OS, DB, web app, and containers (if used)
- **Container security** — FedRAMP has specific container scanning guidance; image signing and runtime protection are expected

### Common Architecture Findings
- Undocumented external connections leaving the boundary
- FIPS-non-compliant encryption algorithms in transit or at rest
- Overly broad IAM roles / lack of least privilege
- Missing MFA on privileged accounts
- Vulnerability scans not covering all boundary components
- Logging gaps (not all components sending logs to centralized SIEM)

---

## 5. Continuous Monitoring

Once authorized, CSPs must maintain compliance through ConMon activities:

### Monthly Requirements
- Vulnerability scan results submitted to agency AOs
- POA&M updates (open findings, remediation progress)
- Inventory updates (new/removed assets)
- ConMon Monthly Executive Summary (template updated Nov 2024)

### Annual Requirements
- Full security assessment by 3PAO using Annual Assessment Controls Selection Worksheet
- Updated SSP and appendices
- Tested IRP and CP
- SAR and updated POA&M

### POA&M Management
- All open findings must have: risk level, owner, milestone dates, remediation plan
- Vendor Dependencies (VDs): when a finding depends on a third-party fix — document and track
- Deviation Requests (DRs): false positives and risk adjustments require AO approval
- SLA for remediation: Critical = 30 days, High = 90 days, Moderate = 180 days, Low = 365 days (FedRAMP standard)

---

## Output Formatting Guide

Match output format to request type:

| Request Type | Preferred Format |
|---|---|
| Gap assessment | Table + prose summary |
| SSP control narrative | Prose paragraphs (one per control/enhancement) |
| POA&M entry | Structured table row with all required fields |
| Architecture review | Bullet findings + recommended remediations |
| Control mapping question | Table: Control ID \| Requirement \| How to Implement |
| Readiness overview | Executive summary prose + priority action list |

When generating document content, always note: *"Use official FedRAMP templates from fedramp.gov — this content should be inserted into the appropriate template section."*

---

## Reference Files

Load these when more depth is needed:

- `references/readiness-checklist.md` — Full readiness checklist (75+ items)
- `references/ssp-guide.md` — SSP section-by-section writing guide
- `references/poam-guide.md` — POA&M structure, field definitions, SLA table
- `references/sap-sar-guide.md` — SAP/SAR overview and review tips for CSPs
- `references/appendices-guide.md` — Guide to all SSP appendices (A–Q)
- `references/control-families.md` — Deep-dive on each of the 20 control families
Comments 0
Latest | Hot
Please login before commenting.
No comments yet. Be the first one!
fedramp

Directory Structure

SKILL.md

Report

Notice
