This is an old revision of the document!
Are there additional ways to manage potential risks associated with CBDC that were not raised in this paper?
By all descriptions, the U.S. CBDC is primarily a large System-of-Systems (SoS) or even an SoS of SoSs. Some of these would ideally already exist and some will need to be created. The new systems are predominately a Software (SW) effort. Yes, there will be some specialized Hardware(HW) required, but the primary focus appears to be Software (including Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS), Government Off-The-Shelf (GOTS), or Modified Off-The-Shelf (MOTS). This software will ultimately need to be Managed and Modified.
A major risk confronting the U.S. CBDC is the lack of Stakeholders' “buy-in”. The Stakeholders for a U.S. CBDC is far beyond just the Federal Reserve. The definition is applied to the U.S. CBDC is a large and spreading network of other U.S. Government Departments and Agencies, the current financial institutions that participate in the U.S. Finacial system, the U.S. Executive and Legislative Branches of the U.S. Government, international governments and institutions, the citizens and residents of the U.S, and for that matter, almost everyone on the planet since the U.S. Dollar is the dominate Reserve Currency. Obviously, it is not possible to invite everyone to sit down at a table and have discussions about a U.S. CBDC. Most people will rely on elected officials, government organizations, etc. to represent them.
In the Object Management Group's (OMG's) response, we tried to help enumerate the U.S. CBDC in section 05_stakeholder. Table 1 is a summary of the list identified so far that could be considered potential Stakeholder.
| Potential Oversight Authorities | No. of Stakeholders |
|---|---|
| U.S. Federal Government Oversight Authorities | 14 |
| non-U.S. Federal Government Oversight Authorities | 19 |
| Total | 33 |
Although a U.S. CBDC is something new, it will also be part of the U.S. monetary system that is already established. The U.S. population relies on the monetary system and has expressed its aspirations for the monetary system through laws and regulations already in effect to control the monetary system. These laws and regulations have evolved since the founding of the U.S. and are generally a response to negative impacts on the U.S. people. Therefore, a major way to include the people as Stakeholders is to follow the laws and regulations of the U.S. The same can be said for the potential international stakeholders who rely on international treaties and agreements between the U.S. and their countries.
In the Object Management Group's (OMG's) response, we tried to enumerate the U.S. and U.S. State laws and regulations that are concerned with Privacy in section 45_privacy. Table 2 is a summary of the list of Laws and Regulations identified so far for the U.S. and U.S. State laws covering Privacy.
| U.S. Privacy Consideration | No. of Laws and Regulations |
|---|---|
| U.S. Federal Laws and Regulations | 10 |
| U.S. State Laws and Regulations | 6 |
| Total | 16 |
Here are some examples of “resistance” to a U.S. CBDC from potential stakeholders:
Governance of a Community of Interest (CoI) just does not happen by chance. It must be a well-thought-out formal organization with strict Policies and Procedures in place to guarantee the whole community is represented and can help formulate the solution or in this case, solutions to solving the Communities problem (i.e., U.S. CBDC). Too often, the Governance is considered by using Open Source Software (OSS). Although having OSS Projects can have an important role in the Governance of a project, it is primarily focused on the development of Software. Yes, the CBDC will be predominately software, but there is much more that needs to be governed than just software.
In addition to all these requirements for Governance, the Governance Model itself must reflect the “distributed nature” of the participants in the CoI itself. So far, we have identified 33 different Oversight Authorities that could be part of the CoI (see Table 1, and each one needs to be able to have a voice at the CoI forum or Consortium. See the OMG DIDO-RA discussion of Governance.
The U.S. CBDC will most likely be a System-of-Systems (SoS) or even an SoS of other SoSs. This means that there probably needs to be a hierarchy of CoI not unlike that of the Federal Reserve itself. For example:
| CoI Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Ecosphere Community | Ecosphere Community is the highest level Community of Interest (COI) that encapsulates DIDO Ecosystem Communities and DIDO Domain Communities. The Ecosphere usually provides high-level requirements and some funding for the administration of the other CoIs. The Ecosphere's role is to act as a coordinator of the Ecosystems and to provide a framework for all other CoIs to establish working agreements such as Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The Ecosphere is often the only CoI that is recognized as a Legal Entity with legally binding Charter, Bylaws and official Policies and Procedures. Often the Ecosphere control Intellectual Property (IP) rights and allowable Copyrights that are acceptable for the Ecosphere and the Domain. |
| Ecosystem Community | Ecosystem Community is the midlevel level Community of Interest (COI) that encapsulates Domain Communities. The Ecosystem has a Sub-Charter approved by the Ecosphere CoI. The Ecosystem usually relies on the Ecosphere for By-Laws and Policy and Procedures (P&P) but can provide addendums that do not conflict with the Ecosphere. The primary role of the Ecosystem is to coordinate the activities of the Domains which fall under its jurisdiction. As a general rule, the Ecosystem does not actually create anything but acts as the integrator and coordinator of all the Domains it is responsible for. The Ecosystem may have more restrictive Intellectual Property (IP) Rights than the Ecosphere. It can only subset the Copyrights allowed by the Ecosphere. The Ecosphere's role is to act as a coordinator of the Domains, however, one Ecosystem can also have a Sub-Ecosystem that it is responsible for. The Ecosystem can have its own bug tracking system that covers integration issues. The Ecosystem is responsible for all Integration Testing. |
| Domain Community | Domain Community is the lowest level Community of Interest (COI). The Domain has a Sub-Charter approved by the Ecosystem Community. The Domain usually relies on the Ecosphere for By-Laws and Policies and Procedure (P&P) but can provide addendums that do not conflict with the Ecosphere. The primary role of the Domain is to produce a product that meets the Functional and Non-Functional Requirements of the Ecosystem and the Ecosphere. As a general rule, the Domain actually builds or deploys things to be integrated into the Ecosystem. The Domain may have more Intellectual Property (IP) Rights than the Ecosystem. It can have a subset of the Copyrights allowed by the Ecosystem. The Domain's role is to build products as per the requirements and maintain products according to the Bug Tracking System. The Domain is responsible for all testing at the Domain level (See: Testability). |
An important way to make sure the Security Planning is adequate is to design it into the U.S. CBDC from the onset, especially if the U.S. CBDC adopts the use of Distributed Technologies currently in wide use in cryptocurrencies. First, it is important to detail what needs to be secure and why. See Table 5.
For a more detailed discussion, see the OMG DIDO-RA section on Non-Functional requirements for Securability.
All too often, projects try to “bolt-on” security after products are built. When building as essential and critical to the U.S. as a new financial mechanism such as CBDC, it is essential to think about it at every stage of the development, starting at the specification of requirements and at each layer of securability. See Figure 1 and Table 6
Securability is also a layered stack. At each layer, there are different steps that need to be taken to secure the system. For example, Culture Security it may just mean having employees hold a security clearance and/or take Drug Tests. For Physical Security it may mean having a locked facility to house the computers and network devices. Data Security might be software and cultural procedures such as encrypting all data stored in a disk drive and using software to access the data.
Data can exist in many states depending on how it is being used. Each of the different Data States poses its own risks of compromising data. The primary concern with data is that it compromises End User Privacy. See section 45_privacy.
The risks and concerns about Data in each of the different states are also important. Often, the primary focus for understanding data is to concentrate on Data-at-Rest. Although this data is relatively static, it can change over time. In the past, there was little concern for Data-in-Motion , which can have serious effects on Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RAM), as well as, Securability and can leave a system vulnerable to breaches. With the advent of HTTPS, these vulnerabilities are mitigated. The latest issue has become the need to secure Data-In-Use. A recent WhatsApp data breach 4) found that switching data between image filters could cause memory corruption followed by a crash that left data exposed.
Figure 2 graphically represents the different Data States within a system. Most systems are now able to handle the Data-in-Motion and the Data-at-Rest issues but have traditionally relied on physical security to protect Data-in-Use.
Any risk assessment must include the Security Infrasture and the state of data:
Metadata is data about data. Although this data can provide specific insight into personal data such as Personal Identifiable Information (PII) (see Privacy Concerns), there is also a problem with hackers gaining access to Metadata.
For example, knowing your name, address, phone number, and credit card details can be used to make illegal purchases in your name. This is a Criminal Activity in itself, but gaining information about your behavior and habits is a different kind of privacy violation. This information can be used to target you for advertisements or more nefariously specific scams. For instance, the metadata can now be used to determine that an individual is visiting a well-known cancer clinic and target the person for “miracle cures”.
Another example might be the discovery that a well-known founder and CEO of a publicly-traded company has visited the same well-known cancer clinic. This information is then used to in essence glean insider information about the company and make stock trades.
The use of Metadata is the primary engine for companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, etc. However, this is done using their own mechanism to collect the data and users sign their rights away with the Service Level Agreements (SLAs), etc they “sign” when they choose to use these products. It is another thing to use government-provided data.
Therefore, Metadata not only contains Data about Data, but it can also contain information about the association of data elements together. Sometimes this activity is referred to as Triangulation.
There is an assumption that Bitcoin transactions are anonymous, the reality is that they are anonymized. The following article by John Bohannon highlights the issue:6)
In this case, it was the “good guys” who used the Metadata, but this could also have been used for nefarious activities and a U.S. CBDC needs to protect this kind of data.
Some government business processes need to be kept confidential, secret, or even top-secret when it comes to trying to audit or discover illegal or criminal activities. The reason is that if the processes were made readily available to the public, then the business process can be “gamed” to avoid detection. In these situations, the government is involved in an “arms race” so to speak with those who want to avoid detection. The government business processes are continuously refined and honed to detect illegal or criminal activity, while the “bad guys” continuously test the system to find its weaknesses.
As an example, the process of trying to “reverse engineer” the “rules” of a government business process for determining if an individual return gets audited run rampant when it comes to triggering an audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).7)
More and more government business processes are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to aid in the flow of the business process. Many of these AI processes are data-driven either through parameters or by using learning datasets continuously refined based on previous runs through the process. This means that either the original parameters or the learning data sets are subject to hacking attempts.
If the government business processes are hacked, then the ability for illegal or criminal activities to go undetected is advanced.
Another problem would be if the government's business processes themselves were “hacked” to disable the government process or change the algorithms or parameters of the process to provide an unfair advantage. A simple example might be adding an exclusion for a certain individual within the process.