Blog

Every national strategy eventually runs into the same question: How do we know it’s working?

October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and CISA has built this year’s campaign around “Securing the Next 250,” tying the country’s 250th anniversary to the work of protecting what comes after it. President Trump’s America First Resilience Strategy, released June 23, takes the same long view. It’s built around a goal stated plainly: No adversary or hazard should be able to hold America or our core interests at risk. Along the way, the strategy asks for something more specific. It wants disciplined commitments that produce measurable resilience.

That’s the hard part. Most resilience commitments are difficult to verify. You can fund a program, publish a plan, stand up a council, and still not know whether the system would hold. Data resilience is one of the few pieces of this agenda that already has working metrics, which is why it deserves a seat in implementation planning.

The strategy never uses the phrase “data resilience.” It’s not needed. In at least three of its four domains, the asks it makes are data problems in everything but name.

Where the Asks Are Data Problems

National security
The strategy calls for distributed command, control, operations, and coordination across U.S. regions, enabled by secure, reliable communications and networked infrastructure. It aims to limit an adversary’s ability to intrude, disrupt, or manipulate critical systems and decision advantage. Manipulation is the word to sit with.  A commander acting on corrupted data may make a confident decision that turns out to be wrong. That can be more dangerous than knowing the data is unavailable.

The economy
Here, the language is closest to explicit. The strategy addresses the need to preserve payments, liquidity, and trusted information flows while hardening systems against cyberattacks and maintaining credit availability to households and small businesses. Trusted information flows are a data integrity requirement. Preserving payments through a disruption is a recovery requirement. Both are already measured this way inside every major financial institution in the country.

National infrastructure
This is where the strategy is most explicit about measurement, asking for enforceable expectations for infrastructure performance so communities experience fewer and shorter disruptions. Utilities, transportation, telecom, logistics, and emergency services now run on operational data, telemetry, control systems, and shared dashboards.  Whether or not the document defines it this way, the recovery target is clear: Fewer disruptions, shorter outages, and faster restorations.

Public health and safety follow the same pattern, albeit more narrowly. Early warning and unified awareness across health, safety, and service providers depend on shared records being reachable when the call comes in.

Why Data Resilience Is Measurable

Data resilience has been a measurement discipline for years, out of necessity. Practitioners work in recovery point and recovery time objectives. They test whether a restore completes rather than assuming it will. The 3-2-1-1-0 Rule sets a concrete standard: Three copies of data on two types of media, one copy off-site, one copy air-gapped, immutable, or offline, and zero errors on verified recovery. Immutability either holds, or it doesn’t. A recovery test either passes or it doesn’t. There’s no partial credit or attestation to hide behind.

So agencies, states, and infrastructure operators have something concrete to report: How quickly they can restore authoritative data after a disruption, and how recently they proved it. That’s a number a program manager can manage against, and an appropriator can read.

One caution, offered in the spirit of the strategy’s own call for realistic risk assessment: These are organizational metrics, not yet a national picture. Knowing that one agency can restore its systems in four hours doesn’t tell you whether an entire sector holds.

Building that sector-level view is the next piece of work, and it’s a solvable one, because it starts from numbers that are already measured rather than estimated. The strategy anticipated this, which is why the National Risk Register it calls for is a natural home for exactly that kind of aggregation.

What Industry Owes This Effort

The strategy is candid that the Federal Government shouldn’t be the nation’s default insurer or the sole source of resilience, and it assigns real work to industry, states, and communities. It also tells industry to engineer resilience as the standard, not the exception. We take both seriously.

For Veeam’s part, that means building systems where recovery is fast, tested, and provable rather than theoretical. It means being straight with customers and policymakers about what recoverability actually requires, including the unglamorous verification work.

As artificial intelligence reshapes both the threat picture and the defense, it also means keeping the data that trains and feeds those systems governed and trustworthy, which is why we describe ourselves as the Data and AI Trust Company.

We congratulate the White House on a strategy that treats resilience as a national capability rather than a disaster response afterthought, and we read it as a natural continuation of the Cyber Strategy for America released in March.

For the agencies and stakeholders now turning this into action plans, the recommendation is simple: Start with the metrics you can prove. Data resilience provides measurable signals today, and a practical place to begin while the harder problems are addressed.

In the meantime, Veeam will continue bringing a practical, operator’s perspective to the conversation, from the Hill and the executive branch to the state and local leaders this strategy rightly puts at the center.

Learn more about how Veeam supports data resilience for government.

The post Start With What You Can Prove: Measuring the National Resilience Strategy appeared first on Veeam Software Official Blog.

from Veeam Software Official Blog https://ift.tt/sROYLgt