Federal Information Processing Standard 199 provides a method for categorizing federal information and information systems by the potential impact of losing confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Confidentiality concerns unauthorized disclosure. Integrity concerns unauthorized modification or destruction, including authenticity and non-repudiation. Availability concerns timely and reliable access to and use of information.
\n\nFor each objective, FIPS 199 defines low, moderate, and high potential impact. Low means the loss could be expected to have a limited adverse effect; moderate means a serious adverse effect; and high means a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on operations, assets, or individuals. The standard describes consequences such as degraded mission capability, significant financial loss, serious harm, and—at the high level—major damage or loss of life.
\n\nAn information type receives a three-part security category. A system that processes several information types takes the high-water mark for each objective across those types. Its overall impact level is then the highest value among confidentiality, integrity, and availability. That roll-up is useful for baseline decisions, but it does not erase the three component values or the reasoning behind them.
\n\nChoose a bounded service and identify the business owner, information owner, security owner, and continuity owner. Describe the service in plain language, including who relies on it, what decisions it supports, what external promises apply, and which manual or alternate processes exist. Avoid assigning impact from a server name, vendor tier, or inherited label alone.
\n\nList distinct information types and transactions. Then ask three separate loss questions. What happens if the information is disclosed to an unauthorized party? What happens if it is changed, fabricated, deleted, delayed, or presented without trustworthy origin? What happens if authorized people cannot reach it when required? Consider harm to people, operations, contractual duties, finances, legal obligations, safety, reputation, and downstream partners.
\n\nTranslate the result into control selection, assessment depth, supplier requirements, logging, recovery priority, exercise frequency, separation of duties, and exception authority. Keep the component ratings visible: a high overall category driven by availability does not automatically explain confidentiality handling, and a system dominated by integrity risk requires evidence that restored information is trustworthy, not merely reachable.
\n\nReview categorization when information types, user populations, integrations, operating locations, automated decisions, legal obligations, or tolerable downtime change. Link the category to the inventory and change process so a new data flow triggers review. The deliverable should show the loss scenarios, participants, component ratings, high-water calculation, unresolved assumptions, approval, and date. Require the approving owner to confirm that each consequence statement still reflects the current service and its dependent operations. That record makes later controls and risk decisions traceable.
\n\n