In This Article
If you run a federal system, you've probably looked at the chaos of managing all seven steps in different places and asked "Can I automate and manage the RMF steps in one place?" The answer is finally, YES. With Paramify you can manage your process and automate it all from one platform.
Before Paramify, all steps lived in different places: Categorization happened in a spreadsheet, control selection in a different spreadsheet, implementation statements lived in a Word document that nobody wanted to open, and the POA&Ms were their own island.
Here we'll walk through how you can simplify RMF with Paramify to bring time and sanity back into your life. We'll also share the specifics you'll need to plan around to succeed with RMF.
What is the NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF)?
The Risk Management Framework is the process federal agencies use to decide how much security a system needs, prove it has that security, and decide whether to let it operate.
It is defined in NIST SP 800-37 Rev 2, published December 20, 2018 (which is still the current revision).
NIST describes seven steps:
- Prepare
- Categorize
- Select
- Implement
- Assess
- Authorize
- Monitor
FYI: The seventh — monitor — is where many orgs forget to leave room in the budget. NIST's own description of Monitor is to "continuously monitor control implementation and risks to the system," and there is no end date attached to it.
What RMF is not: FedRAMP.
FedRAMP is a certification program for cloud services that borrows the same NIST control catalog. An agency issuing an ATO for an on-premise system is running RMF without FedRAMP entering the picture at all.
So yes, while the catalog overlaps, the process is its own thing.
If FedRAMP is what you need, check out these RMF strategies that can simplify your process.
Is RMF being replaced? What CSRMC changed and what you need to automate.
On September 24, 2025, Katie Arrington, then acting Department of War CIO, announced the Cyber Security Risk Management Construct (CSRMC).
The announcement calls the previous Risk Management Framework out as "overly reliant on static checklists and manual processes."
Media coverage ran with that and reported RMF as dead.
But, read the CSRMC document itself and the seven RMF steps are still in there.
Here's the breakdown you really need to understand:
- CSRMC is a Department of War construct, so if you are supporting a civilian agency, FISMA and SP 800-37 Rev 2 are still what govern your system and nothing about your process changed in September 2025.
- If you are in the defense space, the work in each RMF step was re-labeled and put on a faster clock. They are now mapped into five lifecycle phases. 1: Design absorbs Prepare, Categorize and Select. 2: Build takes Implement. 3: Test takes Assess. 4: Onboard takes Authorize. 5: Operations takes Monitor.
The tenets CSRMC names include automation of:
- Critical controls
- Continuous monitoring
- Reciprocity
- DevSecOps
None of that is achievable if your categorization decision lives in a spreadsheet.
Manage all seven required RMF steps in Paramify
How the seven steps map to CSRMC's five phases
Source: DoD CIO Cyber Security Risk Management Construct and NIST's RMF overview.
Can a GRC tool authorize your system?
Nope. We're being pedantic about this distinction because it is the difference between a tool that helps and a tool that oversells.
A platform cannot make the decision to authorize your system. A platform can hold the assessment. It can let your assessor work in the same system your team documented in, and it can produce the Security Assessment Report as an artifact rather than a file someone assembles by hand.
But, Step 6 requires a senior official to accept residual risk on behalf of a mission, and that signature belongs to the Authorizing Official regardless of where the paperwork was generated.
What a system can change is how much of the AO's time is spent reconstructing what happened in steps 1 through 5.
The RMF publication dates that matter
Two of these deserve a second look.
Release 5.2.0 landed in August 2025 in response to Executive Order 14306 and focused on software update and patch integrity, so if your control selection was frozen against an earlier 5.x release, three controls are missing from it.
And the information type taxonomy every federal system categorizes against is from 2008. Rev 2 has been in initial working draft since January 31, 2024 and proposes a modernized taxonomy, but until it lands, the categorization you do today runs on the eighteen-year-old one.
How Paramify helps with RMF
Paramify supports the full RMF lifecycle in one system rather than in seven disconnected artifacts.
Here's how:
- System context and stakeholders get captured at onboarding, in the same place the boundary is defined.
- Information types are pulled in from SP 800-60 and drive the impact level.
- Control selection follows from that impact level, with overlays and agency tailoring applied on top rather than tracked separately.
- Implementation is documented against reusable capabilities, so a capability that satisfies fourteen control requirements gets described once and mapped fourteen times instead of written fourteen times.
- Assessments happen in the platform, internal and external.
- Teams can run an internal pass against the same procedures before handing the system to their security control assessor, and the assessor can produce the SAR in the same environment rather than in a separate document.
- Continuous monitoring tracks issues with their status and aging, and the SSP and POA&M are generated from the model rather than maintained alongside it.
Should you run RMF in Paramify?
It's not just that generating documents with Paramify is fast, but that documents generated from a single source do not drift from each other.
Sure, if you have one system, a stable boundary and an AO you talk to weekly, spreadsheets will survive. Plenty of programs run that way. But the math changes at the second system, and again the first time a control catalog updates underneath you.
The cost of document-based RMF is in the propagation. One control gets re-implemented and you now have an SSP, a SAR, a POA&M and a monitoring record that each say something slightly different about the same capability. Multiply that across a portfolio of ATOs and reconciliation stops being incidental.
Paramify simplifies and consolidates your work. If you make an update it automatically applies everywhere it's relevant.
Automation makes the difference for your federal compliance program under CSRMC
The big change here is the clock.
CSRMC names automation and continuous monitoring as tenets, FedRAMP 20x is pushing the commercial side toward machine-readable evidence, and both point the same direction: the agencies that can answer "is this control still satisfied" in minutes will be treated differently from the ones that answer it in weeks.
The practical implication is to stop treating RMF artifacts as documents and start treating them as views of a single underlying model.
Basically: If your SSP, SAR and POA&M are generated from the same source, they cannot disagree. If they are three files, they will.
Get Started: Simplify RMF and Automate Changes
The seven RMF steps are still the work, whether you run them under SP 800-37 or under CSRMC's five phases. What has changed is how quickly you're expected to show that a control is still satisfied. Paramify keeps steps 1 through 7 in one model, so your SSP, SAR and POA&M are generated from the same source. That way your team spends its time on risk decisions instead of reconciling documents.
Set up your free trial, ask any questions you have, or schedule a live demo below to see how Paramify can help your team today.
Frequently asked questions
How many steps are in the NIST RMF?
Seven: Prepare, Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize and Monitor. They are defined in NIST SP 800-37 Rev 2, published December 20, 2018.
Did CSRMC replace the RMF?
For Department of War systems, CSRMC is the governing construct as of September 24, 2025. The seven RMF steps are mapped into its five phases rather than removed. Civilian agency systems continue under FISMA and SP 800-37 Rev 2.
What is the difference between a control baseline and an overlay?
A baseline is the starting control set for your impact level, defined in SP 800-53B, which also includes a privacy baseline applied regardless of impact level. An overlay is a tailored control specification for a particular community, mission or technology, and NIST hosts submitted overlays in its Security and Privacy Control Overlay Repository.
Which NIST publication tells me my system's impact level?
Two of them together. SP 800-60 Vol 1 and 2 Rev 1 map information types to provisional impact levels, and FIPS 199 sets the rule for rolling those up to a system category using the high water mark across confidentiality, integrity and availability.
Is an ATO the same as FedRAMP certification?
No. An ATO is an agency's authorization decision for a specific system under RMF. FedRAMP is a separate certification program for cloud service offerings. They share the NIST SP 800-53 control catalog, which is why the two get conflated, but the processes and the deciding parties are different.
Learn More:
.svg)
.svg)