According to TheRegister.com, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s cybersecurity program has been declared “not effective” in a damning audit from the Office of the Inspector General. The agency’s cybersecurity maturity plummeted from level-4 (“managed and measurable”) down to level-2 (“defined”) since the previous assessment. Auditors found 35 systems operating either with expired authorizations or without ever going through proper security approval processes. The CFPB continues using outdated software that no longer receives security updates, including one package reaching end-of-life in 2024. Contractor support for security monitoring dropped from 66% to just 25% after terminations, while government staff have been leaving en masse. The agency largely agreed with the findings but claimed the report created a “misleading impression” of its security posture.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The staffing collapse behind the failure
Here’s the thing about cybersecurity – it’s not just about technology, it’s about people. And the CFPB has been bleeding both contractors and government staff who were responsible for continuous monitoring and security testing. When you lose three-quarters of your contractor support practically overnight, of course your security program collapses. The audit timeline aligns perfectly with the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the agency, including plans to cut about 90% of its workforce. But here’s what’s really concerning: they haven’t replaced these people. The CFPB says they’re “identifying and redeploying staff from other offices,” but let’s be real – you can’t just move accountants over to handle system authorizations and expect them to know what they’re doing.
What “not effective” actually means
So what does it mean when 35 systems are running without proper authorization? Basically, management hasn’t formally assessed the risks and said “yes, this is secure enough to operate.” Instead, they’re using Risk Acceptance Memorandums (RAMs) as a shortcut. RAMs only document what risks you’re willing to accept – they don’t include the full security assessment, configuration management plans, or incident response procedures that proper Authorization to Operate requires. The CFPB argues that many systems are “very low risk,” but the OIG pushed back, noting most are actually moderate risk and some do contain sensitive data. And they’re still using software that vendors no longer support? That’s just asking for trouble, especially when we’ve seen other federal agencies get compromised through exactly this vulnerability.
The bigger picture here
This isn’t just about cybersecurity metrics – it’s about a long-running political battle. The CFPB has been a target since its creation, with critics calling it overly aggressive on financial regulation. Now we’re seeing the consequences of those staffing cuts play out in real time. The really scary part? This is happening across multiple agencies, including CISA, which is supposed to be our frontline cyber defense. When you systematically drain expertise from government agencies, you get exactly what we’re seeing here: systems running without proper oversight, outdated software, and nobody left who knows how to fix it. The full OIG report makes for sobering reading if you care about how well our financial regulators can protect sensitive data.
