California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB869

Introduced
2/19/25  
Refer
3/10/25  
Report Pass
4/2/25  
Refer
4/2/25  
Refer
4/30/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
6/2/25  

Caption

State agencies: information security: Zero Trust architecture.

Impact

The adoption of Zero Trust architecture is intended to mitigate the risks associated with cyber threats that have increasingly severe consequences for state operations. By implementing strict access controls and requiring multifactor authentication, enterprises can better protect sensitive information from unauthorized access and data breaches. This legislative push reflects a growing recognition of the need for adaptive security strategies in the face of evolving cyber risks. The bill also aims to standardize security practices across different state agencies, potentially leading to greater efficiency in handling cybersecurity incidents and reduced vulnerabilities.

Summary

Assembly Bill 869, introduced by Assembly Member Irwin, proposes the implementation of Zero Trust architecture across all state agencies within California. The bill mandates that state agencies ensure that data, hardware, software, and internal systems adhere to specific security measures as defined by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Maturity Model. This includes achieving both Advanced maturity by June 1, 2026, and Optimal maturity by June 1, 2030. The Zero Trust model emphasizes that all users, whether inside or outside the organization’s network, must be authenticated and continuously validated before accessing any applications and data, reinforcing the state's commitment to robust cybersecurity frameworks.

Contention

While proponents advocate for enhanced security measures that aim to build public trust and confidence, there may be challenges regarding the implementation of such extensive security protocols. Concerns could arise over the allocation of resources necessary to upgrade existing systems, training personnel on new standards, and ensuring compliance across diverse state departments. Additionally, discussions may emerge about the implications of such a centralized model, especially regarding flexibility and local governance, as individual agencies might have unique needs that could clash with a one-size-fits-all approach.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB749

State agencies: information security: uniform standards.

UT HB0545

Cybersecurity Infrastructure Modifications

FL H1511

Cybersecurity

FL H1293

Cybersecurity

FL H1555

Cybersecurity

KS HB2019

Implementing additional reporting requirements for information technology projects and state agencies, requiring additional information technology security training and status reports, requiring reporting of significant cybersecurity audits and changing the membership requirements, terms of members and the quorum requirements for the information technology executive council.

CA AB2748

Election infrastructure: independent security assessments.

KS SB291

House Substitute for SB 291 by Committee on Legislative Modernization - Transferring all cybsersecurity services under the chief information technology officer of each branch of government, creating chief information security officers within the judicial and legislative branches, requiring a chief information security officer to be appointed by the attorney general, Kansas bureau of investigation, secretary of state, state treasurer and insurance commissioner and requiring the chief information security officers to implement certain minimum cybersecurity standards, requiring the information technology executive council to develop a plan to integrate executive branch information technology services under the executive chief information technology officer, making and concerning appropriations for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2025, and June 30, 2026, for the office of information technology, Kansas information security office and the adjutant general, authorizing certain transfers and imposing certain limitations and restrictions and directing or authorizing certain disbursements and procedures for all state agencies and requiring legislative review of state agencies not in compliance with this act.