threaten the Commission’s ability to fulfill its civil enforcement and other statutory duties.”-Id Finally, Palmer attests that the NIST Study “provides a blueprint to the Commission’s networks” and that its public disclosure “could thus enable hackers to bypass' the Commission’s current protection mechanisms.” Id. ¶ 21. This court observed in Long v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 149 F.Supp.Bd 39, 53 (D.D.C. 2015), that “tj]ndges are not cyber specialists, and it would be the height of judicial irresponsibility for a court to blithely disregard ... a claimed risk” of a cyber-attack or a security breach. The court will not disregard such risk in this case. Accordingly, the court finds that the NIST Study satisfies the second prong of the “compiled for law 12, 29 (D.D.C. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Skinner v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 893
holding that user access codes that facilitated access to a law enforcement database were properly redacted under exemption 7e holding that requests for metadata and database schema of law enforcement information databases qualify for exemption under 7e holding that computer transaction and function codes that reveal how to navigate and retrieve information from a law enforcement database were properly withheld under exemption 7e holding that construction safety manuals and codes were properly admitted as objective standards of safe construction holding that numerical codes used to identify information and individuals as well as codes related to procedures concerning the use of law enforcement resources and databases  and case program and access codes were properly withheld under exemption 7e