New version page

ILLINOIS CS 461 - Evaluating Systems

Documents in this Course
Load more
Upgrade to remove ads
Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

Evaluating SystemsReading MaterialOutlineEvaluation GoalsExample: Used CarFormal EvaluationTCSEC: 1983-1999TCSEC Functional RequirementsTCSEC Assurance RequirementsTCSEC ClassesSlide 11Slide 12TCSEC Evaluation processTCSEC Evaluation IssuesInterim Efforts in the ’90sFIPS 140OpenSSL FIPS-140 certificationCommon Criteria – 1998 to todayCC TerminologyProtection Profile (PP)Protection ProfileProduct evaluationCC Functional RequirementsCC Assurance RequirementsEvaluation Assurance LevelsCC Evaluation Process in USEvaluation StatusAlternate PerspectiveCertifying ProcessSSE-CMMCapability Maturity LevelsKey PointsEvaluating SystemsReading Material•Chapter 21 Computer Security: Art and Science•The orange book and the whole rainbow series•The common criteriaLists all evaluated protection profiles and productshttp://www.commoncriteriaportal.orgOutline•Motivation for system evaluation•Specific evaluation systemsTCSEC/Orange BookInterim systemsCommon CriteriaEvaluation Goals•Oriented to purchaser/user of system•Assurance that system operates as advertisedExample: Used Car•How do you evaluate a used car?Repair/service records (vendor-supplied documentation)Test drive (self-evaluation)Mechanic (independent verification)•Certified used cars“Get peace of mind with Honda's 150-point inspection”Formal Evaluation•Provide a systematic framework for system evaluationMore consistent evaluationBetter basis for comparing similar product•Trusted third party system for evaluation•Originally driven by needs of government and militaryTCSEC: 1983-1999•Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) also called the Orange BookSpecifies evaluation classes (C1, C2, B1, B2, B3, A1)Specifies functionality and assurance requirements for each class•Functional Model builds onBLP (mandatory labeling)Reference MonitorsTCSEC Functional Requirements•DAC•Object Reuse Sufficient clearing of objects between uses in resource poolE.g. zero pages in memory system•MAC and Labels•Identification and Authentication•Audit requirements increase at higher classes•Trusted PathNon-spoofable means to interact with TCBCtl-Alt-Del in WindowsTCSEC Assurance Requirements•Configuration ManagementFor TCB•Trusted DistributionIntegrity of mapping between master and installations•System ArchitectureSmall and modular•Design Specification – vary between classes•Verification – Vary between classes•Testing•Product DocumentationTCSEC Classes•D – Catch all (aka “you fail”)•C1 – Discretionary ProtectionIdentification and authentication and DACMinimal Assurance•C2 – Control access protectionAdds object reuse and auditingMore testing requirementsWindows NT 3.5 evaluated C2TCSEC Classes•B1 – Labeled Security ProtectionAdds MAC for some objectsStronger testing requirements. Information model of security policy.Trusted Unixes tended to be B1•B2 – Structured protectionMAC for all objects. Additional logging. Trusted Path. Least privilege.Covert channel analysis, configuration management, more documentation, formal model of security policyTCSEC Classes•B3 – Security DomainsImplements full RVM. Requirements on code modularity, layering, simplicity.More stringent testing and documentation.•A1 – Verified protectionSame functional requirements as B3Significant use of formal methods in assuranceHoneywell’s SCOMPTCSEC Evaluation process•Originally controlled by governmentNo fee to vendorMay reject evaluation application if product not of interest to government or doesn’t meet preliminary tests•Later introduced fee-based evaluation labs•Evaluation phasesDesign analysis – no source code accessTest analysisFinal reviewTCSEC Evaluation Issues•Evaluating a specific configurationE.g., Window NT, no applications installed, no networkNew patches, versions require re-certification•RAMP introduced to ease re-certifications•Long time for evaluationSometimes product was obsolete before evaluation finished•Criteria CreepB1 means something more in 1999 than it did in 1989•Narrow scopeOperating systems for military, MLSInterim Efforts in the ’90s•Canadian Trusted Computer Product Evaluation Criteria (CTCPEC)•Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria (ITSEC) – Western Europe•Commercial International Security Requirements (CISR) – AmEx and EDS•Federal Criteria – NSA and NISTFIPS 140•Framework for evaluating Cryptographic Modules•Still in Use•AddressesFunctionalityAssurancePhysical securityOpenSSL FIPS-140 certification•OpenSSL certified under FIPS-140Certification obtained Feb 2007•Process took five (!) yearsCertified version is 0.9.7, 3 years old•ProblemsProcess slowPublic comments process used by competitors to derail certificationCommon Criteria – 1998 to today•Pulls together international evaluation effortsEvaluations mean something between countriesEconomies of scale•Three top level documentsCommon Criteria Documents•Describe functional and assurance requirements. Defines Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs)CC Evaluation Methodology (CEM)•More details on the valuation. Complete through EAL5 (at least)Evaluation Scheme•National specific rules for how CC evals are performed in that country•Directed by NIST in USCC Terminology•Target of Evaluation (TOE)The product being evaluated•TOE Security Policy (TSP)Rules that regulate how assets are managed, protected, and distributed in a product•TOE Security Functions (TSF)Implementation of the TSPGeneralization of the TCBProtection Profile (PP)•Profile that describes the security requirements for a class of productsList of evaluated PP’s•Replaces the fixed set of classes from TCSEC•ISSO created some initial profiles to match TCSEC classesControlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP) corresponds to C2Labeled Security Protection Profile (LSPP) corresponds to B1Protection Profile•A list of:ThreatsAssumptionsOrganizational policiesObjectivesAssurance requirements•Along with rationale•PP’s are evaluated by CLEFsProduct evaluation•Define a security target (ST)May leverage an evaluated protection profileDefine

View Full Document
Download Evaluating Systems
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...

Join to view Evaluating Systems and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Evaluating Systems 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.


By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?