25
1 Common Criteria Ravi Sandhu Edited by Duminda Wijesekera

Common Criteria

  • Upload
    hang

  • View
    75

  • Download
    5

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Common Criteria. Ravi Sandhu Edited by Duminda Wijesekera. Common Criteria: 1998-present. TSEC retired in 2000, CC became de-facto standard International unification CC v2.1 is ISO 15408 Flexibility Separation of Functional requirements Assurance requirements - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Common Criteria

1

Common Criteria

Ravi SandhuEdited by Duminda Wijesekera

Page 2: Common Criteria

2

Common Criteria: 1998-present TSEC retired in 2000, CC became de-

facto standard International unification

CC v2.1 is ISO 15408 Flexibility Separation of

Functional requirements Assurance requirements

Marginally successful so far v1 1996, v2 1998, widespread use ???

Page 3: Common Criteria

3

Common Criteria

Page 4: Common Criteria

4

Class, Family, Component, Package

Page 5: Common Criteria

5

Security Functional Requirements Identification and authentication Cryptographic support, Security management, Protecting ToE access and security functions Communication, Privacy, Trusted paths, Channels, User data protection, Resource utilization Audit Forensic analysis

Page 6: Common Criteria

6

Security Assurance Requirements Life cycle support,

1. Pre requirements: Guidance documents2. Requirements analysis for consistency and

completeness3. Vulnerability analysis4. Secure design5. Development6. Testing

Functional, security specifications vulnerability

7. Delivery and operations8. Maintenance

Assurance maintenance Configuration management

Page 7: Common Criteria

7

CC Methodology ToE Security Policy (TSP): set of rules

regulating asset management, protection and distributed in system

ToE Security Function (TSF): HW+SW and firmware used for the correct enforcement of TSP

Protection profile (PP): set of (security) requirments

Security target (ST): set of (security) requirements to be used as a evaluation

Page 8: Common Criteria

8

CC Introductory: Section 1 of 8 ST identification: precisely stated

information required to identify ST ST overview: narrative acceptable as

a a standalone description of the ST CC Conformance:

Claim: a statement of conformance to the CC.

Part 2 conformance: if using only functional requirements

Page 9: Common Criteria

9

CC Product/system description: Section 2 of 8

Describes the ToE, Boundaries

Logical physical

Scope of evaluation

Page 10: Common Criteria

10

CC Product/system family environment: Section 3 of 8

Assumptions of intended usage Threat and their agents Organizational security policy that

must be adhered to in providing protection

Page 11: Common Criteria

11

CC Security objective: Section 4 of 8

Objectives for the product/system: Traceable to identified threats and/or organizational policy

Objectives for the environment: must be traceable to threats not completely encountered by the

system and policies or assumptions not completely met by

the system

Page 12: Common Criteria

12

CC IT Security requirements: Section 5 of 8

Functional security requirements: from CC

Security assurance requirements: must be augmented by the author as addendums to the EAL

Page 13: Common Criteria

13

CC Product/summary specification: Section 6 of 8

A statement of security function and how these are met as functional requirements

A statement of assurance requirements and how these are met as

Page 14: Common Criteria

14

CC PP Claims: Section 7 of 8

Claims of conformance

Page 15: Common Criteria

15

CC Rationale: Section 8 of 8 Explains various aspects of CC Security objective rationale Security requirements rationale Summary specification rationale Rationale for not meeting all

dependencies PP claims rationale: explains the

differences between objectives, requirements and conformance claims

Page 16: Common Criteria

16

Seven Levels of Evaluation EAL1: functionally tested EAL2: structurally tested EAL3: methodically tested and checked EAL4: methodically designed, tested and

reviewed EAL5: semi-formally designed and tested EAL6: semi-formally designed, verified and

tested EAL7: formaly verified, designed and tested

Page 17: Common Criteria

17

The evaluation process Controlled by C Evaluation

Methodology (CEM) and NIST Many labs are accredited by NIST and

charge a fee for evaluation Vendor selects a lab to evaluate the

PP The vendor and the lab negotiates the

process and a schedule and the lab issues a rating

Page 18: Common Criteria

18

Evaluation and testing

Security must be designed in Security can be retrofitted

Impractical except for simplest systems

Evaluation levels Black box Gray box White box

Page 19: Common Criteria

19

EAL, TSEC and ITSEC

Page 20: Common Criteria

20

Future of Testing

Continues to evolve Quality of Protection (QoP): some

research efforts to measure security qualitatively.

Page 21: Common Criteria

21

The SSE-CMM Model 1997-present

System Security Capability Maturity Model

A process oriented model for developing secure systems

Capability models define requirements for processes

CC and its predecessors define requirements for security

Page 22: Common Criteria

22

SSE-CMM Definitions Process capability: the range of

expected results by following the process

Process performance: a measure of the actual results received

Process maturity: the extent to which a process is explicitly defined, managed, measured, controlled and effective

Page 23: Common Criteria

23

Process areas of SSE-CMM Administrator controls Assess impact Asses threat Asses vulnerability Build assurance arguments Coordinate security Monitor system security posture Provide security input Specify security needs Verify and validate security

Page 24: Common Criteria

24

Example: assessing threats

Identify natural threats Identify human threats Identify threat units and measures Access threat agent capability Asses threat likelihood Monitor threats and their

characteristics

Page 25: Common Criteria

25

Five capability maturity levels Represents process maturity1. Performed informally: base processes are

performed2. Planned and tracked: has project-level

definition, planning and performance verification

3. Well-defined: focused on defining, refining a standard practice and coordinating across organization

4. Continuously improving: organizational capability and process effectiveness improved.