Site Loader

ISO/IEC. Third edition. Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for IT security —. Part 2: Security functional. ISO/IEC (E). PDF disclaimer. This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe’s licensing policy, this file. The Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation is an international standard (ISO/IEC ) for computer security certification.

Author: Doucage Kajim
Country: Tanzania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 26 April 2013
Pages: 320
PDF File Size: 13.4 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.90 Mb
ISBN: 758-7-30449-198-1
Downloads: 66510
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faura

It is currently in version 3. Vendors can then implement or make claims about the security attributes of their products, and testing laboratories can evaluate the products to determine if they actually meet the claims.

In other words, Common Criteria provides assurance that the process of specification, implementation and evaluation of a computer security product has been conducted in a rigorous and standard and repeatable manner at a level that is kso with the target environment for use.

Common Criteria – Wikipedia

The evaluation process also tries to establish the level of confidence that may be placed in the product’s security features through quality assurance processes:. Isi Criteria certification is sometimes specified for IT procurement.

Other standards containing, e. Instead, national standards, 154408-2 FIPS give the specifications for cryptographic modules, and various standards specify the cryptographic algorithms in use.

More recently, PP authors are including cryptographic requirements for CC evaluations 14508-2 would typically be covered by FIPS evaluations, broadening the bounds of the CC through scheme-specific interpretations. Some national evaluation schemes are phasing out EAL-based evaluations and only accept products for evaluation that claim strict conformance with an approved PP.

Standard ISO/IEC 15408, CC v3.1. Release 4

The United States currently only allows PP-based evaluations. Canada is in the process of phasing out EAL-based evaluations. CC isk produced by unifying these pre-existing standards, predominantly 154082 that companies selling computer products for the government market mainly for Defence or Intelligence use would only need to have them evaluated against one set of standards. The compliance with ISO is typically demonstrated to a National approval authority:.

Characteristics of these organizations were examined and presented at ICCC As well as the Common Criteria standard, there is also a sub-treaty level Common Criteria MRA Mutual Recognition Arrangementwhereby each party thereto recognizes evaluations against the Common Criteria standard done by other parties. Evaluations at EAL5 and above tend to involve the security requirements of the host nation’s government. Kso Septembera majority of members of the CCRA produced a vision statement whereby mutual recognition of CC evaluated products will be lowered to EAL 2 Including augmentation with flaw remediation.

  DAVID TALBOTT THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE PDF

Further, this vision indicates a move away from assurance levels altogether and evaluations will be confined to conformance 1548-2 Protection Profiles that have no stated assurance level. This will be achieved through technical working groups developing worldwide PPs, and as yet a transition period has not been fully determined.

Major changes to the Arrangement include:. Common Criteria is very generic; it does not directly 154082 a list of product security requirements or features for specific classes of products: Common Criteria certification cannot guarantee security, but it can ensure that claims about the security attributes of the evaluated product were independently verified.

In other words, products evaluated against a Common Criteria standard exhibit a clear chain of evidence that the iao of specification, implementation, and evaluation has been conducted in a rigorous and standard manner. Various Microsoft Windows versions, including Windows Server and Windows XPhave been certifiedbut security patches to address security vulnerabilities are still getting published by Microsoft for these Windows systems.

This is possible because the process of obtaining a Common Criteria certification allows a vendor to restrict the analysis isoo certain security features and to make certain assumptions about the operating environment and the strength of threats faced by the product in that environment.

Additionally, the CC recognizes a need to limit the 1548-2 of evaluation in izo to provide cost-effective and useful security certifications, such that evaluated products are examined to a level of detail specified by the assurance level or PP. Evaluations activities are therefore only performed to a certain depth, use of time, and resources and offer reasonable assurance for the intended environment. The TOE is applicable to networked or distributed environments only if the entire network operates under the same constraints and resides within a single management domain.

There are no security requirements that address the need to trust external 154008-2 or the communications links to such 115408-2. Based on this and other assumptions, which may not be realistic for the common use isoo general-purpose operating systems, the claimed security functions of the Windows products are evaluated.

Thus they should only be considered secure in the assumed, specified circumstances, also known as the evaluated configuration. Whether you run Microsoft Windows in the precise evaluated configuration or not, you should apply Microsoft’s security patches for the vulnerabilities in Windows as they continue to appear. If any of these security vulnerabilities are exploitable in the product’s evaluated configuration, the product’s Common Criteria certification should be voluntarily withdrawn by the vendor.

  COMPUBIBLIA EN PDF

Alternatively, the vendor should re-evaluate the product to include the application of patches to fix the security vulnerabilities within the evaluated configuration. Failure by the vendor to take either of these steps would result in izo withdrawal of the product’s certification by the certification body of the country in which the product was evaluated. This shows both the limitation and strength of an evaluated configuration. Objections outlined in the article include:.

In a research paper, computer specialist David A. Wheeler suggested that the Common Criteria process discriminates against free and open-source software FOSS -centric organizations and development models. In contrast, much FOSS software is produced using modern agile paradigms. Although some have argued that both paradigms do not align well, 15408- others have attempted to reconcile both paradigms. The UK has also produced a number of alternative schemes when the timescales, costs and overheads of mutual recognition have been found to be impeding the operation of the market:.

Jso this approach, communities of interest form around technology types which in turn develop protection profiles that define the evaluation methodology for the technology type. There is some concern that this may have a negative impact on mutual recognition. In Sept ofthe Common Criteria published a Vision Statement implementing to a large extent Chris Salter’s thoughts from the previous year. Key elements of the Vision included:.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Archived from the original on August 1, Archived from the original PDF on April 17, ISO standards by standard number. List of International Electrotechnical Commission standards.

Retrieved from ” https: Computer security standards Evaluation of computers ISO standards. Webarchive template wayback links Interlanguage link template link number.

Views Read Edit View history. This page was last edited on 6 Decemberat By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.