SlideServe
Menu
Préférences
© SlideServe · v2026

Strategies for Evaluating Complex Software Products Using Common Criteria

chelsey avatar
16 diapositives · 314 Views · Sep 10, 2014

This presentation by Gerald Krummeck from atsec and Bill Penny from IBM discusses the challenges of evaluating complex software products under the Common Criteria framework. It shares atsec’s extensive experience in evaluations across multiple countries and highlights the importance of strategic planning for managing complexity. With insights from evaluations of notable IBM products like z/OS and Linux, the speakers outline effective approaches, including starting with lower assurance levels and gradually increasing complexity. The talk emphasizes the need for experienced evaluators and committed project management to ensure successful outcomes.

Strategies for Evaluating Complex Software Products Using Common Criteria - slide 1
01 / 16Strategies for Evaluating Complex Software Products Using Common Criteria
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Strategies for Evaluating Complex Software Products Using Common Criteria
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation
  1. How To Eat A Mammoth Experiences With the Evaluation of Complex Software Products Under the Common Criteria Gerald Krummeck (atsec), Bill Penny (IBM)

  2. Agenda • Our Experience • Challenges from complex systems • Evaluations under the Common Criteria • The influence of complexity • Strategies in mastering complexity • Summary

  3. atsec‘s Experience • Evaluation Labs in Germany, USA, Sweden • More than half of all OS evaluations performed world-wide • z/OS (IBM Mainframes) • z/VM (IBM Mainframes) • Linux (SuSE, Red Hat, Oracle) • AIX • Cray • PR/SM, AIX LPAR • Databases • IBM DB2 • Oracle DB • Tivoli System Management Products

  4. IBM‘s experience • ISO 9001 Certified since 1993 • WW development organization • US, Canada, Germany, Australia, US • Mexico, Russia, China • Historically Independent • Long History of IT Management • Project Management • System Management • Process Control • Large Complex Systems • HW, SW • New Function and Service Models • Support Largest WW Business Requirements • High availability, security, integrity

  5. Challenges from complex systems Dimensions of complexity in evaluations • Size of the product • Size of the TOE (what part will be evaluated) • Amount of security functions • Protection Profiles • Depth of evaluation (EAL) • Global distribution of development • Multi-national • Large number of organisational units

  6. Evaluation under Common Criteria Security Target Design SecurityPolicyModel FunctionalSpecification High-Level Design Low-Level Design Implemen- tation Product Correspondence Guidance documentation Tests Vulnerability Analysis Development Process (Life Cycle) Processes Delivery and Operation Configuration Management

  7. Example: IBM z/OS Version 1Release 8 • Size • Several Millions LOC (Assembler, PL/X, C, Java) • Over 30 years development history • Over 300 Manuals (120.000 pages) • Over 630 Claims on security functions in the ST • 10 development sites distributed globally • 10 CM systems • Common Corporate Standards and Processes • Toute la Gaule est occupée… Toute?

  8. Interim Result • You cannot look at everything • But you don‘t need to • Security functions can be located quite accurately and can be tested thoroughly • Requires sufficient experience and product know-how of the evaluators • Development processes become very important • Build trust in the developer to comply with his duties for every piece that has not been scrutinized by the evaluators • Again: Evaluators need experience and product know-how: • It is an illusion to assume that everybody can perform a good evaluation just by applying the CC methodology (not everybody can eat the mammoth without choking on it) • Customers need to identify the right laboratory for them with evaluators skilled in their type of product

  9. Strategies to master complexity • Not everything at once • How to eat the mammoth • Assistance • Site Certification

  10. Not everything at once • Start modest • Focus on core functionality • Start with lower assurance level (EAL2 or EAL3) • Pro: Get your first certificate in due time • Con: lower assurance level than competition • Example Linux: • Start with EAL2, restrictive configuration • Now EAL4, CAPP/LSPP, almost all packages included • In between: write low-level design, add audit functions

  11. Example z/OS • MVS: Orange Book B1 (in the mist of times…) • V1R6 – 2005 • EAL3, CAPP+LSPP (multilevel security) • Core functions: RACF, BCP, JES2, CS390, … • V1R7 – 2006 • EAL4 • Additional security functions • V1R8 – 2007 • Major expansion of security functionality • V1R9 • …

  12. How to eat a Mammoth? • Bite by bite, of course! • Don‘t become intimidated by the size • Don‘t try to swallow it in one piece, either • Important factors: • Experience • Confidence • Perseverance

  13. Assistance • 2 Teams from evaluation lab • Evaluators • Working on-site with developers is beneficial • Additional testers with product know-how • Consultants • Help developer to gather evidence,prepare required documents • Do not influence product itself or developer‘s decisions • Experienced certifiers help, too

  14. Developer committment • Multi-year committment • Strong project management to coordinate all participating organizations • Strong technical leadership • „Divide and Conquer“ • Strong leaders at distributed locations • Educate, track, report • Focus by area (ST, CM,HLD, Test) • Communicate with Evaluation Team • Open, early and frequent discussions

  15. Conclusion • Evaluation of complex products fits well in CC scheme • Medium to long term strategy (and committment!) • Start modest • Increase assurance level and functionality • Processes must fit • Find the right partner with experience and product know-how • ITSEF and certification body

  16. Questions, Comments