5200.28-STD: DoD Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, 26 December 1985 (Supercedes CSC-STD-001-83, dtd 15 Aug 83). (Orange Book)
4694e2614f4af7768ee1c255c347ff039be84d573514a13e69f393c94dcd921e DoD 5200.28-STD
Supersedes
CSC-STD-00l-83, dtd l5 Aug 83
Library No. S225,7ll
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD
DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
TRUSTED COMPUTER
SYSTEM EVALUATION
CRITERIA
DECEMBER l985
December 26, l985
FOREWORD
This publication, DoD 5200.28-STD, "Department of Defense Trusted Computer
System Evaluation Criteria," is issued under the authority of an in accordance
with DoD Directive 5200.28, "Security Requirements for Automatic Data
Processing (ADP) Systems," and in furtherance of responsibilities assigned by
DoD Directive 52l5.l, "Computer Security Evaluation Center." Its purpose is to
provide technical hardware/firmware/software security criteria and associated
technical evaluation methodologies in support of the overall ADP system
security policy, evaluation and approval/accreditation responsibilities
promulgated by DoD Directive 5200.28.
The provisions of this document apply to the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(ASD), the Military Departments, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Unified and Specified Commands, the Defense Agencies and activities
administratively supported by OSD (hereafter called "DoD Components").
This publication is effective immediately and is mandatory for use by all DoD
Components in carrying out ADP system technical security evaluation activities
applicable to the processing and storage of classified and other sensitive DoD
information and applications as set forth herein.
Recommendations for revisions to this publication are encouraged and will be
reviewed biannually by the National Computer Security Center through a formal
review process. Address all proposals for revision through appropriate
channels to: National Computer Security Center, Attention: Chief, Computer
Security Standards.
DoD Components may obtain copies of this publication through their own
publications channels. Other federal agencies and the public may obtain copies
from: Office of Standards and Products, National Computer Security Center,
Fort Meade, MD 20755-6000, Attention: Chief, Computer Security Standards.
_________________________________
Donald C. Latham
Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special recognition is extended to Sheila L. Brand, National Computer Security
Center (NCSC), who integrated theory, policy, and practice into and directed
the production of this document.
Acknowledgment is also given for the contributions of: Grace Hammonds and
Peter S. Tasker, the MITRE Corp., Daniel J. Edwards, NCSC, Roger R. Schell,
former Deputy Director of NCSC, Marvin Schaefer, NCSC, and Theodore M. P. Lee,
Sperry Corp., who as original architects formulated and articulated the
technical issues and solutions presented in this document; Jeff Makey, formerly
NCSC, Warren F. Shadle, NCSC, and Carole S. Jordan, NCSC, who assisted in the
preparation of this document; James P. Anderson, James P. Anderson & Co.,
Steven B. Lipner, Digital Equipment Corp., Clark Weissman, System Development
Corp., LTC Lawrence A. Noble, formerly U.S. Air Force, Stephen T. Walker,
formerly DoD, Eugene V. Epperly, DoD, and James E. Studer, formerly Dept. of
the Army, who gave generously of their time and expertise in the review and
critique of this document; and finally, thanks are given to the computer
industry and others interested in trusted computing for their enthusiastic
advice and assistance throughout this effort.
CONTENTS
FOREWORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
PART I: THE CRITERIA
1.0 DIVISION D: MINIMAL PROTECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
2.0 DIVISION C: DISCRETIONARY PROTECTION. . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Class (C1): Discretionary Security Protection . . 12
2.2 Class (C2): Controlled Access Protection. . . . . 15
3.0 DIVISION B: MANDATORY PROTECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1 Class (B1): Labeled Security Protection . . . . . 20
3.2 Class (B2): Structured Protection . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Class (B3): Security Domains. . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.0 DIVISION A: VERIFIED PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1 Class (A1): Verified Design . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Beyond Class (A1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
PART II: RATIONALE AND GUIDELINES
5.0 CONTROL OBJECTIVES FOR TRUSTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS. . . . . 55
5.1 A Need for Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.2 Definition and Usefulness. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3 Criteria Control Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.0 RATIONALE BEHIND THE EVALUATION CLASSES. . . . . . . . . 63
6.1 The Reference Monitor Concept. . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.2 A Formal Security Policy Model . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.3 The Trusted Computing Base . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.4 Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.5 The Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLICY AND THE CRITERIA . . . . 69
7.1 Established Federal Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7.2 DoD Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7.3 Criteria Control Objective For Security Policy . . 71
7.4 Criteria Control Objective for Accountability. . . 74
7.5 Criteria Control Objective for Assurance . . . . . 76
8.0 A GUIDELINE ON COVERT CHANNELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
9.0 A GUIDELINE ON CONFIGURING MANDATORY ACCESS CONTROL
FEATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
10.0 A GUIDELINE ON SECURITY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
10.1 Testing for Division C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
10.2 Testing for Division B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
10.3 Testing for Division A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
APPENDIX A: Commercial Product Evaluation Process. . . . . . 87
APPENDIX B: Summary of Evaluation Criteria Divisions . . . . 89
APPENDIX C: Sumary of Evaluation Criteria Classes. . . . . . 91
APPENDIX D: Requirement Directory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
PREFACE
The trusted computer system evaluation criteria defined in this document
classify systems into four broad hierarchical divisions of enhanced security
protection. They provide a basis for the evaluation of effectiveness of
security controls built into automatic data processing system products. The
criteria were developed with three objectives in mind: (a) to provide users
with a yardstick with which to assess the degree of trust that can be placed
in computer systems for the secure processing of classified or other sensitive
information; (b) to provide guidance to manufacturers as to what to build into
their new, widely-available trusted commercial products in order to satisfy
trust requirements for sensitive applications; and (c) to provide a basis for
specifying security requirements in acquisition specifications. Two types of
requirements are delineated for secure processing: (a) specific security
feature requirements and (b) assurance requirements. Some of the latter
requirements enable evaluation personnel to determine if the required features
are present and functioning as intended. The scope of these criteria is to be
applied to the set of components comprising a trusted system, and is not
necessarily to be applied to each system component individually. Hence, some
components of a system may be completely untrusted, while others may be
individually evaluated to a lower or higher evaluation class than the trusted
product considered as a whole system. In trusted products at the high end of
the range, the strength of the reference monitor is such that most of the
components can be completely untrusted. Though the criteria are intended to be
application-independent, the specific security feature requirements may have to
be interpreted when applying the criteria to specific systems with their own
functional requirements, applications or special environments (e.g.,
communications processors, process control computers, and embedded systems in
general). The underlying assurance requirements can be applied across the
entire spectrum of ADP system or application processing environments without
special interpretation.
INTRODUCTION
Historical Perspective
In October 1967, a task force was assembled under the auspices of the Defense
Science Board to address computer security safeguards that would protect
classified information in remote-access, resource-sharing computer systems.
The Task Force report, "Security Controls for Computer Systems," published in
February 1970, made a number of policy and technical recommendations on
actions to be taken to reduce the threat of compromise of classified
information processed on remote-access computer systems.[34] Department of
Defense Directive 5200.28 and its accompanying manual DoD 5200.28-M, published
in 1972 and 1973 respectively, responded to one of these recommendations by
establishing uniform DoD policy, security requirements, administrative
controls, and technical measures to protect classified information processed
by DoD computer systems.[8;9] Research and development work undertaken by the
Air Force, Advanced Research Projects Agency, and other defense agencies in
the early and mid 70's developed and demonstrated solution approaches for the
technical problems associated with controlling the flow of information in
resource and information sharing computer systems.[1] The DoD Computer
Security Initiative was started in 1977 under the auspices of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to focus DoD efforts
addressing computer security issues.[33]
Concurrent with DoD efforts to address computer security issues, work was
begun under the leadership of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to define
problems and solutions for building, evaluating, and auditing secure computer
systems.[17] As part of this work NBS held two invitational workshops on the
subject of audit and evaluation of computer security.[20;28] The first was
held in March 1977, and the second in November of 1978. One of the products
of the second workshop was a definitive paper on the problems related to
providing criteria for the evaluation of technical computer security
effectiveness.[20] As an outgrowth of recommendations from this report, and in
support of the DoD Computer Security Initiative, the MITRE Corporation began
work on a set of computer security evaluation criteria that could be used to
assess the degree of trust one could place in a computer system to protect
classified data.[24;25;31] The preliminary concepts for computer security
evaluation were defined and expanded upon at invitational workshops and
symposia whose participants represented computer security expertise drawn from
industry and academia in addition to the government. Their work has since
been subjected to much peer review and constructive technical criticism from
the DoD, industrial research and development organizations, universities, and
computer manufacturers.
The DoD Computer Security Center (the Center) was formed in January 1981 to
staff and expand on the work started by the DoD Computer Security
Initiative.[15] A major goal of the Center as given in its DoD Charter is to
encourage the widespread availability of trusted computer systems for use by
those who process classified or other sensitive information.[10] The criteria
presented in this document have evolved from the earlier NBS and MITRE
evaluation material.
Scope
The trusted computer system evaluation criteria defined in this document apply
primarily to trusted commercially available automatic data processing (ADP)
systems. They are also applicable, as amplified below, the the evaluation of
existing systems and to the specification of security requirements for ADP
systems acquisition. Included are two distinct sets of requirements: 1)
specific security feature requirements; and 2) assurance requirements. The
specific feature requirements encompass the capabilities typically found in
information processing systems employing general-purpose operating systems that
are distinct from the applications programs being supported. However, specific
security feature requirements may also apply to specific systems with their own
functional requirements, applications or special environments (e.g.,
communications processors, process control computers, and embedded systems in
general). The assurance requirements, on the other hand, apply to systems that
cover the full range of computing environments from dedicated controllers to
full range multilevel secure resource sharing systems.
Purpose
As outlined in the Preface, the criteria have been developedto serve a number
of intended purposes:
* To provide a standard to manufacturers as to what security
features to build into their new and planned, commercial
products in order to provide widely available systems that
satisfy trust requirements (with particular emphasis on preventing
the disclosure of data) for sensitive applications.
* To provide DoD components with a metric with which to evaluate
the degree of trust that can be placed in computer systems for
the secure processing of classified and other sensitive
information.
* To provide a basis for specifying security requirements in
acquisition specifications.
With respect to the second purpose for development of the criteria, i.e.,
providing DoD components with a security evaluation metric, evaluations can be
delineated into two types: (a) an evaluation can be performed on a computer
product from a perspective that excludes the application environment; or, (b)
it can be done to assess whether appropriate security measures have been taken
to permit the system to be used operationally in a specific environment. The
former type of evaluation is done by the Computer Security Center through the
Commercial Product Evaluation Process. That process is described in Appendix
A.
The latter type of evaluation, i.e., those done for the purpose of assessing a
system's security attributes with respect to a specific operational mission,
is known as a certification evaluation. It must be understood that the
completion of a formal product evaluation does not constitute certification or
accreditation for the system to be used in any specific application
environment. On the contrary, the evaluation report only provides a trusted
computer system's evaluation rating along with supporting data describing the
product system's strengths and weaknesses from a computer security point of
view. The system security certification and the formal approval/accreditation
procedure, done in accordance with the applicable policies of the issuing
agencies, must still be followed-before a system can be approved for use in
processing or handling classified information.[8;9] Designated Approving
Authorities (DAAs) remain ultimately responsible for specifying security of
systems they accredit.
The trusted computer system evaluation criteria will be used directly and
indirectly in the certification process. Along with applicable policy, it
will be used directly as technical guidance for evaluation of the total system
and for specifying system security and certification requirements for new
acquisitions. Where a system being evaluated for certification employs a
product that has undergone a Commercial Product Evaluation, reports from that
process will be used as input to the certification evaluation. Technical data
will be furnished to designers, evaluators and the Designated Approving
Authorities to support their needs for making decisions.
Fundamental Computer Security Requirements
Any discussion of computer security necessarily starts from a statement of
requirements, i.e., what it really means to call a computer system "secure."
In general, secure systems will control, through use of specific security
features, access to information such that only properly authorized
individuals, or processes operating on their behalf, will have access to read,
write, create, or delete information. Six fundamental requirements are
derived from this basic statement of objective: four deal with what needs to
be provided to control access to information; and two deal with how one can
obtain credible assurances that this is accomplished in a trusted computer
system.
Policy
Requirement 1 - SECURITY POLICY - There must be an explicit and
well-defined security policy enforced by the system. Given identified subjects
and objects, there must be a set of rules that are used by the system to
determine whether a given subject can be permitted to gain access to a specific
object. Computer systems of interest must enforce a mandatory security policy
that can effectively implement access rules for handling sensitive (e.g.,
classified) information.[7] These rules include requirements such as: No
person lacking proper personnel security clearance shall obtain access to
classified
information. In addition, discretionary security controls are required to
ensure that only selected users or groups of users may obtain access to data
(e.g., based on a need-to-know).
Requirement 2 - MARKING - Access control labels must be associated
with objects. In order to control access to information stored in a computer,
according to the rules of a mandatory security policy, it must be possible to
mark every object with a label that reliably identifies the object's
sensitivity level (e.g., classification), and/or the modes of access accorded
those subjects who may potentially access the object.
Accountability
Requirement 3 - IDENTIFICATION - Individual subjects must be
identified. Each access to information must be mediated based on who is
accessing the information and what classes of information they are authorized
to deal with. This identification and authorization information must be
securely maintained by the computer system and be associated with every active
element that performs some security-relevant action in the system.
Requirement 4 - ACCOUNTABILITY - Audit information must be
selectively kept and protected so that actions affecting security can be traced
to the responsible party. A trusted system must be able to record the
occurrences of security-relevant events in an audit log. The capability to
select the audit events to be recorded is necessary to minimize the expense of
auditing and to allow efficient analysis. Audit data must be protected from
modification and unauthorized destruction to permit detection and
after-the-fact investigations of security violations.
Assurance
Requirement 5 - ASSURANCE - The computer system must contain
hardware/software mechanisms that can be independently evaluated to provide
sufficient assurance that the system enforces requirements 1 through 4 above.
In order to assure that the four requirements of Security Policy, Marking,
Identification, and Accountability are enforced by a computer system, there
must be some identified and unified collection of hardware and software
controls that perform those functions. These mechanisms are typically embedded
in the operating system and are designed to carry out the assigned tasks in a
secure manner. The basis for trusting such system mechanisms in their
operational setting must be clearly documented such that it is possible to
independently examine the evidence to evaluate their sufficiency.
Requirement 6 - CONTINUOUS PROTECTION - The trusted mechanisms that
enforce these basic requirements must be continuously protected against
tampering and/or unauthorized changes. No computer system can be considered
truly secure if the basic hardware and software mechanisms that enforce the
security policy are themselves subject to unauthorized modification or
subversion. The continuous protection requirement has direct implications
throughout the computer system's life-cycle.
These fundamental requirements form the basis for the individual evaluation
criteria applicable for each evaluation division and class. The interested
reader is referred to Section 5 of this document, "Control Objectives for
Trusted Computer Systems," for a more complete discussion and further
amplification of these fundamental requirements as they apply to
general-purpose information processing systems and to Section 7 for
amplification of the relationship between Policy and these requirements.
Structure of the Document
The remainder of this document is divided into two parts, four appendices, and
a glossary. Part I (Sections 1 through 4) presents the detailed criteria
derived from the fundamental requirements described above and relevant to the
rationale and policy excerpts contained in Part II.
Part II (Sections 5 through 10) provides a discussion of basic objectives,
rationale, and national policy behind the development of the criteria, and
guidelines for developers pertaining to: mandatory access control rules
implementation, the covert channel problem, and security testing. It is
divided into six sections. Section 5 discusses the use of control objectives
in general and presents the three basic control objectives of the criteria.
Section 6 provides the theoretical basis behind the criteria. Section 7 gives
excerpts from pertinent regulations, directives, OMB Circulars, and Executive
Orders which provide the basis for many trust requirements for processing
nationally sensitive and classified information with computer systems.
Section 8 provides guidance to system developers on expectations in dealing
with the covert channel problem. Section 9 provides guidelines dealing with
mandatory security. Section 10 provides guidelines for security testing.
There are four appendices, including a description of the Trusted Computer
System Commercial Products Evaluation Process (Appendix A), summaries of the
evaluation divisions (Appendix B) and classes (Appendix C), and finally a
directory of requirements ordered alphabetically. In addition, there is a
glossary.
Structure of the Criteria
The criteria are divided into four divisions: D, C, B, and A ordered in a
hierarchical manner with the highest division (A) being reserved for systems
providing the most comprehensive security. Each division represents a major
improvement in the overall confidence one can place in the system for the
protection of sensitive information. Within divisions C and B there are a
number of subdivisions known as classes. The classes are also ordered in a
hierarchical manner with systems representative of division C and lower
classes of division B being characterized by the set of computer security
mechanisms that they possess. Assurance of correct and complete design and
implementation for these systems is gained mostly through testing of the
security- relevant portions of the system. The security-relevant portions of
a system are referred to throughout this document as the Trusted Computing
Base (TCB). Systems representative of higher classes in division B and
division A derive their security attributes more from their design and
implementation structure. Increased assurance that the required features are
operative, correct, and tamperproof under all circumstances is gained through
progressively more rigorous analysis during the design process.
Within each class, four major sets of criteria are addressed. The first three
represent features necessary to satisfy the broad control objectives of
Security Policy, Accountability, and Assurance that are discussed in Part II,
Section 5. The fourth set, Documentation, describes the type of written
evidence in the form of user guides, manuals, and the test and design
documentation required for each class.
A reader using this publication for the first time may find it helpful to
first read Part II, before continuing on with Part I.
PART I: THE CRITERIA
Highlighting (UPPERCASE) is used in Part I to indicate criteria not contained
in a lower class or changes and additions to already defined criteria. Where
there is no highlighting, requirements have been carried over from lower
classes without addition or modification.
1.0 DIVISION D: MINIMAL PROTECTION
This division contains only one class. It is reserved for those systems that
have been evaluated but that fail to meet the requirements for a higher
evaluation class.
2.0 DIVISION C: DISCRETIONARY PROTECTION
Classes in this division provide for discretionary (need-to-know) protection
and, through the inclusion of audit capabilities, for accountability of
subjects and the actions they initiate.
2.1 CLASS (C1): DISCRETIONARY SECURITY PROTECTION
The Trusted Computing Base (TCB) of a class (C1) system nominally satisfies
the discretionary security requirements by providing separation of users and
data. It incorporates some form of credible controls capable of enforcing
access limitations on an individual basis, i.e., ostensibly suitable for
allowing users to be able to protect project or private information and to
keep other users from accidentally reading or destroying their data. The
class (C1) environment is expected to be one of cooperating users processing
data at the same level(s) of sensitivity. The following are minimal
requirements for systems assigned a class (C1) rating:
2.1.1 Security Policy
2.1.1.1 Discretionary Access Control
The TCB shall define and control access between named users and
named objects (e.g., files and programs) in the ADP system. The
enforcement mechanism (e.g., self/group/public controls, access
control lists) shall allow users to specify and control sharing
of those objects by named individuals or defined groups or both.
2.1.2 Accountability
2.1.2.1 Identification and Authentication
The TCB shall require users to identify themselves to it before
beginning to perform any other actions that the TCB is expected
to mediate. Furthermore, the TCB shall use a protected
mechanism (e.g., passwords) to authenticate the user's identity.
The TCB shall protect authentication data so that it cannot be
accessed by any unauthorized user.
2.1.3 Assurance
2.1.3.1 Operational Assurance
2.1.3.1.1 System Architecture
The TCB shall maintain a domain for its own execution
protects it from external interference or tampering
(e.g., by modification of its code or data strucutres).
Resources controlled by the TCB may be a defined subset
of the subjects and objects in the ADP system.
2.1.3.1.2 System Integrity
Hardware and/or software features shall be provided that
can be used to periodically validate the correct operation
of the on-site hardware and firmware elements of the TCB.
2.1.3.2 Life-Cycle Assurance
2.1.3.2.1 Security Testing
The security mechanisms of the ADP system shall be tested
and found to work as claimed in the system documentation.
Testing shall be done to assure that there are no obvious
ways for an unauthorized user to bypass or otherwise
defeat the security protection mechanisms of the TCB.
(See the Security Testing Guidelines.)
2.1.4 Documentation
2.1.4.1 Security Features User's Guide
A single summary, chapter, or manual in user documentation
shall describe the protection mechanisms provided by the TCB,
guidelines on their use, and how they interact with one another.
2.1.4.2 Trusted Facility Manual
A manual addressed to the ADP System Administrator shall
present cautions about functions and privileges that should be
controlled when running a secure facility.
2.1.4.3 Test Documentation
The system developer shall provide to the evaluators a document
that describes the test plan, test procedures that show how the
the security mechanisms were tested, and results of the
security mechanisms' functional testing.
2.1.4.4 Design Documentation
Documentation shall be available that provides a description of
the manufacturer's philosophy of protection and an explanation
of how this philosophy is translated into the TCB. If the TCB
is composed of distinct modules, the interfaces between these
modules shall be described.
2.2 CLASS (C2): CONTROLLED ACCESS PROTECTION
Systems in this class enforce a more finely grained discretionary access
control than (C1) systems, making users individually accountable for their
actions through login procedures, auditing of security-relevant events, and
resource isolation. The following are minimal requirements for systems
assigned a class (C2) rating:
2.2.1 Security Policy
2.2.1.1 Discretionary Access Control
The TCB shall define and control access between named users and
named objects (e.g., files and programs) in the ADP system. The
enforcement mechanism (e.g., self/group/public controls, access
control lists) shall allow users to specify and control sharing
of those objects by named individuals, or defined groups of
individuals, or by both, and shall provide controls to limit
propagation of access rights. The discretionary access control
mechanism shall, either by explicit user action or by default,
provide that objects are protected from unauthorized access.
These access controls shall be capable of including or excluding
access to the granularity of a single user. Access permission
to an object by users not already possessing access permission
shall only be assigned by authorized users.
2.2.1.2 Object Reuse
All authorizations to the information contained within a
storage object shall be revoked prior to initial assignment,
allocation or reallocation to a subject from the TCB's pool
of unused storage objects. No information, including encrypted
representations of information, produced by a prior subject's
actions is to be available to any subject that obtains access
to an object that has been released back to the system.
2.2.2 Accountability
2.2.2.1 Identification and Authentication
The TCB shall require users to identify themselves to it before
beginning to perform any other actions that the TCB is expected
to mediate. Furthermore, the TCB shall use a protected
mechanism (e.g., passwords) to authenticate the user's identity.
The TCB shall protect authentication data so that it cannot be
accessed by any unauthorized user. The TCB shall be able to
enforce individual accountability by providing the capability to
uniquely identify each individual ADP system user. The TCB
shall also provide the capability of associating this identity
with all auditable actions taken by that individual.
2.2.2.2 Audit
The TCB shall be able to create, maintain, and protect from
modification or unauthorized access or destruction an audit
trail of accesses to the objects it protects. The audit data
shall be protected by the TCB so that read access to it is
limited to those who are authorized for audit data. The TCB
shall be able to record the following types of events: use of
identification and authentication mechanisms, introduction or
objects into a user's address space (e.g., file open, program
initiation), deletion of objects, and actions taken by
computer operators and system administrators and/or system
security officers, and other security relevant events. For
each recorded event, the audit record shall identify: date and
time of the event, user, type of event, and success or failure
of the event. For identification/authentication events the
origin of request (e.g., terminal ID) shall be included in the
audit record. For events that introduce an object into a user's
address space and for object deletion events the audit record
shall include the name of the object. The ADP system
administrator shall be able to selectively audit the actions of
any one or more users based on individual identity.
2.2.3 Assurance
2.2.3.1 Operational Assurance
2.2.3.1.1 System Architecture
The TCB shall maintain a domain for its own execution
that protects it from external interference or tampering
(e.g., by modification of its code or data structures).
Resources controlled by the TCB may be a defined subset
of the subjects and objects in the ADP system. The TCB
shall isolate the resources to be protected so that they
are subject to the access control and auditing
requirements.
2.2.3.1.2 System Integrity
Hardware and/or software features shall be provided that
can be used to periodically validate the correct operation
of the on-site hardware and firmware elements of the TCB.
2.2.3.2 Life-Cycle Assurance
2.2.3.2.1 Security Testing
The security mechanisms of the ADP system shall be tested
and found to work as claimed in the system documentation.
Testing shall be done to assure that there are no obvious
ways for an unauthorized user to bypass or otherwise
defeat the security protection mechanisms of the TCB.
Testing shall also include a search for obvious flaws that
would allow violation of resource isolation, or that would
permit unauthorized access to the audit or authentication
data. (See the Security Testing guidelines.)
2.2.4 Documentation
2.2.4.1 Security Features User's Guide
A single summary, chapter, or manual in user documentation
shall describe the protection mechanisms provided by the TCB,
guidelines on their use, and how they interact with one another.
2.2.4.2 Trusted Facility Manual
A manual addressed to the ADP system administrator shall
present cautions about functions and privileges that should be
controlled when running a secure facility. The procedures for
examining and maintaining the audit files as well as the
detailed audit record structure for each type of audit event
shall be given.
2.2.4.3 Test Documentation
The system developer shall provide to the evaluators a document
that describes the test plan, test procedures that show how the
security mechanisms were tested, and results of the security
mechanisms' functional testing.
2.2.4.4 Design Documentation
Documentation shall be available that provides a description of
the manufacturer's philosophy of protection and an explanation
of how this philosophy is translated into the TCB. If the TCB
is composed of distinct modules, the interfaces between these
modules shall be described.
3.0 DIVISION B: MANDATORY PROTECTION
The notion of a TCB that preserves the integrity of sensitivity labels and
uses them to enforce a set of mandatory access control rules is a major
requirement in this division. Systems in this division must carry the
sensitivity labels with major data structures in the system. The system
developer also provides the security policy model on which the TCB is based
and furnishes a specification of the TCB. Evidence must be provided to
demonstrate that the reference monitor concept has been implemented.
3.1 CLASS (B1): LABELED SECURITY PROTECTION
Class (B1) systems require all the features required for class (C2). In
addition, an informal statement of the security policy model, data labeling,
and mandatory access control over named subjects and objects must be present.
The capability must exist for accurately labeling exported information. Any
flaws identified by testing must be removed. The following are minimal
requirements for systems assigned a class (B1) rating:
3.1.1 Security Policy
3.1.1.1 Discretionary Access Control
The TCB shall define and control access between named users and
named objects (e.g., files and programs) in the ADP system.
The enforcement mechanism (e.g., self/group/public controls,
access control lists) shall allow users to specify and control
sharing of those objects by named individuals, or defined groups
of individuals, or by both, and shall provide controls to limit
propagation of access rights. The discretionary access control
mechanism shall, either by explicit user action or by default,
provide that objects are protected from unauthorized access.
These access controls shall be capable of including or excluding
access to the granularity of a single user. Access permission
to an object by users not already possessing access permission
shall only be assigned by authorized users.
3.1.1.2 Object Reuse
All authorizations to the information contained within a
storage object shall be revoked prior to initial assignment,
allocation or reallocation to a subject from the TCB's pool
of unused storage objects. No information, including encrypted
representations of information, produced by a prior subject's
actions is to be available to any subject that obtains access
to an object that has been released back to the system.
3.1.1.3 Labels
Sensitivity labels associated with each subject and storage
object under its control (e.g., process, file, segment, device)
shall be maintained by the TCB. These labels shall be used as
the basis for mandatory access control decisions. In order to
import non-labeled data, the TCB shall request and receive from
an authorized user the security level of the data, and all such
actions shall be auditable by the TCB.
3.1.1.3.1 Label Integrity
Sensitivity labels shall accurately represent security
levels of the specific subjects or objects with which they
are associated. When exported by the TCB, sensitivity
labels shall accurately and unambiguously represent the
internal labels and shall be associated with the
information being exported.
3.1.1.3.2 Exportation of Labeled Information
The TCB shall designate each communication channel and
I/O device as either single-level or miltilevel. Any
change in this designation shall be done manually and
shall be auditable by the TCB. The TCB shall maintain
and be able to audit any change in the security level
or levels associated with a communication channel or
I/O device.
3.1.1.3.2.1 Exportation to Multilevel Devices
When the TCB exports an object to a multilevel I/O
device, the sensitivity label associated with that
object shall also be exported and shall reside on
the same physical medium as the exported
information and shall be in the same form
(i.e., machine-readable or human-readable form).
When the TCB exports or imports an object over a
multilevel communication channel, the protocol
used on that channel shall provide for the
unambiguous pairing between the sensitivity labels
and the associated information that is sent or
received.
3.1.1.3.2.2 Exportation to Single-Level Devices
Single-level I/O devices and single-level
communication channels are not required to
maintain the sensitivity labels of the information
they process. However, the TCB shall include a
mechanism by which the TCb and an authorized user
reliably communicate to designate the single
security level of information imported or exported
via single-level communication channels or I/O
devices.
3.1.1.3.2.3 Labeling Human-Readable Output
The ADP system administrator shall be able to
specify the printable label names associated with
exported sensitivity labels. The TCB shall mark
the beginning and end of all human-readable, paged,
hardcopy output (e.g., line printer output) with
human-readable sensitivity labels that properly*
represent the sensitivity of the output. The TCB
shall, be default, mark the top and bottom of each
page of human-readable, paged, hardcopy output
(e.g., line printer output) with human-readable
sensitivity labels that properly* represent the
overall sensitivity of the output or that properly*
represent the sensitivity of the information on the
page. The TCB shall, by default and in an
appropriate manner, mark other forms of human-
readable output (e.g., maps, graphics) with human-
readable sensitivity labels that properly*
represent the sensitivity of the touput. Any
override of these marking defaults shall be
auditable by the TCB.
3.1.1.4 Mandatory Access Control
The TCB shall enforce a mandatory access control policy over
all subjects and storage objects under its control (e.g.,
processes, files, segments, devices). These subjects and
objects shall be assigned sensitivity labels that are a
combination of hierarchical classification levels and
non-hierarchical categories, and the labels shall be used as
the basis for mandatory access control decisions. The TCB
shall be able to support two or more such security levels.
(See the Mandatory Access Control Guidelines.) The following
requirements shall hold for all accesses between subjects and
objects controlled by the TCB: a subject can read an object
only if the hierarchical classification in the subject's
security level is greater than or equal to the hierarchical
classification in the object's security level and the non-
hierarchical categories in the subject's security level include
all the non-hierarchical categories in the object's security
level. A subject can write an object only if the hierarchical
classification in the subject's security level is less than or
equal to the hierarchical classification in the object's
security level and all the non-hierarchical categories in the
subject's security level are included in the non-hierarchical
categories in the object's security level. Identification
and authentication data shall be used by the TCB to authenti-
cate the user's identity and to ensure that the security level
and authorization of subjects external to the TCB that may be
created to act on behalf of the individual user are dominated
by the clearance and authorization of that user.
3.1.2 Accountability
3.1.2.1 Identification and Authentication
The TCB shall require users to identify themselves to it before
beginning to perform any other actions that the TCB is expected
to mediate. Furthermore, the TCB shall maintain authentication
data that includes information for verifying the identity of
individual users (e.g., passwords) as well as information for
determining the clearance and authorizations or individual
_____________________________
* The hierarchical classification component in human-readable sensitivity
labels shall be equal to the greatest hierarchical classification or any of the
information in the output that the labels refer to; the non-hierarchical
category component shall include all of the non-hierarchical categories of the
information in the output the labels refer to, but no other non-hierarchical
categories.
users. This data shall be used by the TCB to authenticate the
user's identity and to ensure that the security level and
authorizations of subjects external to the TCB that may be
created to act on behalf of the individual user are dominated
by the clearance and authorization of that user. The TCB shall
protect authentication data so that it cannot be accessed by any
unauthorized user. The TCB shall be able to enforce individual
accountability by providing the capability to uniquely identify
each individual ADP system user. The TCB shall also provide the
capability of associating this identity with all auditable
actions taken by that individual.
3.1.2.2 Audit
The TCB shall be able to create, maintain, and protect from
modification or unauthorized access or destruction an audit
trail of accesses to the objects it protects. The audit data
shall be protected by the TCB so that read access to it is
limited to those who are authorized for audit data. The TCB
shall be able to record the following types of events: use of
identification and authentication mechanisms, introduction of
objects into a user's address space (e.g., file open, program
initiation), deletion of objects, and actions taken by computer
operators and system administrators and/or system security
officers and other security relevant events. The TCB shall also
be able to audit any override of human-readable output markings.
For each recorded event, the audit record shall identify: date
and time of the event, user, type of event, and success or
failure of the event. For identification/authentication events
the origin of request (e.g., terminal ID) shall be included in
the audit record. For events that introduce an object into a
user's address space and for object deletion events the audit
record shall include the name of the object and the object's
security level. The ADP system administrator shall be able to
selectively audit the actions of any one or more users based on
individual identity and/or object security level.
3.1.3 Assurance
3.1.3.1 Operational Assurance
3.1.3.1.1 System Architecture
The TCB shall maintain a domain for its own execution
that protects it from external interference or tampering
(e.g., by modification of its code or data structures).
Resources controlled by the TCB may be a defined subset
of the subjects and objects in the ADP system. The TCB
shall maintain process isolation through the provision of
distinct address spaces under its control. The TCB shall
isolate the resources to be protected so that they are
subject to the access control and auditing requirements.
3.1.3.1.2 System Integrity
Hardware and/or software features shall be provided that
can be used to periodically validate the correct operation
of the on-site hardware and firmware elements of the TCB.
3.1.3.2 Life-Cycle Assurance
3.1.3.2.1 Security Testing
The security mechanisms of the ADP system shall be tested
and found to work as claimed in the system documentation.
A team of individuals who thoroughly understand the
specific implementation of the TCB shall subject its
design documentation, source code, and object code to
thorough analysis and testing. Their objectives shall be:
to uncover all design and implementation flaws that would
permit a subject external to the TCB to read, change, or
delete data normally denied under the mandatory or
discretionary security policy enforced by the TCB; as well
as to assure that no subject (without authorization to do
so) is able to cause the TCB to enter a state such that
it is unable to respond to communications initiated by
other users. All discovered flaws shall be removed or
neutralized and the TCB retested to demonstrate that they
have been eliminated and that new flaws have not been
introduced. (See the Security Testing Guidelines.)
3.1.3.2.2 Design Specification and Verification
An informal or formal model of the security policy
supported by the TCB shall be maintained over the life
cycle of the ADP system and demonstrated to be consistent
with its axioms.
3.1.4 Documentation
3.1.4.1 Security Features User's Guide
A single summary, chapter, or manual in user documentation
shall describe the protection mechanisms provided by the TCB,
guidelines on their use, and how they interact with one another.
3.1.4.2 Trusted Facility Manual
A manual addressed to the ADP system administrator shall
present cautions about functions and privileges that should be
controlled when running a secure facility. The procedures for
examining and maintaining the audit files as well as the
detailed audit record structure for each type of audit event
shall be given. The manual shall describe the operator and
administrator functions related to security, to include changing
the security characteristics of a user. It shall provide
guidelines on the consistent and effective use of the protection
features of the system, how they interact, how to securely
generate a new TCB, and facility procedures, warnings, and
privileges that need to be controlled in order to operate the
facility in a secure manner.
3.1.4.3 Test Documentation
The system developer shall provide to the evaluators a document
that describes the test plan, test procedures that show how the
security mechanisms were tested, and results of the security
mechanisms' functional testing.
3.1.4.4 Design Documentation
Documentation shall be available that provides a description of
the manufacturer's philosophy of protection and an explanation
of how this philosophy is translated into the TCB. If the TCB
is composed of distinct modules, the interfaces between these
modules shall be described. An informal or formal description
of the security policy model enforced by the TCB shall be
available and an explanation provided to show that it is
sufficient to enforce the security policy. The specific TCB
protection mechanisms shall be identified and an explanation
given to show that they satisfy the model.
3.2 CLASS (B2): STRUCTURED PROTECTION
In class (B2) systems, the TCB is based on a clearly defined and documented
formal security policy model that requires the discretionary and mandatory
access control enforcement found in class (B1) systems be extended to all
subjects and objects in the ADP system. In addition, covert channels are
addressed. The TCB must be carefully structured into protection-critical and
non- protection-critical elements. The TCB interface is well-defined and the
TCB design and implementation enable it to be subjected to more thorough
testing and more complete review. Authentication mechanisms are strengthened,
trusted facility management is provided in the form of support for system
administrator and operator functions, and stringent configuration management
controls are imposed. The system is relatively resistant to penetration. The
following are minimal requirements for systems assigned a class (B2) rating:
3.2.1 Security Policy
3.2.1.1 Discretionary Access Control
The TCB shall define and control access between named users and
named objects (e.g., files and programs) in the ADP system.
The enforcement mechanism (e.g., self/group/public controls,
access control lists) shall allow users to specify and control
sharing of those objects by named individuals, or defined
groups of individuals, or by both, and shall provide controls
to limit propagation of access rights. The discretionary access
control mechanism shall, either by explicit user action or by
default, provide that objects are protected from unauthorized
access. These access controls shall be capable of including
or excluding access to the granularity of a single user.
Access permission to an object by users not already possessing
access permission shall only be assigned by authorized users.
3.2.1.2 Object Reuse
All authorizations to the information contained within a
storage object shall be revoked prior to initial assignment,
allocation or reallocation to a subject from the TCB's pool of
unused storage objects. No information, including encrypted
representations of information, produced by a prior subject's
actions is to be available to any subject that obtains access
to an object that has been released back to the system.
3.2.1.3 Labels
Sensitivity labels associated with each ADP system resource
(e.g., subject, storage object, ROM) that is directly or
indirectly accessible by subjects external to the TCB shall be
maintained by the TCB. These labels shall be used as the basis
for mandatory access control decisions. In order to import
non-labeled data, the TCB shall request and receive from an
authorized user the security level of the data, and all such
actions shall be auditable by the TCB.
3.2.1.3.1 Label Integrity
Sensitivity labels shall accurately represent security
levels of the specific subjects or objects with which
they are associated. When exported by the TCB,
sensitivity labels shall accurately and unambiguously
represent the internal labels and shall be associated
with the information being exported.
3.2.1.3.2 Exportation of Labeled Information
The TCB shall designate each communication channel and
I/O device as either single-level or multilevel. Any
change in this designation shall be done manually and
shall be auditable by the TCB. The TCB shall maintain
and be able to audit any change in the security level
or levels associated with a communication channel or
I/O device.
3.2.1.3.2.1 Exportation to Multilevel Devices
When the TCB exports an object to a multilevel I/O
device, the sensitivity label associated with that
object shall also be exported and shall reside on
the same physical medium as the exported
information and shall be in the same form (i.e.,
machine-readable or human-readable form). When
the TCB exports or imports an object over a
multilevel communication channel, the protocol
used on that channel shall provide for the
unambiguous pairing between the sensitivity labels
and the associated information that is sent or
received.
3.2.1.3.2.2 Exportation to Single-Level Devices
Single-level I/O devices and single-level
communication channels are not required to
maintain the sensitivity labels of the
information they process. However, the TCB shall
include a mechanism by which the TCB and an
authorized user reliably communicate to designate
the single security level of information imported
or exported via single-level communication
channels or I/O devices.
3.2.1.3.2.3 Labeling Human-Readable Output
The ADP system administrator shall be able to
specify the printable label names associated with
exported sensitivity labels. The TCB shall mark
the beginning and end of all human-readable, paged,
hardcopy output (e.g., line printer output) with
human-readable sensitivity labels that properly*
represent the sensitivity of the output. The TCB
shall, by default, mark the top and bottom of each
page of human-readable, paged, hardcopy output
(e.g., line printer output) with human-readable
sensitivity labels that properly* represent the
overall sensitivity of the output or that
properly* represent the sensitivity of the
information on the page. The TCB shall, by
default and in an appropriate manner, mark other
forms of human-readable output (e.g., maps,
graphics) with human-readable sensitivity labels
that properly* represent the sensitivity of the
output. Any override of these marking defaults
shall be auditable by the TCB.
3.2.1.3.3 Subject Sensitivity Labels
The TCB shall immediately notify a terminal user of each
change in the security level associated with that user
during an interactive session. A terminal user shall be
able to query the TCB as desired for a display of the
subject's complete sensitivity label.
3.2.1.3.4 Device Labels
The TCB shall support the assignment of minimum and
maximum security levels to all attached physical devices.
These security levels shall be used by the TCB to enforce
constraints imposed by the physical environments in which
the devices are located.
3.2.1.4 Mandatory Access Control
The TCB shall enforce a mandatory access control policy over
all resources (i.e., subjects, storage objects, and I/O devices
that are directly or indirectly accessible by subjects external
to the TCB. These subjects and objects shall be assigned
sensitivity labels that are a combination of hierarchical
classification levels and non-hierarchical categories, and the
labels shall be used as the basis for mandatory access control
decisions. The TCB shall be able to support two or more such
security levels. (See the Mandatory Access Control guidelines.)
The following requirements shall hold for all accesses between
All subjects external to the TCB and all objects directly or
indirectly accessible by these subjects: A subject can read an
object only if the hierarchical classification in the subject's
security level is greater than or equal to the hierarchical
classification in the object's security level and the non-
hierarchical categories in the subject's security level include
all the non-hierarchical categories in the object's security
level. A subject can write an object only if the hierarchical
classification in the subject's security level is less than or
equal to the hierarchical classification in the object's
security level and all the non-hierarchical categories in the
subject's security level are included in the non-hierarchical
categories in the object's security level. Identification and
authentication data shall be used by the TCB to authenticate
the user's identity and to ensure that the security level and
authorization of subjects external to the TCB that may be
created to act on behalf of the individual user are dominated
by the clearance and authorization of that user.
3.2.2 Accountability
3.2.2.1 Identification and Authentication
The TCB shall require users to identify themselves to it before
beginning to perform any other actions that the TCB is expected
to mediate. Furthermore, the TCB shall maintain authentication
data that includes information for verifying the identity of
individual users (e.g., passwords) as well as information for
determining the clearance and authorizations of individual
users. This data shall be used by the TCB to authenticate the
user's identity and to ensure that the security level and
authorizations of subjects external to the TCB that may be
created to act on behalf of the individual user are dominated by
the clearance and authorization of that user. The TCB shall
protect authentication data so that it cannot be accessed by any
unauthorized user. The TCB shall be able to enforce individual
accountability by providing the capability to uniquely identify
each individual ADP system user. The TCB shall also provide the
capability of associating this identity with all auditable
actions taken by that individual.
3.2.2.1.1 Trusted Path
The TCB shall support a trusted communication path
between itself and user for initial login and
authentication. Communications via this path shall be
initiated exclusively by a user.
3.2.2.2 Audit
The TCB shall be able to create, maintain, and protect from
modification or unauthorized access or destruction an audit
trail of accesses to the objects it protects. The audit data
shall be protected by the TCB so that read access to it is
limited to those who are authorized for audit data. The TCB
shall be able to record the following types of events: use of
identification and authentication mechanisms, introduction of
objects into a user's address space (e.g., file open, program
initiation), deletion of objects, and actions taken by computer
operators and system administrators and/or system security
officers, and other security relevant events. The TCB shall
also be able to audit any override of human-readable output
markings. For each recorded event, the audit record shall
identify: date and time of the event, user, type of event, and
success or failure of the event. For identification/
authentication events the origin of request (e.g., terminal ID)
shall be included in the audit record. For events that
introduce an object into a user's address space and for object
deletion events the audit record shall include the name of the
object and the object's security level. The ADP system
administrator shall be able to selectively audit the actions of
any one or more users based on individual identity and/or object
security level. The TCB shall be able to audit the identified
events that may be used in the exploitation of covert storage
channels.
3.2.3 Assurance
3.2.3.1 Operational Assurance
3.2.3.1.1 System Architecture
The TCB shall maintain a domain for its own execution
that protects it from external interference or tampering
(e.g., by modification of its code or data structures).
The TCB shall maintain process isolation through the
provision of distinct address spaces under its control.
The TCB shall be internally structured into well-defined
largely independent modules. It shall make effective use
of available hardware to separate those elements that are
protection-critical from those that are not. The TCB
modules shall be designed such that the principle of least
privilege is enforced. Features in hardware, such as
segmentation, shall be used to support logically distinct
storage objects with separate attributes (namely:
readable, writeable). The user interface to the TCB
shall be completely defined and all elements of the TCB
identified.
3.2.3.1.2 System Integrity
Hardware and/or software features shall be provided that
can be used to periodically validate the correct
operation of the on-site hardware and firmware elements
of the TCB.
3.2.3.1.3 Covert Channel Analysis
The system developer shall conduct a thorough search for
covert storage channels and make a determination (either
by actual measurement or by engineering estimation) of
the maximum bandwidth of each identified channel. (See
the covert channels guideline section.)
3.2.3.1.4 Trusted Facility Management
The TCB shall support separate operator and administrator
functions.
3.2.3.2 Life-Cycle Assurance
3.2.3.2.1 Security Testing
The security mechanisms of the ADP system shall be tested
and found to work as claimed in the system documentation.
A team of individuals who thoroughly understand the
specific implementation of the TCB shall subject its
design documentation, source code, and object code to
thorough analysis and testing. Their objectives shall be:
to uncover all design and implementation flaws that would
permit a subject external to the TCB to read, change, or
delete data normally denied under the mandatory or
discretionary security policy enforced by the TCB; as well
as to assure that no subject (without authorization to do
so) is able to cause the TCB to enter a state such that it
is unable to respond to communications initiated by other
users. The TCB shall be found relatively resistant to
penetration. All discovered flaws shall be corrected and
the TCB retested to demonstrate that they have been
eliminated and that new flaws have not been introduced.
Testing shall demonstrate that the TCB implementation is
consistent with the descriptive top-level specification.
(See the Security Testing Guidelines.)
3.2.3.2.2 Design Specification and Verification
A formal model of the security policy supported by the
TCB shall be maintained over the life cycle of the ADP
system that is proven consistent with its axioms. A
descriptive top-level specification (DTLS) of the TCB
shall be maintained that completely and accurately
describes the TCB in terms of exceptions, error messages,
and effects. It shall be shown to be an accurate
description of the TCB interface.
3.2.3.2.3 Configuration Management
During development and maintenance of the TCB, a
configuration management system shall be in place that
maintains control of changes to the descriptive top-level
specification, other design data, implementation
documentation, source code, the running versionof the
object code, and test fixtures and documentation. The
configuration management system shall assure a consistent
mapping among all documentation and code associated with
the current version of the TCB. Tools shall be provided
for generation of a new version of the TCB from source
code. Also available shall be tools for comparing a
newly generated version with the previous TCB version in
order to ascertain that only the intended changes have
been made in the code that will actually be used as the
new version of the TCB.
3.2.4 Documentation
3.2.4.1 Security Features User's Guide
A single summary, chapter, or manual in user documentation
shall describe the protection mechanisms provided by the TCB,
guidelines on their use, and how they interact with one another.
3.2.4.2 Trusted Facility Manual
A manual addressed to the ADP system administrator shall
present cautions about functions and privileges that should be
controlled when running a secure facility. The procedures for
examining and maintaining the audit files as well as the
detailed audit record structure for each type of audit event
shall be given. The manual shall describe the operator and
administrator functions related to security, to include
changing the security characteristics of a user. It shall
provide guidelines on the consistent and effective use of the
protection features of the system, how they interact, how to
securely generate a new TCB, and facility procedures, warnings,
and privileges that need to be controlled in order to operate
the facility in a secure manner. The TCB modules that contain
the reference validation mechanism shall be identified. The
procedures for secure generation of a new TCB from source after
modification of any modules in the TCB shall be described.
3.2.4.3 Test Documentation
The system developer shall provide to the evaluators a document
that describes the test plan, test procedures that show how the
security mechanisms were tested, and results of the security
mechanisms' functional testing. It shall include results of
testing the effectiveness of the methods used to reduce covert
channel bandwidths.
3.2.4.4 Design Documentation
Documentation shall be available that provides a description of
the manufacturer's philosophy of protection and an explanation
of how this philosophy is translated into the TCB. The
interfaces between the TCB modules shall be described. A
formal description of the security policy model enforced by the
TCB shall be available and proven that it is sufficient to
enforce the security policy. The specific TCB protection
mechanisms shall be identified and an explanation given to show
that they satisfy the model. The descriptive top-level
specification (DTLS) shall be shown to be an accurate
description of the TCB interface. Documentation shall describe
how the TCB implements the reference monitor concept and give
an explanation why it is tamper resistant, cannot be bypassed,
and is correctly implemented. Documentation shall describe how
the TCB is structured to facilitate testing and to enforce least
privilege. This documentation shall also present the results
of the covert channel analysis and the tradeoffs involved in
restricting the channels. All auditable events that may be
used in the exploitation of known covert storage channels shall
be identified. The bandwidths of known covert storage channels
the use of which is not detectable by the auditing mechanisms,
shall be provided. (See the Covert Channel Guideline section.)
3.3 CLASS (B3): SECURITY DOMAINS
The class (B3) TCB must satisfy the reference monitor requirements that it
mediate all accesses of subjects to objects, be tamperproof, and be small
enough to be subjected to analysis and tests. To this end, the TCB is
structured to exclude code not essential to security policy enforcement, with
significant system engineering during TCB design and implementation directed
toward minimizing its complexity. A security administrator is supported,
audit mechanisms are expanded to signal security- relevant events, and system
recovery procedures are required. The system is highly resistant to
penetration. The following are minimal requirements for systems assigned a
class (B3) rating:
3.1.1 Security Policy
3.3.1.1 Discretionary Access Control
The TCB shall define and control access between named users and
named objects (e.g., files and programs) in the ADP system.
The enforcement mechanism (e.g., access control lists) shall
allow users to specify and control sharing of those objects,
and shall provide controls to limit propagation of access
rights. The discretionary access control mechanism shall,
either by explicit user action or by default, provide that
objects are protected from unauthorized access. These access
controls shall be capable of specifying, for each named object,
a list of named individuals and a list of groups of named
individuals with their respective modes of access to that
object. Furthermore, for each such named object, it shall be
possible to specify a list of named individuals and a list of
groups of named individuals for which no access to the object is
to be given. Access permission to an object by users not
already possessing access permission shall only be assigned by
authorized users.
3.3.1.2 Object Reuse
All authorizations to the information contained within a
storage object shall be revoked prior to initial assignment,
allocation or reallocation to a subject from the TCB's pool
of unused storage objects. No information, including
encrypted representations of information, produced by a prior
subjects actions is to be available to any subject that obtains
access to an object that has been released back to the system.
3.3.1.3 Labels
Sensitivity labels associated with each ADP system resource
(e.g., subject, storage object, ROM) that is directly or
indirectly accessible by subjects external to the TCB shall be
maintained by the TCB. These labels shall be used as the basis
for mandatory access control decisions. In order to import
non-labeled data, the TCB shall request and receive from an
authorized user the security level of the data, and all such
actions shall be auditable by the TCB.
3.3.1.3.1 Label Integrity
Sensitivity labels shall accurately represent security
levels of the specific subjects or objects with which
they are associated. When exported by the TCB,
sensitivity labels shall accurately and unambiguously
represent the internal labels and shall be associated
with the information being exported.
3.3.1.3.2 Exportation of Labeled Information
The TCB shall designate each communication channel and
I/O device as either single-level or multilevel. Any
change in this designation shall be done manually and
shall be auditable by the TCB. The TCB shall maintain
and be able to audit any change in the security level
or levels associated with a communication channel or
I/O device.
3.3.1.3.2.1 Exportation to Multilevel Devices
When the TCB exports an object to a multilevel I/O
device, the sensitivity label associated with that
object shall also be exported and shall reside on
the same physical medium as the exported
information and shall be in the same form (i.e.,
machine-readable or human-readable form). When
the TCB exports or imports an object over a
multilevel communication channel, the protocol
used on that channel shall provide for the
unambiguous pairing between the sensitivity labels
and the associated information that is sent or
received.
3.3.1.3.2.2 Exportation to Single-Level Devices
Single-level I/O devices and single-level
communication channels are not required to
maintain the sensitivity labels of the information
they process. However, the TCB shall include a
mechanism by which the TCB and an authorized user
reliably communicate to designate the single
security level of information imported or exported
via single-level communication channels or I/O
devices.
3.3.1.3.2.3 Labeling Human-Readable Output
The ADP system administrator shall be able to
specify the printable label names associated with
exported sensitivity labels. The TCB shall mark
the beginning and end of all human-readable, paged,
hardcopy output (e.g., line printer output) with
human-readable sensitivity labels that properly*
represent the sensitivity of the output. The TCB
shall, by default, mark the top and bottom of each
page of human-readable, paged, hardcopy output
(e.g., line printer output) with human-readable
sensitivity labels that properly* represent the
overall sensitivity of the output or that
properly* represent the sensitivity of the
information on the page. The TCB shall, by
default and in an appropriate manner, mark other
forms of human-readable output (e.g., maps,
graphics) with human-readable sensitivity labels
that properly* represent the sensitivity of the
output. Any override of these marking defaults
shall be auditable by the TCB.
3.3.1.3.3 Subject Sensitivity Labels
The TCB shall immediately notify a terminal user of each
change in the security level associated with that user
during an interactive session. A terminal user shall be
able to query the TCB as desired for a display of the
subject's complete sensitivity label.
3.3.1.3.4 Device Labels
The TCB shall support the assignment of minimum and
maximum security levels to all attached physical devices.
These security levels shall be used by the TCB to enforce
constraints imposed by the physical environments in which
the devices are located.
3.3.1.4 Mandatory Access Control
The TCB shall enforce a mandatory access control policy over
all resources (i.e., subjects, storage objects, and I/O
devices) that are directly or indirectly accessible by subjects
external to the TCB. These subjects and objects shall be
assigned sensitivity labels that are a combination of
hierarchical classification levels and non-hierarchical
categories, and the labels shall be used as the basis for
mandatory access control decisions. The TCB shall be able to
support two or more such security levels. (See the Mandatory
______________________________
* The hierarchical classification component in human-readable sensitivity
labels shall be equal to the greatest hierarchical classification of any of the
information in the output that the labels refer to; the non-hierarchical
category component shall include all of the non-hierarchical categories of the
information in the output the labels refer to, but no other non-hierarchical
categories.
Access Control guidelines.) The following requirements shall
hold for all accesses between all subjects external to the TCB
and all objects directly or indirectly accessible by these
subjects: A subject can read an object only if the hierarchical
classification in the subject's security level is greater than
or equal to the hierarchical classification in the object's
security level and the non-hierarchical categories in the
subject's security level include all the non-hierarchical
categories in the object's security level. A subject can write
an object only if the hierarchical classification in the
subject's security level is less than or equal to the
hierarchical classification in the object's security level and
all the non-hierarchical categories in the subject's security
level are included in the non- hierarchical categories in the
object's security level. Identification and authentication
data shall be used by the TCB to authenticate the user's
identity and to ensure that the security level and authori-
zation of subjects external to the TCB that may be created
to act on behalf of the individual user are dominated by the
clearance and authorization of that user.
3.3.2 Accountability
3.3.2.1 Identification and Authentication
The TCB shall require users to identify themselves to it before
beginning to perform any other actions that the TCB is expected
to mediate. Furthermore, the TCB shall maintain authentication
data that includes information for verifying the identity of
individual users (e.g., passwords) as well as information for
determining the clearance and authorizations of individual
users. This data shall be used by the TCB to authenticate the
user's identity and to ensure that the security level and
authorizations of subjectsexternal to the TCB that may be
created to act on behalf of the individual user are dominated
by the clearance and authorization of that user. The TCB shall
protect authentication data so that it cannot be accessed by any
unauthorized user. The TCB shall be able to enforce individual
accountability by providing the capability to uniquely identify
each individual ADP system user. The TCB shall also provide the
capability of associating this identity with all auditable
actions taken by that individual.
3.3.2.1.1 Trusted Path
The TCB shall support a trusted communication path
between itself and users for use when a positive TCB-to-
user connection is required (e.g., login, change subject
security level). Communications via this trusted path
shall be activated exclusively by a user of the TCB and
shall be logically isolated and unmistakably
distinguishable from other paths.
3.3.2.2 Audit
The TCB shall be able to create, maintain, and protect from
modification or unauthorized access or destruction an audit
trail of accesses to the objects it protects. The audit data
shall be protected by the TCB so that read access to it is
limited to those who are authorized for audit data. The TCB
shall be able to record the following types of events: use of
identification and authentication mechanisms, introduction of
objects into a user's address space (e.g., file open, program
initiation), deletion of objects, and actions taken by computer
operators and system administrators and/or system security
officers and other security relevant events. The TCB shall also
be able to audit any override of human-readable output markings.
For each recorded event, the audit record shall identify: date
and time of the event, user, type of event, and success or
failure of the event. For identification/authentication events
the origin of request (e.g., terminal ID) shall be included in
the audit record. For events that introduce an object into a
user's address space and for object deletion events the audit
record shall include the name of the object and the object's
security level. The ADP system administrator shall be able to
selectively audit the actions of any one or more users based on
individual identity and/or object security level. The TCB shall
be able to audit the identified events that may be used in the
exploitation of covert storage channels. The TCB shall contain
a mechanism that is able to monitor the occurrence or
accumulation of security auditable events that may indicate an
imminent violation of security policy. This mechanism shall be
able to immediately notify the security administrator when
thresholds are exceeded, and if the occurrence or accumulation
of these security relevant events continues, the system shall
take the least disruptive action to terminate the event.
3.3.3 Assurance
3.3.3.1 Operational Assurance
3.3.3.1.1 System Architecture
The TCB shall maintain a domain for its own execution
that protects it from external interference or tampering
(e.g., by modification of its code or data structures).
The TCB shall maintain process isolation through the
provision of distinct address spaces under its control.
The TCB shall be internally structured into well-defined
largely independent modules. It shall make effective use
of available hardware to separate those elements that are
protection-critical from those that are not. The TCB
modules shall be designed such that the principle of
least privilege is enforced. Features in hardware, such
as segmentation, shall be used to support logically
distinct storage objects with separate attributes (namely:
readable, writeable). The user interface to the TCB shall
be completely defined and all elements of the TCB
identified. The TCB shall be designed and structured to
use a complete, conceptually simple protection mechanism
with precisely defined semantics. This mechanism shall
play a central role in enforcing the internal structuring
of the TCB and the system. The TCB shall incorporate
significant use of layering, abstraction and data hiding.
Significant system engineering shall be directed toward
minimizing the complexity of the TCB and excluding from
the TCB modules that are not protection-critical.
3.3.3.1.2 System Integrity
Hardware and/or software features shall be provided that
can be used to periodically validate the correct
operation of the on-site hardware and firmware elements
of the TCB.
3.3.3.1.3 Covert Channel Analysis
The system developer shall conduct a thorough search for
covert channels and make a determination (either by
actual measurement or by engineering estimation) of the
maximum bandwidth of each identified channel. (See the
Covert Channels Guideline section.)
3.3.3.1.4 Trusted Facility Management
The TCB shall support separate operator and administrator
functions. The functions performed in the role of a
security administrator shall be identified. The ADP
system administrative personnel shall only be able to
perform security administrator functions after taking a
distinct auditable action to assume the security
administrator role on the ADP system. Non-security
functions that can be performed in the security
administration role shall be limited strictly to those
essential to performing the security role effectively.
3.3.3.1.5 Trusted Recovery
Procedures and/or mechanisms shall be provided to assure
that, after an ADP system failure or other discontinuity,
recovery without a protection compromise is obtained.
3.3.3.2 Life-Cycle Assurance
3.3.3.2.1 Security Testing
The security mechanisms of the ADP system shall be tested
and found to work as claimed in the system documentation.
A team of individuals who thoroughly understand the
specific implementation of the TCB shall subject its
design documentation, source code, and object code to
thorough analysis and testing. Their objectives shall
be: to uncover all design and implementation flaws that
would permit a subject external to the TCB to read,
change, or delete data normally denied under the
mandatory or discretionary security policy enforced by
the TCB; as well as to assure that no subject (without
authorization to do so) is able to cause the TCB to enter
a state such that it is unable to respond to
communications initiated by other users. The TCB shall
be found resistant to penetration. All discovered flaws
shall be corrected and the TCB retested to demonstrate
that they have been eliminated and that new flaws have
not been introduced. Testing shall demonstrate that the
TCB implementation is consistent with the descriptive
top-level specification. (See the Security Testing
Guidelines.) No design flaws and no more than a few
correctable implementation flaws may be found during
testing and there shall be reasonable confidence that
few remain.
3.3.3.2.2 Design Specification and Verification
A formal model of the security policy supported by the
TCB shall be maintained over the life cycle of the ADP
system that is proven consistent with its axioms. A
descriptive top-level specification (DTLS) of the TCB
shall be maintained that completely and accurately
describes the TCB in terms of exceptions, error messages,
and effects. It shall be shown to be an accurate
description of the TCB interface. A convincing argument
shall be given that the DTLS is consistent with the model.
3.3.3.2.3 Configuration Management
During development and maintenance of the TCB, a
configuration management system shall be in place that
maintains control of changes to the descriptive top-level
specification, other design data, implementation
documentation, source code, the running version of the
object code, and test fixtures and documentation. The
configuration management system shall assure a consistent
mapping among all documentation and code associated with
the current version of the TCB. Tools shall be provided
for generation of a new version of the TCB from source
code. Also available shall be tools for comparing a
newly generated version with the previous TCB version in
order to ascertain that only the intended changes have
been made in the code that will actually be used as the
new version of the TCB.
3.3.4 Documentation
3.3.4.1 Security Features User's Guide
A single summary, chapter, or manual in user documentation
shall describe the protection mechanisms provided by the TCB,
guidelines on their use, and how they interact with one another.
3.3.4.2 Trusted Facility Manual
A manual addressed to the ADP system administrator shall
present cautions about functions and privileges that should be
controlled when running a secure facility. The procedures for
examining and maintaining the audit files as well as the
detailed audit record structure for each type of audit event
shall be given. The manual shall describe the operator and
administrator functions related to security, to include
changing the security characteristics of a user. It shall
provide guidelines on the consistent and effective use of the
protection features of the system, how they interact, how to
securely generate a new TCB, and facility procedures, warnings,
and privileges that need to be controlled in order to operate
the facility in a secure manner. The TCB modules that contain
the reference validation mechanism shall be identified. The
procedures for secure generation of a new TCB from source after
modification of any modules in the TCB shall be described. It
shall include the procedures to ensure that the system is
initially started in a secure manner. Procedures shall also be
included to resume secure system operation after any lapse in
system operation.
3.3.4.3 Test Documentation
The system developer shall provide to the evaluators a document
that describes the test plan, test procedures that show how the
security mechanisms were tested, and results of the security
mechanisms' functional testing. It shall include results of
testing the effectiveness of the methods used to reduce covert
channel bandwidths.
3.3.4.4 Design Documentation
Documentation shall be available that provides a description of
the manufacturer's philosophy of protection and an explanation
of how this philosophy is translated into the TCB. The
interfaces between the TCB modules shall be described. A
formal description of the security policy model enforced by the
TCB shall be available and proven that it is sufficient to
enforce the security policy. The specific TCB protection
mechanisms shall be identified and an explanation given to show
that they satisfy the model. The descriptive top-level
specification (DTLS) shall be shown to be an accurate
description of the TCB interface. Documentation shall describe
how the TCB implements the reference monitor concept and give
an explanation why it is tamper resistant, cannot be bypassed,
and is correctly implemented. The TCB implementation (i.e., in
hardware, firmware, and software) shall be informally shown to
be consistent with the DTLS. The elements of the DTLS shall be
shown, using informal techniques, to correspond to the elements
of the TCB. Documentation shall describe how the TCB is
structured to facilitate testing and to enforce least privilege.
This documentation shall also present the results of the covert
channel analysis and the tradeoffs involved in restricting the
channels. All auditable events that may be used in the
exploitation of known covert storage channels shall be
identified. The bandwidths of known covert storage channels,
the use of which is not detectable by the auditing mechanisms,
shall be provided. (See the Covert Channel Guideline section.)
4.0 DIVISION A: VERIFIED PROTECTION
This division is characterized by the use of formal security verification
methods to assure that the mandatory and discretionary security controls
employed in the system can effectively protect classified or other sensitive
information stored or processed by the system. Extensive documentation is
required to demonstrate that the TCB meets the security requirements in all
aspects of design, development and implementation.
4.1 CLASS (A1): VERIFIED DESIGN
Systems in class (A1) are functionally equivalent to those in class (B3) in
that no additional architectural features or policy requirements are added.
The distinguishing feature of systems in this class is the analysis derived
from formal design specification and verification techniques and the resulting
high degree of assurance that the TCB is correctly implemented. This
assurance is developmental in nature, starting with a formal model of the
security policy and a formal top-level specification (FTLS) of the design.
Independent of the particular specification language or verification system
used, there are five important criteria for class (A1) design verification:
* A formal model of the security policy must be clearly
identified and documented, including a mathematical proof
that the model is consistent with its axioms and is
sufficient to support the security policy.
* An FTLS must be produced that includes abstract definitions
of the functions the TCB performs and of the hardware and/or
firmware mechanisms that are used to support separate
execution domains.
* The FTLS of the TCB must be shown to be consistent with the
model by formal techniques where possible (i.e., where
verification tools exist) and informal ones otherwise.
* The TCB implementation (i.e., in hardware, firmware, and
software) must be informally shown to be consistent with the
FTLS. The elements of the FTLS must be shown, using
informal techniques, to correspond to the elements of the
TCB. The FTLS must express the unified protection mechanism
required to satisfy the security policy, and it is the
elements of this protection mechanism that are mapped to the
elements of the TCB.
* Formal analysis techniques must be used to identify and
analyze covert channels. Informal techniques may be used to
identify covert timing channels. The continued existence of
identified covert channels in the system must be justified.
In keeping with the extensive design and development analysis of the TCB
required of systems in class (A1), more stringent configuration management is
required and procedures are established for securely distributing the system
to sites. A system security administrator is supported.
The following are minimal requirements for systems assigned a class (A1)
rating:
4.1.1 Security Policy
4.1.1.1 Discretionary Access Control
The TCB shall define and control access between named users and
named objects (e.g., files and programs) in the ADP system.
The enforcement mechanism (e.g., access control lists) shall
allow users to specify and control sharing of those objects,
and shall provide controls to limit propagation of access
rights. The discretionary access control mechanism shall,
either by explicit user action or by default, provide that
objects are protected from unauthorized access. These access
controls shall be capable of specifying, for each named object,
a list of named individuals and a list of groups of named
individuals with their respective modes of access to that
object. Furthermore, for each such named object, it shall be
possible to specify a list of named individuals and a list of
groups of named individuals for which no access to the object is
to be given. Access permission to an object by users not
already possessing access permission shall only be assigned by
authorized users.
4.1.1.2 Object Reuse
All authorizations to the information contained within a
storage object shall be revoked prior to initial assignment,
allocation or reallocation to a subject from the TCB's pool
of unused storage objects. No information, including encrypted
representations of information, produced by a prior subject's
actions is to be available to any subject that obtains access
to an object that has been released back to the system.
4.1.1.3 Labels
Sensitivity labels associated with each ADP system resource
(e.g., subject, storage object, ROM) that is directly or
indirectly accessible by subjects external to the TCB shall be
maintained by the TCB. These labels shall be used as the basis
for mandatory access control decisions. In order to import
non-labeled data, the TCB shall request and receive from an
authorized user the security level of the data, and all such
actions shall be auditable by the TCB.
4.1.1.3.1 Label Integrity
Sensitivity labels shall accurately represent security
levels of the specific subjects or objects with which
they are associated. When exported by the TCB,
sensitivity labels shall accurately and unambiguously
represent the internal labels and shall be associated
with the information being exported.
4.1.1.3.2 Exportation of Labeled Information
The TCB shall designate each communication channel and
I/O device as either single-level or multilevel. Any
change in this designation shall be done manually and
shall be auditable by the TCB. The TCB shall maintain
and be able to audit any change in the security level
or levels associated with a communication channel or
I/O device.
4.1.1.3.2.1 Exportation to Multilevel Devices
When the TCB exports an object to a multilevel I/O
device, the sensitivity label associated with that
object shall also be exported and shall reside on
the same physical medium as the exported
information and shall be in the same form (i.e.,
machine-readable or human-readable form). When
the TCB exports or imports an object over a
multilevel communication channel, the protocol
used on that channel shall provide for the
unambiguous pairing between the sensitivity labels
and the associated information that is sent or
received.
4.1.1.3.2.2 Exportation to Single-Level Devices
Single-level I/O devices and single-level
communication channels are not required to
maintain the sensitivity labels of the information
they process. However, the TCB shall include a
mechanism by which the TCB and an authorized user
reliably communicate to designate the single
security level of information imported or exported
via single-level communication channels or I/O
devices.
4.1.1.3.2.3 Labeling Human-Readable Output
The ADP system administrator shall be able to
specify the printable label names associated with
exported sensitivity labels. The TCB shall mark
the beginning and end of all human-readable, paged,
hardcopy output (e.g., line printer output) with
human-readable sensitivity labels that properly*
represent the sensitivity of the output. The TCB
shall, by default, mark the top and bottom of each
page of human-readable, paged, hardcopy output
(e.g., line printer output) with human-readable
sensitivity labels that properly* represent the
overall sensitivity of the output or that
properly* represent the sensitivity of the
information on the page. The TCB shall, by
default and in an appropriate manner, mark other
forms of human-readable output (e.g., maps,
graphics) with human-readable sensitivity labels
that properly* represent the sensitivity of the
output. Any override of these marking defaults
shall be auditable by the TCB.
4.1.1.3.3 Subject Sensitivity Labels
The TCB shall immediately notify a terminal user of each
change in the security level associated with that user
during an interactive session. A terminal user shall be
able to query the TCB as desired for a display of the
subject's complete sensitivity label.
4.1.1.3.4 Device Labels
The TCB shall support the assignment of minimum and
maximum security levels to all attached physical devices.
These security levels shall be used by the TCB to enforce
constraints imposed by the physical environments in which
the devices are located.
4.1.1.4 Mandatory Access Control
The TCB shall enforce a mandatory access control policy over
all resources (i.e., subjects, storage objects, and I/O
devices) that are directly or indirectly accessible by subjects
external to the TCB. These subjects and objects shall be
assigned sensitivity labels that are a combination of
hierarchical classification levels and non-hierarchical
categories, and the labels shall be used as the basis for
mandatory access control decisions. The TCB shall be able to
support two or more such security levels. (See the Mandatory
Access Control guidelines.) The following requirements shall
hold for all accesses between all subjects external to the TCB
and all objects directly or indirectly accessible by these
subjects: A subject can read an object only if the hierarchical
classification in the subject's security level is greater than
or equal to the hierarchical classification in the object's
security level and the non-hierarchical categories in the
subject's security level include all the non-hierarchical
categories in the object's security level. A subject can write
______________________________
* The hierarchical classification component in human-readable sensitivity
labels shall be equal to the greatest hierarchical classification of any of the
information in the output that the labels refer to; the non-hierarchical
category component shall include all of the non-hierarchical categories of the
information in the output the labels refer to, but no other non-hierarchical
categories.
an object only if the hierarchical classification in the
subject's security level is less than or equal to the
hierarchical classification in the object's security level and
all the non-hierarchical categories in the subject's security
level are included in the non- hierarchical categories in the
object's security level. Identification and authentication
data shall be used by the TCB to authenticate the user's
identity and to ensure that the security level and authoriza-
tion of subjects external to the TCB that may be created to
act on behalf of the individual user are dominated by the
clearance and authorization of that user.
4.1.2 Accountability
4.1.2.1 Identification and Authentication
The TCB shall require users to identify themselves to it before
beginning to perform any other actions that the TCB is expected
to mediate. Furthermore, the TCB shall maintain authentication
data that includes information for verifying the identity of
individual users (e.g., passwords) as well as information for
determining the clearance and authorizations of individual
users. This data shall be used by the TCB to authenticate the
user's identity and to ensure that the security level and
authorizations of subjects external to the TCB that may be
created to act on behalf of the individual user are dominated by
the clearance and authorization of that user. The TCB shall
protect authentication data so that it cannot be accessed by any
unauthorized user. The TCB shall be able to enforce individual
accountability by providing the capability to uniquely identify
each individual ADP system user. The TCB shall also provide the
capability of associating this identity with all auditable
actions taken by that individual.
4.1.2.1.1 Trusted Path
The TCB shall support a trusted communication path
between itself and users for use when a positive TCB-to-
user connection is required (e.g., login, change subject
security level). Communications via this trusted path
shall be activated exclusively by a user or the TCB and
shall be logically isolated and unmistakably
distinguishable from other paths.
4.1.2.2 Audit
The TCB shall be able to create, maintain, and protect from
modification or unauthorized access or destruction an audit
trail of accesses to the objects it protects. The audit data
shall be protected by the TCB so that read access to it is
limited to those who are authorized for audit data. The TCB
shall be able to record the following types of events: use of
identification and authentication mechanisms, introduction of
objects into a user's address space (e.g., file open, program
initiation), deletion of objects, and actions taken by computer
operators and system administrators and/or system security
officers, and other security relevant events. The TCB shall
also be able to audit any override of human-readable output
markings. For each recorded event, the audit record shall
identify: date and time of the event, user, type of event, and
success or failure of the event. For identification/
authentication events the origin of request (e.g., terminal ID)
shall be included in the audit record. For events that
introduce an object into a user's address space and for object
deletion events the audit record shall include the name of the
object and the object's security level. The ADP system
administrator shall be able to selectively audit the actions of
any one or more users based on individual identity and/or object
security level. The TCB shall be able to audit the identified
events that may be used in the exploitation of covert storage
channels. The TCB shall contain a mechanism that is able to
monitor the occurrence or accumulation of security auditable
events that may indicate an imminent violation of security
policy. This mechanism shall be able to immediately notify the
security administrator when thresholds are exceeded, and, if
the occurrence or accumulation of these security relevant
events continues, the system shall take the least disruptive
action to terminate the event.
4.1.3 Assurance
4.1.3.1 Operational Assurance
4.1.3.1.1 System Architecture
The TCB shall maintain a domain for its own execution
that protects it from external interference or tampering
(e.g., by modification of its code or data structures).
The TCB shall maintain process isolation through the
provision of distinct address spaces under its control.
The TCB shall be internally structured into well-defined
largely independent modules. It shall make effective use
of available hardware to separate those elements that are
protection-critical from those that are not. The TCB
modules shall be designed such that the principle of
least privilege is enforced. Features in hardware, such
as segmentation, shall be used to support logically
distinct storage objects with separate attributes (namely:
readable, writeable). The user interface to the TCB
shall be completely defined and all elements of the TCB
identified. The TCB shall be designed and structured to
use a complete, conceptually simple protection mechanism
with precisely defined semantics. This mechanism shall
play a central role in enforcing the internal structuring
of the TCB and the system. The TCB shall incorporate
significant use of layering, abstraction and data hiding.
Significant system engineering shall be directed toward
minimizing the complexity of the TCB and excluding from
the TCB modules that are not protection-critical.
4.1.3.1.2 System Integrity
Hardware and/or software features shall be provided that
can be used to periodically validate the correct
operation of the on-site hardware and firmware elements
of the TCB.
4.1.3.1.3 Covert Channel Analysis
The system developer shall conduct a thorough search for
covert channels and make a determination (either by
actual measurement or by engineering estimation) of the
maximum bandwidth of each identified channel. (See the
Covert Channels Guideline section.) Formal methods shall
be used in the analysis.
4.1.3.1.4 Trusted Facility Management
The TCB shall support separate operator and administrator
functions. The functions performed in the role of a
security administrator shall be identified. The ADP
system administrative personnel shall only be able to
perform security administrator functions after taking a
distinct auditable action to assume the security
administrator role on the ADP system. Non-security
functions that can be performed in the security
administration role shall be limited strictly to those
essential to performing the security role effectively.
4.1.3.1.5 Trusted Recovery
Procedures and/or mechanisms shall be provided to assure
that, after an ADP system failure or other discontinuity,
recovery without a protection compromise is obtained.
4.1.3.2 Life-Cycle Assurance
4.1.3.2.1 Security Testing
The security mechanisms of the ADP system shall be tested
and found to work as claimed in the system documentation.
A team of individuals who thoroughly understand the
specific implementation of the TCB shall subject its
design documentation, source code, and object code to
thorough analysis and testing. Their objectives shall
be: to uncover all design and implementation flaws that
would permit a subject external to the TCB to read,
change, or delete data normally denied under the
mandatory or discretionary security policy enforced by
the TCB; as well as to assure that no subject (without
authorization to do so) is able to cause the TCB to enter
a state such that it is unable to respond to
communications initiated by other users. The TCB shall
be found resistant to penetration. All discovered flaws
shall be corrected and the TCB retested to demonstrate
that they have been eliminated and that new flaws have
not been introduced. Testing shall demonstrate that the
TCB implementation is consistent with the formal top-
level specification. (See the Security Testing
Guidelines.) No design flaws and no more than a few
correctable implementation flaws may be found during
testing and there shall be reasonable confidence that few
remain. Manual or other mapping of the FTLS to the
source code may form a basis for penetration testing.
4.1.3.2.2 Design Specification and Verification
A formal model of the security policy supported by the
TCB shall be maintained over the life-cycle of the ADP
system that is proven consistent with its axioms. A
descriptive top-level specification (DTLS) of the TCB
shall be maintained that completely and accurately
describes the TCB in terms of exceptions, error messages,
and effects. A formal top-level specification (FTLS) of
the TCB shall be maintained that accurately describes the
TCB in terms of exceptions, error messages, and effects.
The DTLS and FTLS shall include those components of the
TCB that are implemented as hardware and/or firmware if
their properties are visible at the TCB interface. The
FTLS shall be shown to be an accurate description of the
TCB interface. A convincing argument shall be given that
the DTLS is consistent with the model and a combination of
formal and informal techniques shall be used to show that
the FTLS is consistent with the model. This verification
evidence shall be consistent with that provided within the
state-of-the-art of the particular computer security
center-endorsed formal specification and verification
system used. Manual or other mapping of the FTLS to the
TCB source code shall be performed to provide evidence of
correct implementation.
4.1.3.2.3 Configuration Management
During the entire life-cycle, i.e., during the design,
development, and maintenance of the TCB, a configuration
management system shall be in place for all security-
relevant hardware, firmware, and software that maintains
control of changes to the formal model, the descriptive
and formal top-level specifications, other design data,
implementation documentation, source code, the running
version of the object code, and test fixtures and
documentation. The configuration management system shall
assure a consistent mapping among all documentation and
code associated with the current version of the TCB.
Tools shall be provided for generation of a new version
of the TCB from source code. Also available shall be
tools, maintained under strict configuration control, for
comparing a newly generated version with the previous TCB
version in order to ascertain that only the intended
changes have been made in the code that will actually be
used as the new version of the TCB. A combination of
technical, physical, and procedural safeguards shall be
used to protect from unauthorized modification or
destruction the master copy or copies of all material
used to generate the TCB.
4.1.3.2.4 Trusted Distribution
A trusted ADP system control and distribution facility
shall be provided for maintaining the integrity of the
mapping between the master data describing the current
version of the TCB and the on-site master copy of the
code for the current version. Procedures (e.g., site
security acceptance testing) shall exist for assuring
that the TCb software, firmware, and hardware updates
distributed to a customer are exactly as specified by
the master copies.
4.1.4 Documentation
4.1.4.1 Security Features User's Guide
A single summary, chapter, or manual in user documentation
shall describe the protection mechanisms provided by the TCB,
guidelines on their use, and how they interact with one another.
4.1.4.2 Trusted Facility Manual
A manual addressed to the ADP system administrator shall
present cautions about functions and privileges that should be
controlled when running a secure facility. The procedures for
examining and maintaining the audit files as well as the
detailed audit record structure for each type of audit event
shall be given. The manual shall describe the operator and
administrator functions related to security, to include
changing the security characteristics of a user. It shall
provide guidelines on the consistent and effective use of the
protection features of the system, how they interact, how to
securely generate a new TCB, and facility procedures, warnings,
and privileges that need to be controlled in order to operate
the facility in a secure manner. The TCB modules that contain
the reference validation mechanism shall be identified. The
procedures for secure generation of a new TCB from source after
modification of any modules in the TCB shall be described. It
shall include the procedures to ensure that the system is
initially started in a secure manner. Procedures shall also be
included to resume secure system operation after any lapse in
system operation.
4.1.4.3 Test Documentation
The system developer shall provide to the evaluators a document
that describes the test plan, test procedures that show how the
security mechanisms were tested, and results of the security
mechanisms' functional testing. It shall include results of
testing the effectiveness of the methods used to reduce covert
channel bandwidths. The results of the mapping between the
formal top-level specification and the TCB source code shall be
given.
4.1.4.4 Design Documentation
Documentation shall be available that provides a description of
the manufacturer's philosophy of protection and an explanation
of how this philosophy is translated into the TCB. The
interfaces between the TCB modules shall be described. A
formal description of the security policy model enforced by the
TCB shall be available and proven that it is sufficient to
enforce the security policy. The specific TCB protection
mechanisms shall be identified and an explanation given to show
that they satisfy the model. The descriptive top-level speci-
fication (DTLS) shall be shown to be an accurate description of
the TCB interface. Documentation shall describe how the TCB
implements the reference monitor concept and give an explana-
tion why it is tamper resistant, cannot be bypassed, and
is correctly implemented. The TCB implementation (i.e., in
hardware, firmware, and software) shall be informally shown to
be consistent with the formal top-level specification (FTLS).
The elements of the FTLS shall be shown, using informal
techniques, to correspond to the elements of the TCB.
Documentation shall describe how the TCB is structured to
facilitate testing and to enforce least privilege. This
documentation shall also present the results of the covert
channel analysis and the tradeoffs involved in restricting the
channels. All auditable events that may be used in the
exploitation of known covert storage channels shall be
identified. The bandwidths of known covert storage channels,
the use of which is not detectable by the auditing mechanisms,
shall be provided. (See the Covert Channel Guideline section.)
Hardware, firmware, and software mechanisms not dealt with in
the FTLS but strictly internal to the TCB (e.g., mapping
registers, direct memory access I/O) shall be clearly described.
4.2 BEYOND CLASS (A1)
Most of the security enhancements envisioned for systems that will provide
features and assurance in addition to that already provided by class (Al)
systems are beyond current technology. The discussion below is intended to
guide future work and is derived from research and development activities
already underway in both the public and private sectors. As more and better
analysis techniques are developed, the requirements for these systems will
become more explicit. In the future, use of formal verification will be
extended to the source level and covert timing channels will be more fully
addressed. At this level the design environment will become important and
testing will be aided by analysis of the formal top-level specification.
Consideration will be given to the correctness of the tools used in TCB
development (e.g., compilers, assemblers, loaders) and to the correct
functioning of the hardware/firmware on which the TCB will run. Areas to be
addressed by systems beyond class (A1) include:
* System Architecture
A demonstration (formal or otherwise) must be given showing
that requirements of self-protection and completeness for
reference monitors have been implemented in the TCB.
* Security Testing
Although beyond the current state-of-the-art, it is
envisioned that some test-case generation will be done
automatically from the formal top-level specification or
formal lower-level specifications.
* Formal Specification and Verification
The TCB must be verified down to the source code level,
using formal verification methods where feasible. Formal
verification of the source code of the security-relevant
portions of an operating system has proven to be a difficult
task. Two important considerations are the choice of a
high-level language whose semantics can be fully and
formally expressed, and a careful mapping, through
successive stages, of the abstract formal design to a
formalization of the implementation in low-level
specifications. Experience has shown that only when the
lowest level specifications closely correspond to the actual
code can code proofs be successfully accomplished.
* Trusted Design Environment
The TCB must be designed in a trusted facility with only
trusted (cleared) personnel.
PART II:
RATIONALE AND GUIDELINES
5.0 CONTROL OBJECTIVES FOR TRUSTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS
The criteria are divided within each class into groups of requirements. These
groupings were developed to assure that three basic control objectives for
computer security are satisfied and not overlooked. These control objectives
deal with:
* Security Policy
* Accountability
* Assurance
This section provides a discussion of these general control objectives and
their implication in terms of designing trusted systems.
5.1 A NEED FOR CONSENSUS
A major goal of the DoD Computer Security Center is to encourage the Computer
Industry to develop trusted computer systems and products, making them widely
available in the commercial market place. Achievement of this goal will
require recognition and articulation by both the public and private sectors of
a need and demand for such products.
As described in the introduction to this document, efforts to define the
problems and develop solutions associated with processing nationally sensitive
information, as well as other sensitive data such as financial, medical, and
personnel information used by the National Security Establishment, have been
underway for a number of years. The criteria, as described in Part I,
represent the culmination of these efforts and describe basic requirements for
building trusted computer systems. To date, however, these systems have been
viewed by many as only satisfying National Security needs. As long as this
perception continues the consensus needed to motivate manufacture of trusted
systems will be lacking.
The purpose of this section is to describe in detail the fundamental control
objectives. These objectives lay the foundation for the requirements outlined
in the criteria. The goal is to explain the foundations so that those outside
the National Security Establishment can assess their universality and, by
extension, the universal applicability of the criteria requirements to
processing all types of sensitive applications whether they be for National
Security or the private sector.
5.2 DEFINITION AND USEFULNESS
The term "control objective" refers to a statement of intent with respect to
control over some aspect of an organization's resources, or processes, or
both. In terms of a computer system, control objectives provide a framework
for developing a strategy for fulfilling a set of security requirements for
any given system. Developed in response to generic vulnerabilities, such as
the need to manage and handle sensitive data in order to prevent compromise,
or the need to provide accountability in order to detect fraud, control
objectives have been identified as a useful method of expressing security
goals.[3]
Examples of control objectives include the three basic design requirements for
implementing the reference monitor concept discussed in Section 6. They are:
* The reference validation mechanism must be tamperproof.
* The reference validation mechanism must always be invoked.
* The reference validation mechanism must be small enough to be
subjected to analysis and tests, the completeness of which can
be assured.[1]
5.3 CRITERIA CONTROL OBJECTIVES
The three basic control objectives of the criteria are concerned with security
policy, accountability, and assurance. The remainder of this section provides
a discussion of these basic requirements.
5.3.1 Security Policy
In the most general sense, computer security is concerned with
controlling the way in which a computer can be used, i.e.,
controlling how information processed by it can be accessed and
manipulated. However, at closer examination, computer security
can refer to a number of areas. Symptomatic of this, FIPS PUB 39,
Glossary For Computer Systems Security, does not have a unique
definition for computer security.[16] Instead there are eleven
separate definitions for security which include: ADP systems
security, administrative security, data security, etc. A common
thread running through these definitions is the word "protection."
Further declarations of protection requirements can be found in
DoD Directive 5200.28 which describes an acceptable level of
protection for classified data to be one that will "assure that
systems which process, store, or use classified data and produce
classified information will, with reasonable dependability,
prevent: a. Deliberate or inadvertent access to classified
material by unauthorized persons, and b. Unauthorized
manipulation of the computer and its associated peripheral
devices."[8]
In summary, protection requirements must be defined in terms of
the perceived threats, risks, and goals of an organization. This
is often stated in terms of a security policy. It has been
pointed out in the literature that it is external laws, rules,
regulations, etc. that establish what access to information is to
be permitted, independent of the use of a computer. In particular,
a given system can only be said to be secure with respect to its
enforcement of some specific policy.[30] Thus, the control
objective for security policy is:
SECURITY POLICY CONTROL OBJECTIVE
A statement of intent with regard to control over access to and
dissemination of information, to be known as the security policy
must be precisely defined and implemented for each system that is
used to process sensitive information. The security policy must
accurately reflect the laws, regulations, and general policies
from which it is derived.
5.3.1.1 Mandatory Security Policy
Where a security policy is developed that is to be applied
to control of classified or other specifically designated
sensitive information, the policy must include detailed
rules on how to handle that information throughout its
life-cycle. These rules are a function of the various
sensitivity designations that the information can assume
and the various forms of access supported by the system.
Mandatory security refers to the enforcement of a set of
access control rules that constrains a subject's access to
information on the basis of a comparison of that
individual's clearance/authorization to the information,
the classification/sensitivity designation of the
information, and the form of access being mediated.
Mandatory policies either require or can be satisfied by
systems that can enforce a partial ordering of
designations, namely, the designations must form what is
mathematically known as a "lattice."[5]
A clear implication of the above is that the system must
assure that the designations associated with sensitive data
cannot be arbitrarily changed, since this could permit
individuals who lack the appropriate authorization to
access sensitive information. Also implied is the
requirement that the system control the flow of information
so that data cannot be stored with lower sensitivity
designations unless its "downgrading" has been authorized.
The control objective is:
MANDATORY SECURITY CONTROL OBJECTIVE
Security policies defined for systems that are used to
process classified or other specifically categorized
sensitive information must include provisions for the
enforcement of mandatory access control rules. That is,
they must include a set of rules for controlling access
based directly on a comparison of the individual's
clearance or authorization for the information and the
classification or sensitivity designation of the
information being sought, and indirectly on considerations
of physical and other environmental factors of control.
The mandatory access control rules must accurately reflect
the laws, regulations, and general policies from which
they are derived.
5.3.1.2 Discretionary Security Policy
Discretionary security is the principal type of access
control available in computer systems today. The basis of
this kind of security is that an individual user, or
program operating on his behalf, is allowed to specify
explicitly the types of access other users may have to
information under his control. Discretionary security
differs from mandatory security in that it implements an
access control policy on the basis of an individual's
need-to-know as opposed to mandatory controls which are
driven by the classification or sensitivity designation of
the information.
Discretionary controls are not a replacement for mandatory
controls. In an environment in which information is
classified (as in the DoD) discretionary security provides
for a finer granularity of control within the overall
constraints of the mandatory policy. Access to classified
information requires effective implementation of both types
of controls as precondition to granting that access. In
general, no person may have access to classified
information unless: (a) that person has been determined to
be trustworthy, i.e., granted a personnel security
clearance -- MANDATORY, and (b) access is necessary for the
performance of official duties, i.e., determined to have a
need-to-know -- DISCRETIONARY. In other words,
discretionary controls give individuals discretion to
decide on which of the permissible accesses will actually
be allowed to which users, consistent with overriding
mandatory policy restrictions. The control objective is:
DISCRETIONARY SECURITY CONTROL OBJECTIVE
Security policies defined for systems that are used to
process classified or other sensitive information must
include provisions for the enforcement of discretionary
access control rules. That is, they must include a
consistent set of rules for controlling and limiting access
based on identified individuals who have been determined to
have a need-to-know for the information.
5.3.1.3 Marking
To implement a set of mechanisms that will put into effect
a mandatory security policy, it is necessary that the
system mark information with appropriate classification or
sensitivity labels and maintain these markings as the
information moves through the system. Once information is
unalterably and accurately marked, comparisons required by
the mandatory access control rules can be accurately and
consistently made. An additional benefit of having the
system maintain the classification or sensitivity label
internally is the ability to automatically generate
properly "labeled" output. The labels, if accurately and
integrally maintained by the system, remain accurate when
output from the system. The control objective is:
MARKING CONTROL OBJECTIVE
Systems that are designed to enforce a mandatory security
policy must store and preserve the integrity of
classification or other sensitivity labels for all
information. Labels exported from the system must be
accurate representations of the corresponding internal
sensitivity labels being exported.
5.3.2 Accountability
The second basic control objective addresses one of the
fundamental principles of security, i.e., individual
accountability. Individual accountability is the key to securing
and controlling any system that processes information on behalf
of individuals or groups of individuals. A number of requirements
must be met in order to satisfy this objective.
The first requirement is for individual user identification.
Second, there is a need for authentication of the identification.
Identification is functionally dependent on authentication.
Without authentication, user identification has no credibility.
Without a credible identity, neither mandatory nor discretionary
security policies can be properly invoked because there is no
assurance that proper authorizations can be made.
The third requirement is for dependable audit capabilities. That
is, a trusted computer system must provide authorized personnel
with the ability to audit any action that can potentially cause
access to, generation of, or effect the release of classified or
sensitive information. The audit data will be selectively
acquired based on the auditing needs of a particular installation
and/or application. However, there must be sufficient granularity
in the audit data to support tracing the auditable events to a
specific individual who has taken the actions or on whose behalf
the actions were taken. The control objective is:
ACCOUNTABILITY CONTROL OBJECTIVE
Systems that are used to process or handle classified or other
sensitive information must assure individual accountability
whenever either a mandatory or discretionary security policy is
invoked. Furthermore, to assure accountability, the capability
must exist for an authorized and competent agent to access and
evaluate accountability information by a secure means, within a
reasonable amount of time, and without undue difficulty.
5.3.3 Assurance
The third basic control objective is concerned with guaranteeing
or providing confidence that the security policy has been
implemented correctly and that the protection-relevant elements of
the system do, indeed, accurately mediate and enforce the intent
of that policy. By extension, assurance must include a guarantee
that the trusted portion of the system works only as intended. To
accomplish these objectives, two types of assurance are needed.
They are life-cycle assurance and operational assurance.
Life-cycle assurance refers to steps taken by an organization to
ensure that the system is designed, developed, and maintained
using formalized and rigorous controls and standards.[17]
Computer systems that process and store sensitive or classified
information depend on the hardware and software to protect that
information. It follows that the hardware and software themselves
must be protected against unauthorized changes that could cause
protection mechanisms to malfunction or be bypassed completely.
For this reason trusted computer systems must be carefully
evaluated and tested during the design and development phases and
reevaluated whenever changes are made that could affect the
integrity of the protection mechanisms. Only in this way can
confidence be provided that the hardware and software
interpretation of the security policy is maintained accurately
and without distortion.
While life-cycle assurance is concerned with procedures for
managing system design, development, and maintenance; operational
assurance focuses on features and system architecture used to
ensure that the security policy is uncircumventably enforced
during system operation. That is, the security policy must be
integrated into the hardware and software protection features of
the system. Examples of steps taken to provide this kind of
confidence include: methods for testing the operational hardware
and software for correct operation, isolation of protection-
critical code, and the use of hardware and software to provide
distinct domains. The control objective is:
ASSURANCE CONTROL OBJECTIVE
Systems that are used to process or handle classified or other
sensitive information must be designed to guarantee correct and
accurate interpretation of the security policy and must not
distort the intent of that policy. Assurance must be provided
that correct implementation and operation of the policy exists
throughout the system's life-cycle.
6.0 RATIONALE BEHIND THE EVALUATION CLASSES
6.1 THE REFERENCE MONITOR CONCEPT
In October of 1972, the Computer Security Technology Planning Study, conducted
by James P. Anderson & Co., produced a report for the Electronic Systems
Division (ESD) of the United States Air Force.[1] In that report, the concept
of "a reference monitor which enforces the authorized access relationships
between subjects and objects of a system" was introduced. The reference
monitor concept was found to be an essential element of any system that would
provide multilevel secure computing facilities and controls.
The Anderson report went on to define the reference validation mechanism as
"an implementation of the reference monitor concept . . . that validates
each reference to data or programs by any user (program) against a list of
authorized types of reference for that user." It then listed the three design
requirements that must be met by a reference validation mechanism:
a. The reference validation mechanism must be tamper proof.
b. The reference validation mechanism must always be invoked.
c. The reference validation mechanism must be small enough to be
subject to analysis and tests, the completeness of which can
be assured."[1]
Extensive peer review and continuing research and development activities have
sustained the validity of the Anderson Committee's findings. Early examples
of the reference validation mechanism were known as security kernels. The
Anderson Report described the security kernel as "that combination of hardware
and software which implements the reference monitor concept."[1] In this vein,
it will be noted that the security kernel must support the three reference
monitor requirements listed above.
6.2 A FORMAL SECURITY POLICY MODEL
Following the publication of the Anderson report, considerable research was
initiated into formal models of security policy requirements and of the
mechanisms that would implement and enforce those policy models as a security
kernel. Prominent among these efforts was the ESD-sponsored development of
the Bell and LaPadula model, an abstract formal treatment of DoD security
policy.[2] Using mathematics and set theory, the model precisely defines the
notion of secure state, fundamental modes of access, and the rules for
granting subjects specific modes of access to objects. Finally, a theorem is
proven to demonstrate that the rules are security-preserving operations, so
that the application of any sequence of the rules to a system that is in a
secure state will result in the system entering a new state that is also
secure. This theorem is known as the Basic Security Theorem.
A subject can act on behalf of a user or another subject. The subject is
created as a surrogate for the cleared user and is assigned a formal security
level based on their classification. The state transitions and invariants of
the formal policy model define the invariant relationships that must hold
between the clearance of the user, the formal security level of any process
that can act on the user's behalf, and the formal security level of the devices
and other objects to which any process can obtain specific modes of access.
The Bell and LaPadula model, for example, defines a relationship between formal
security levels of subjects and objects, now referenced as the "dominance
relation." From this definition, accesses permitted between subjects and
objects are explicitly defined for the fundamental modes of access, including
read-only access, read/write access, and write-only access. The model defines
the Simple Security Condition to control granting a subject read access to a
specific object, and the *-Property (read "Star Property") to control granting
a subject write access to a specific object. Both the Simple Security
Condition and the *-Property include mandatory security provisions based on the
dominance relation between formal security levels of subjects and objects the
clearance of the subject and the classification of the object. The
Discretionary Security Property is also defined, and requires that a specific
subject be authorized for the particular mode of access required for the state
transition. In its treatment of subjects (processes acting on behalf of a
user), the model distinguishes between trusted subjects (i.e., not constrained
within the model by the *-Property) and untrusted subjects (those that are
constrained by the *-Property).
From the Bell and LaPadula model there evolved a model of the method of proof
required to formally demonstrate that all arbitrary sequences of state
transitions are security-preserving. It was also shown that the *- Property
is sufficient to prevent the compromise of information by Trojan Horse
attacks.
6.3 THE TRUSTED COMPUTING BASE
In order to encourage the widespread commercial availability of trusted
computer systems, these evaluation criteria have been designed to address
those systems in which a security kernel is specifically implemented as well
as those in which a security kernel has not been implemented. The latter case
includes those systems in which objective (c) is not fully supported because
of the size or complexity of the reference validation mechanism. For
convenience, these evaluation criteria use the term Trusted Computing Base to
refer to the reference validation mechanism, be it a security kernel,
front-end security filter, or the entire trusted computer system.
The heart of a trusted computer system is the Trusted Computing Base (TCB)
which contains all of the elements of the system responsible for supporting
the security policy and supporting the isolation of objects (code and data) on
which the protection is based. The bounds of the TCB equate to the "security
perimeter" referenced in some computer security literature. In the interest
of understandable and maintainable protection, a TCB should be as simple as
possible consistent with the functions it has to perform. Thus, the TCB
includes hardware, firmware, and software critical to protection and must be
designed and implemented such that system elements excluded from it need not
be trusted to maintain protection. Identification of the interface and
elements of the TCB along with their correct functionality therefore forms the
basis for evaluation.
For general-purpose systems, the TCB will include key elements of the
operating system and may include all of the operating system. For embedded
systems, the security policy may deal with objects in a way that is meaningful
at the application level rather than at the operating system level. Thus, the
protection policy may be enforced in the application software rather than in
the underlying operating system. The TCB will necessarily include all those
portions of the operating system and application software essential to the
support of the policy. Note that, as the amount of code in the TCB increases,
it becomes harder to be confident that the TCB enforces the reference monitor
requirements under all circumstances.
6.4 ASSURANCE
The third reference monitor design objective is currently interpreted as
meaning that the TCB "must be of sufficiently simple organization and
complexity to be subjected to analysis and tests, the completeness of which
can be assured."
Clearly, as the perceived degree of risk increases (e.g., the range of
sensitivity of the system's protected data, along with the range of clearances
held by the system's user population) for a particular system's operational
application and environment, so also must the assurances be increased to
substantiate the degree of trust that will be placed in the system. The
hierarchy of requirements that are presented for the evaluation classes in the
trusted computer system evaluation criteria reflect the need for these
assurances.
As discussed in Section 5.3, the evaluation criteria uniformly require a
statement of the security policy that is enforced by each trusted computer
system. In addition, it is required that a convincing argument be presented
that explains why the TCB satisfies the first two design requirements for a
reference monitor. It is not expected that this argument will be entirely
formal. This argument is required for each candidate system in order to
satisfy the assurance control objective.
The systems to which security enforcement mechanisms have been added, rather
than built-in as fundamental design objectives, are not readily amenable to
extensive analysis since they lack the requisite conceptual simplicity of a
security kernel. This is because their TCB extends to cover much of the
entire system. Hence, their degree of trustworthiness can best be ascertained
only by obtaining test results. Since no test procedure for something as
complex as a computer system can be truly exhaustive, there is always the
possibility that a subsequent penetration attempt could succeed. It is for
this reason that such systems must fall into the lower evaluation classes.
On the other hand, those systems that are designed and engineered to support
the TCB concepts are more amenable to analysis and structured testing. Formal
methods can be used to analyze the correctness of their reference validation
mechanisms in enforcing the system's security policy. Other methods,
including less-formal arguments, can be used in order to substantiate claims
for the completeness of their access mediation and their degree of
tamper-resistance. More confidence can be placed in the results of this
analysis and in the thoroughness of the structured testing than can be placed
in the results for less methodically structured systems. For these reasons,
it appears reasonable to conclude that these systems could be used in
higher-risk environments. Successful implementations of such systems would be
placed in the higher evaluation classes.
6.5 THE CLASSES
It is highly desirable that there be only a small number of overall evaluation
classes. Three major divisions have been identified in the evaluation
criteria with a fourth division reserved for those systems that have been
evaluated and found to offer unacceptable security protection. Within each
major evaluation division, it was found that "intermediate" classes of trusted
system design and development could meaningfully be defined. These
intermediate classes have been designated in the criteria because they
identify systems that:
* are viewed to offer significantly better protection and assurance
than would systems that satisfy the basic requirements for their
evaluation class; and
* there is reason to believe that systems in the intermediate
evaluation classes could eventually be evolved such that they
would satisfy the requirements for the next higher evaluation
class.
Except within division A it is not anticipated that additional "intermediate"
evaluation classes satisfying the two characteristics described above will be
identified.
Distinctions in terms of system architecture, security policy enforcement, and
evidence of credibility between evaluation classes have been defined such that
the "jump" between evaluation classes would require a considerable investment
of effort on the part of implementors. Correspondingly, there are expected to
be significant differentials of risk to which systems from the higher
evaluation classes will be exposed.
7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLICY AND THE CRITERIA
Section 1 presents fundamental computer security requirements and Section 5
presents the control objectives for Trusted Computer Systems. They are
general requirements, useful and necessary, for the development of all secure
systems. However, when designing systems that will be used to process
classified or other sensitive information, functional requirements for meeting
the Control Objectives become more specific. There is a large body of policy
laid down in the form of Regulations, Directives, Presidential Executive
Orders, and OMB Circulars that form the basis of the procedures for the
handling and processing of Federal information in general and classified
information specifically. This section presents pertinent excerpts from these
policy statements and discusses their relationship to the Control Objectives.
These excerpts are examples to illustrate the relationship of the policies to
criteria and may not be complete.
7.1 ESTABLISHED FEDERAL POLICIES
A significant number of computer security policies and associated requirements
have been promulgated by Federal government elements. The interested reader
is referred to reference [32] which analyzes the need for trusted systems in
the civilian agencies of the Federal government, as well as in state and local
governments and in the private sector. This reference also details a number
of relevant Federal statutes, policies and requirements not treated further
below.
Security guidance for Federal automated information systems is provided by the
Office of Management and Budget. Two specifically applicable Circulars have
been issued. OMB Circular No. A-71, Transmittal Memorandum No. 1, "Security
of Federal Automated Information Systems,"[26] directs each executive agency
to establish and maintain a computer security program. It makes the head of
each executive branch, department and agency responsible "for assuring an
adequate level of security for all agency data whether processed in-house or
commercially. This includes responsibility for the establishment of physical,
administrative and technical safeguards required to adequately protect
personal, proprietary or other sensitive data not subject to national security
regulations, as well as national security data."[26, para. 4 p. 2]
OMB Circular No. A-123, "Internal Control Systems,"[27] issued to help
eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs requires: (a) agency
heads to issue internal control directives and assign responsibility, (b)
managers to review programs for vulnerability, and (c) managers to perform
periodic reviews to evaluate strengths and update controls. Soon after
promulgation of OMB Circular A-123, the relationship of its internal control
requirements to building secure computer systems was recognized.[4] While not
stipulating computer controls specifically, the definition of Internal
Controls in A-123 makes it clear that computer systems are to be included:
"Internal Controls - The plan of organization and all of the methods and
measures adopted within an agency to safeguard its resources, assure the
accuracy and reliability of its information, assure adherence to
applicable laws, regulations and policies, and promote operational
economy and efficiency."[27, sec. 4.C]
The matter of classified national security information processed by ADP
systems was one of the first areas given serious and extensive concern in
computer security. The computer security policy documents promulgated as a
result contain generally more specific and structured requirements than most,
keyed in turn to an authoritative basis that itself provides a rather clearly
articulated and structured information security policy. This basis, Executive
Order 12356, "National Security Information," sets forth requirements for the
classification, declassification and safeguarding of "national security
information" per se.[14]
7.2 DOD POLICIES
Within the Department of Defense, these broad requirements are implemented and
further specified primarily through two vehicles: 1) DoD Regulation 5200.1-R
[7], which applies to all components of the DoD as such, and 2) DoD 5220.22-M,
"Industrial Security Manual for Safeguarding Classified Information" [11],
which applies to contractors included within the Defense Industrial Security
Program. Note that the latter transcends DoD as such, since it applies not
only to any contractors handling classified information for any DoD component,
but also to the contractors of eighteen other Federal organizations for whom
the Secretary of Defense is authorized to act in rendering industrial security
services.*
______________________________
* i.e., NASA, Commerce Department, GSA, State Department, Small Business
Administration, National Science Foundation, Treasury Department,
Transportation Department, Interior Department, Agriculture Department, U.S.
Information Agency, Labor Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Justice
Department, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Federal Reserve System, and U.S. General Accounting Office.
For ADP systems, these information security requirements are further amplified
and specified in: 1) DoD Directive 5200.28 [8] and DoD Manual 5200.28-M [9],
for DoD components; and 2) Section XIII of DoD 5220.22-M [11] for contractors.
DoD Directive 5200.28, "Security Requirements for Automatic Data Processing
(ADP) Systems," stipulates: "Classified material contained in an ADP system
shall be safeguarded by the continuous employment of protective features in
the system's hardware and software design and configuration . . . ."[8,
sec. IV] Furthermore, it is required that ADP systems that "process, store,
or use classified data and produce classified information will, with
reasonable dependability, prevent:
a. Deliberate or inadvertent access to classified material by
unauthorized persons, and
b. Unauthorized manipulation of the computer and its associated
peripheral devices."[8, sec. I B.3]
Requirements equivalent to these appear within DoD 5200.28-M [9] and in DoD
5220.22-M [11].
DoD Directove 5200.28 provides the security requirements for ADP systems. For
some types of information, such as Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI),
DoD Directive 5200.28 states that other minimum security requirements also
apply. These minima are found in DCID l/l6 (new reference number 5) which is
implemented in DIAM 50-4 (new reference number 6) for DoD and DoD contractor
ADP systems.
From requirements imposed by these regulations, directives and circulars, the
three components of the Security Policy Control Objective, i.e., Mandatory and
Discretionary Security and Marking, as well as the Accountability and
Assurance Control Objectives, can be functionally defined for DoD
applications. The following discussion provides further specificity in Policy
for these Control Objectives.
7.3 CRITERIA CONTROL OBJECTIVE FOR SECURITY POLICY
7.3.1 Marking
The control objective for marking is: "Systems that are designed
to enforce a mandatory security policy must store and preserve the
integrity of classification or other sensitivity labels for all
information. Labels exported from the system must be accurate
representations of the corresonding internal sensitivity labels
being exported."
DoD 5220.22-M, "Industrial Security Manual for Safeguarding
Classified Information," explains in paragraph 11 the reasons for
marking information:
"a. General. Classification designation by physical
marking, notation or other means serves to warn and to
inform the holder what degree of protection against
unauthorized disclosure is reqired for that information
or material." (14)
Marking requirements are given in a number of policy statements.
Executive Order 12356 (Sections 1.5.a and 1.5.a.1) requires that
classification markings "shall be shown on the face of all
classified documents, or clearly associated with other forms of
classified information in a manner appropriate to the medium
involved."[14]
DoD Regulation 5200.1-R (Section 1-500) requires that: ". . .
information or material that requires protection against
unauthorized disclosure in the interest of national security shall
be classified in one of three designations, namely: 'Top Secret,'
'Secret' or 'Confidential.'"[7] (By extension, for use in computer
processing, the unofficial designation "Unclassified" is used to
indicate information that does not fall under one of the other
three designations of classified information.)
DoD Regulation 5200.1-R (Section 4-304b) requires that: "ADP
systems and word processing systems employing such media shall
provide for internal classification marking to assure that
classified information contained therein that is reproduced or
generated, will bear applicable classification and associated
markings." (This regulation provides for the exemption of certain
existing systems where "internal classification and applicable
associated markings cannot be implemented without extensive system
modifications."[7] However, it is clear that future DoD ADP
systems must be able to provide applicable and accurate labels for
classified and other sensitive information.)
DoD Manual 5200.28-M (Section IV, 4-305d) requires the following:
"Security Labels - All classified material accessible by or within
the ADP system shall be identified as to its security
classification and access or dissemination limitations, and all
output of the ADP system shall be appropriately marked."[9]
7.3.2 Mandatory Security
The control objective for mandatory security is: "Security
policies defined for systems that are used to process classified
or other specifically categorized sensitive information must
include provisions for the enforcement of mandatory access control
rules. That is, they must include a set of rules for controlling
access based directly on a comparison of the individual's
clearance or authorization for the information and the
classification or sensitivity designation of the information being
sought, and indirectly on considerations of physical and other
environmental factors of control. The mandatory access control
rules must accurately reflect the laws, regulations, and general
policies from which they are derived."
There are a number of policy statements that are related to
mandatory security.
Executive Order 12356 (Section 4.1.a) states that "a person is
eligible for access to classified information provided that a
determination of trustworthiness has been made by agency heads or
designated officials and provided that such access is essential
to the accomplishment of lawful and authorized Government
purposes."[14]
DoD Regulation 5200.1-R (Chapter I, Section 3) defines a Special
Access Program as "any program imposing 'need-to-know' or access
controls beyond those normally provided for access to
Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret information. Such a program
includes, but is not limited to, special clearance, adjudication,
or investigative requirements, special designation of officials
authorized to determine 'need-to-know', or special lists of persons
determined to have a 'need-to- know.'"[7, para. 1-328] This
passage distinguishes between a 'discretionary' determination of
need-to-know and formal need-to-know which is implemented through
Special Access Programs. DoD Regulation 5200.1-R, paragraph 7-100
describes general requirements for trustworthiness (clearance) and
need-to-know, and states that the individual with possession,
knowledge or control of classified information has final
responsibility for determining if conditions for access have been
met. This regulation further stipulates that "no one has a right
to have access to classified information solely by virtue of rank
or position." [7, para. 7-100])
DoD Manual 5200.28-M (Section II 2-100) states that, "Personnel
who develop, test (debug), maintain, or use programs which are
classified or which will be used to access or develop classified
material shall have a personnel security clearance and an access
authorization (need-to-know), as appropriate for the highest
classified and most restrictive category of classified material
which they will access under system constraints."[9]
DoD Manual 5220.22-M (Paragraph 3.a) defines access as "the
ability and opportunity to obtain knowledge of classified
information. An individual, in fact, may have access to
classified information by being in a place where such information
is kept, if the security measures which are in force do not
prevent him from gaining knowledge of the classified
information."[11]
The above mentioned Executive Order, Manual, Directives and
Regulations clearly imply that a trusted computer system must
assure that the classification labels associated with sensitive
data cannot be arbitrarily changed, since this could permit
individuals who lack the appropriate clearance to access
classified information. Also implied is the requirement that a
trusted computer system must control the flow of information so
that data from a higher classification cannot be placed in a
storage object of lower classification unless its "downgrading"
has been authorized.
7.3.3 Discretionary Security
The term discretionary security refers to a computer system's
ability to control information on an individual basis. It stems
from the fact that even though an individual has all the formal
clearances for access to specific classified information, each
individual's access to information must be based on a demonstrated
need-to-know. Because of this, it must be made clear that this
requirement is not discretionary in a "take it or leave it" sense.
The directives and regulations are explicit in stating that the
need-to-know test must be satisfied before access can be granted
to the classified information. The control objective for
discretionary security is: "Security policies defined for systems
that are used to process classified or other sensitive information
must include provisions for the enforcement of discretionary
access control rules. That is, they must include a consistent set
of rules for controlling and limiting access based on identified
individuals who have been determined to have a need-to-know for the
information."
DoD Regulation 5200.1-R (Paragraph 7-100) In addition to excerpts
already provided that touch on need-to- know, this section of the
regulation stresses the need- to-know principle when it states "no
person may have access to classified information unless . . .
access is necessary for the performance of official duties."[7]
Also, DoD Manual 5220.22-M (Section III 20.a) states that "an
individual shall be permitted to have access to classified
information only . . . when the contractor determines that access
is necessary in the performance of tasks or services essential to
the fulfillment of a contract or program, i.e., the individual has
a need-to-know."[11]
7.4 CRITERIA CONTROL OBJECTIVE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
The control objective for accountability is: "Systems that are used to process
or handle classified or other sensitive information must assure individual
accountability whenever either a mandatory or discretionary security policy is
invoked. Furthermore, to assure accountability the capability must exist for
an authorized and competent agent to access and evaluate accountability
information by a secure means, within a reasonable amount of time, and without
undue difficulty."
This control objective is supported by the following citations:
DoD Directive 5200.28 (VI.A.1) states: "Each user's identity shall be
positively established, and his access to the system, and his activity in
the system (including material accessed and actions taken) controlled and
open to scrutiny."[8]
DoD Manual 5200.28-M (Section V 5-100) states: "An audit log or file
(manual, machine, or a combination of both) shall be maintained as a
history of the use of the ADP System to permit a regular security review
of system activity. (e.g., The log should record security related
transactions, including each access to a classified file and the nature
of the access, e.g., logins, production of accountable classified
outputs, and creation of new classified files. Each classified file
successfully accessed [regardless of the number of individual references]
during each 'job' or 'interactive session' should also be recorded in the
audit log. Much of the material in this log may also be required to
assure that the system preserves information entrusted to it.)"[9]
DoD Manual 5200.28-M (Section IV 4-305f) states: "Where needed to assure
control of access and individual accountability, each user or specific
group of users shall be identified to the ADP System by appropriate
administrative or hardware/software measures. Such identification
measures must be in sufficient detail to enable the ADP System to provide
the user only that material which he is authorized."[9]
DoD Manual 5200.28-M (Section I 1-102b) states:
"Component's Designated Approving Authorities, or their designees
for this purpose . . . will assure:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4) Maintenance of documentation on operating systems (O/S)
and all modifications thereto, and its retention for a
sufficient period of time to enable tracing of security-
related defects to their point of origin or inclusion in the
system.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(6) Establishment of procedures to discover, recover,
handle, and dispose of classified material improperly
disclosed through system malfunction or personnel action.
(7) Proper disposition and correction of security
deficiencies in all approved ADP Systems, and the effective
use and disposition of system housekeeping or audit records,
records of security violations or security-related system
malfunctions, and records of tests of the security features
of an ADP System."[9]
DoD Manual 5220.22-M (Section XIII 111) states: "Audit Trails
a. The general security requirement for any ADP system audit
trail is that it provide a documented history of the use of
the system. An approved audit trail will permit review of
classified system activity and will provide a detailed
activity record to facilitate reconstruction of events to
determine the magnitude of compromise (if any) should a
security malfunction occur. To fulfill this basic
requirement, audit trail systems, manual, automated or a
combination of both must document significant events
occurring in the following areas of concern: (i) preparation
of input data and dissemination of output data (i.e.,
reportable interactivity between users and system support
personnel), (ii) activity involved within an ADP environment
(e.g., ADP support personnel modification of security and
related controls), and (iii) internal machine activity.
b. The audit trail for an ADP system approved to process
classified information must be based on the above three
areas and may be stylized to the particular system. All
systems approved for classified processing should contain
most if not all of the audit trail records listed below. The
contractor's SPP documentation must identify and describe
those applicable:
1. Personnel access;
2. Unauthorized and surreptitious entry into the
central computer facility or remote terminal areas;
3. Start/stop time of classified processing indicating
pertinent systems security initiation and termination events
(e.g., upgrading/downgrading actions pursuant to paragraph
107);
4. All functions initiated by ADP system console
operators;
5. Disconnects of remote terminals and peripheral
devices (paragraph 107c);
6. Log-on and log-off user activity;
7. Unauthorized attempts to access files or programs,
as well as all open, close, create, and file destroy
actions;
8. Program aborts and anomalies including
identification information (i.e., user/program name, time
and location of incident, etc.);
9. System hardware additions, deletions and maintenance
actions;
10. Generations and modifications affecting the
security features of the system software.
c. The ADP system security supervisor or designee shall
review the audit trail logs at least weekly to assure that
all pertinent activity is properly recorded and that
appropriate action has been taken to correct any anomaly.
The majority of ADP systems in use today can develop audit
trail systems in accord with the above; however, special
systems such as weapons, communications, communications
security, and tactical data exchange and display systems,
may not be able to comply with all aspects of the above and
may require individualized consideration by the cognizant
security office.
d. Audit trail records shall be retained for a period of one
inspection cycle."[11]
7.5 CRITERIA CONTROL OBJECTIVE FOR ASSURANCE
The control objective for assurance is: "Systems that are used to process or
handle classified or other sensitive information must be designed to guarantee
correct and accurate interpretation of the security policy and must not distort
the intent of that policy. Assurance must be provided that correct
implementation and operation of the policy exists throughout the system's
life-cycle."
A basis for this objective can be found in the following sections of DoD
Directive 5200.28:
DoD Directive 5200.28 (IV.B.1) stipulates: "Generally, security of an ADP
system is most effective and economical if the system is designed
originally to provide it. Each Department of Defense Component
undertaking design of an ADP system which is expected to process, store,
use, or produce classified material shall: From the beginning of the
design process, consider the security policies, concepts, and measures
prescribed in this Directive."[8]
DoD Directive 5200.28 (IV.C.5.a) states: "Provision may be made to permit
adjustment of ADP system area controls to the level of protection
required for the classification category and type(s) of material actually
being handled by the system, provided change procedures are developed and
implemented which will prevent both the unauthorized access to classified
material handled by the system and the unauthorized manipulation of the
system and its components. Particular attention shall be given to the
continuous protection of automated system security measures, techniques
and procedures when the personnel security clearance level of users
having access to the system changes."[8]
DoD Directive 5200.28 (VI.A.2) states: "Environmental Control. The ADP
System shall be externally protected to minimize the likelihood of
unauthorized access to system entry points, access to classified
information in the system, or damage to the system."[8]
DoD Manual 5200.28-M (Section I 1-102b) states:
"Component's Designated Approving Authorities, or their designees
for this purpose . . . will assure:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5) Supervision, monitoring, and testing, as appropriate, of
changes in an approved ADP System which could affect the
security features of the system, so that a secure system is
maintained.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(7) Proper disposition and correction of security
deficiencies in all approved ADP Systems, and the effective
use and disposition of system housekeeping or audit records,
records of security violations or security-related system
malfunctions, and records of tests of the security features
of an ADP System.
(8) Conduct of competent system ST&E, timely review of
system ST&E reports, and correction of deficiencies needed
to support conditional or final approval or disapproval of
an ADP System for the processing of classified information.
(9) Establishment, where appropriate, of a central ST&E
coordination point for the maintenance of records of
selected techniques, procedures, standards, and tests used
in the testing and evaluation of security features of ADP
Systems which may be suitable for validation and use by
other Department of Defense Components."[9]
DoD Manual 5220.22-M (Section XIII 103a) requires: "the initial approval,
in writing, of the cognizant security office prior to processing any
classified information in an ADP system. This section requires
reapproval by the cognizant security office for major system
modifications made subsequent to initial approval. Reapprovals will be
required because of (i) major changes in personnel access requirements,
(ii) relocation or structural modification of the central computer
facility, (iii) additions, deletions or changes to main frame, storage or
input/output devices, (iv) system software changes impacting security
protection features, (v) any change in clearance, declassification, audit
trail or hardware/software maintenance procedures, and (vi) other system
changes as determined by the cognizant security office."[11]
A major component of assurance, life-cycle assurance, as described in DoD
Directive 7920.l, is concerned with testing ADP systems both in the
development phase as well as during operation (17). DoD Directive 5215.1
(Section F.2.C.(2)) requires "evaluations of selected industry and
government-developed trusted computer systems against these criteria."[10]
8.0 A GUIDELINE ON COVERT CHANNELS
A covert channel is any communication channel that can be exploited by a
process to transfer information in a manner that violates the system's
security policy. There are two types of covert channels: storage channels and
timing channels. Covert storage channels include all vehicles that would
allow the direct or indirect writing of a storage location by one process and
the direct or indirect reading of it by another. Covert timing channels
include all vehicles that would allow one process to signal information to
another process by modulating its own use of system resources in such a way
that the change in response time observed by the second process would provide
information.
From a security perspective, covert channels with low bandwidths represent a
lower threat than those with high bandwidths. However, for many types of
covert channels, techniques used to reduce the bandwidth below a certain rate
(which depends on the specific channel mechanism and the system architecture)
also have the effect of degrading the performance provided to legitimate
system users. Hence, a trade-off between system performance and covert
channel bandwidth must be made. Because of the threat of compromise that
would be present in any multilevel computer system containing classified or
sensitive information, such systems should not contain covert channels with
high bandwidths. This guideline is intended to provide system developers with
an idea of just how high a "high" covert channel bandwidth is.
A covert channel bandwidth that exceeds a rate of one hundred (100) bits per
second is considered "high" because 100 bits per second is the approximate
rate at which many computer terminals are run. It does not seem appropriate
to call a computer system "secure" if information can be compromised at a rate
equal to the normal output rate of some commonly used device.
In any multilevel computer system there are a number of relatively
low-bandwidth covert channels whose existence is deeply ingrained in the
system design. Faced with the large potential cost of reducing the bandwidths
of such covert channels, it is felt that those with maximum bandwidths of less
than one (1) bit per second are acceptable in most application environments.
Though maintaining acceptable performance in some systems may make it
impractical to eliminate all covert channels with bandwidths of 1 or more bits
per second, it is possible to audit their use without adversely affecting
system performance. This audit capability provides the system administration
with a means of detecting -- and procedurally correcting -- significant
compromise. Therefore, a Trusted Computing Base should provide, wherever
possible, the capability to audit the use of covert channel mechanisms with
bandwidths that may exceed a rate of one (1) bit in ten (10) seconds.
The covert channel problem has been addressed by a number of authors. The
interested reader is referred to references [5], [6], [19], [21], [22], [23],
and [29].
9.0 A GUIDELINE ON CONFIGURING MANDATORY ACCESS CONTROL FEATURES
The Mandatory Access Control requirement includes a capability to support an
unspecified number of hierarchical classifications and an unspecified number
of non-hierarchical categories at each hierarchical level. To encourage
consistency and portability in the design and development of the National
Security Establishment trusted computer systems, it is desirable for all such
systems to be able to support a minimum number of levels and categories. The
following suggestions are provided for this purpose:
* The number of hierarchical classifications should be greater than or
equal to sixteen (16).
* The number of non-hierarchical categories should be greater than or
equal to sixty-four (64).
10.0 A GUIDELINE ON SECURITY TESTING
These guidelines are provided to give an indication of the extent and
sophistication of testing undertaken by the DoD Computer Security Center
during the Formal Product Evaluation process. Organizations wishing to use
"Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria" for
performing their own evaluations may find this section useful for planning
purposes.
As in Part I, highlighting is used to indicate changes in the guidelines from
the next lower division.
10.1 TESTING FOR DIVISION C
10.1.1 Personnel
The security testing team shall consist of at least two
individuals with bachelor degrees in Computer Science or the
equivalent. Team members shall be able to follow test plans
prepared by the system developer and suggest additions, shall
be familiar with the "flaw hypothesis" or equivalent security
testing methodology, and shall have assembly level programming
experience. Before testing begins, the team members shall have
functional knowledge of, and shall have completed the system
developer's internals course for, the system being evaluated.
10.1.2 Testing
The team shall have "hands-on" involvement in an independent run
of the tests used by the system developer. The team shall
independently design and implement at least five system-specific
tests in an attempt to circumvent the security mechanisms of the
system. The elapsed time devoted to testing shall be at least
one month and need not exceed three months. There shall be no
fewer than twenty hands-on hours spent carrying out system
developer-defined tests and test team-defined tests.
10.2 TESTING FOR DIVISION B
10.2.1 Personnel
The security testing team shall consist of at least two
individuals with bachelor degrees in Computer Science or the
equivalent and at least one individual with a master's degree in
Computer Science or equivalent. Team members shall be able to
follow test plans prepared by the system developer and suggest
additions, shall be conversant with the "flaw hypothesis" or
equivalent security testing methodology, shall be fluent in the
TCB implementation language(s), and shall have assembly level
programming experience. Before testing begins, the team members
shall have functional knowledge of, and shall have completed the
system developer's internals course for, the system being
evaluated. At least one team member shall have previously
completed a security test on another system.
10.2.2 Testing
The team shall have "hands-on" involvement in an independent run
of the test package used by the system developer to test
security-relevant hardware and software. The team shall
independently design and implement at least fifteen system-
specific tests in an attempt to circumvent the security
mechanisms of the system. The elapsed time devoted to testing
shall be at least two months and need not exceed four months.
There shall be no fewer than thirty hands-on hours per team
member spent carrying out system developer-defined tests and
test team-defined tests.
10.3 TESTING FOR DIVISION A
10.3.1 Personnel
The security testing team shall consist of at least one
individual with a bachelor's degree in Computer Science or the
equivalent and at least two individuals with masters' degrees in
Computer Science or equivalent. Team members shall be able to
follow test plans prepared by the system developer and suggest
additions, shall be conversant with the "flaw hypothesis" or
equivalent security testing methodology, shall be fluent in the
TCB implementation language(s), and shall have assembly level
programming experience. Before testing begins, the team members
shall have functional knowledge of, and shall have completed the
system developer's internals course for, the system being
evaluated. At least one team member shall be familiar enough
with the system hardware to understand the maintenance diagnostic
programs and supporting hardware documentation. At least two
team members shall have previously completed a security test on
another system. At least one team member shall have
demonstrated system level programming competence on the system
under test to a level of complexity equivalent to adding a device
driver to the system.
10.3.2 Testing
The team shall have "hands-on" involvement in an independent run
of the test package used by the system developer to test
security-relevant hardware and software. The team shall
independently design and implement at least twenty-five system-
specific tests in an attempt to circumvent the security
mechanisms of the system. The elapsed time devoted to testing
shall be at least three months and need not exceed six months.
There shall be no fewer than fifty hands-on hours per team
member spent carrying out system developer-defined tests and
test team-defined tests.
APPENDIX A
COMMERCIAL PRODUCE EVALUATION PROCESS
"Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria" forms the
basis upon which the Computer Security Center will carry out the commercial
computer security evaluation process. This process is focused on commercially
produced and supported general-purpose operating system products that meet the
needs of government departments and agencies. The formal evaluation is aimed
at "off-the-shelf" commercially supported products and is completely divorced
from any consideration of overall system performance, potential applications,
or particular processing environments. The evaluation provides a key input to
a computer system security approval/accreditation. However, it does not
constitute a complete computer system security evaluation. A complete study
(e.g., as in reference [18]) must consider additional factors dealing with the
system in its unique environment, such as it's proposed security mode of
operation, specific users, applications, data sensitivity, physical and
personnel security, administrative and procedural security, TEMPEST, and
communications security.
The product evaluation process carried out by the Computer Security Center has
three distinct elements:
* Preliminary Product Evaluation - An informal dialogue between a vendor
and the Center in which technical information is exchanged to create a
common understanding of the vendor's product, the criteria, and the
rating that may be expected to result from a formal product evaluation.
* Formal Product Evaluation - A formal evaluation, by the Center, of a
product that is available to the DoD, and that results in that product
and its assigned rating being placed on the Evaluated Products List.
* Evaluated Products List - A list of products that have been subjected
to formal product evaluation and their assigned ratings.
Preliminary Product Evaluation
Since it is generally very difficult to add effective security measures late
in a product's life cycle, the Center is interested in working with system
vendors in the early stages of product design. A preliminary product
evaluation allows the Center to consult with computer vendors on computer
security issues found in products that have not yet been formally announced.
A preliminary evaluation is typically initiated by computer system vendors who
are planning new computer products that feature security or major
security-related upgrades to existing products. After an initial meeting
between the vendor and the Center, appropriate non-disclosure agreements are
executed that require the Center to maintain the confidentiality of any
proprietary information disclosed to it. Technical exchange meetings follow
in which the vendor provides details about the proposed product (particularly
its internal designs and goals) and the Center provides expert feedback to the
vendor on potential computer security strengths and weaknesses of the vendor's
design choices, as well as relevant interpretation of the criteria. The
preliminary evaluation is typically terminated when the product is completed
and ready for field release by the vendor. Upon termination, the Center
prepares a wrap-up report for the vendor and for internal distribution within
the Center. Those reports containing proprietary information are not
available to the public.
During preliminary evaluation, the vendor is under no obligation to actually
complete or market the potential product. The Center is, likewise, not
committed to conduct a formal product evaluation. A preliminary evaluation
may be terminated by either the Center or the vendor when one notifies the
other, in writing, that it is no longer advantageous to continue the
evaluation.
Formal Product Evaluation
The formal product evaluation provides a key input to certification of a
computer system for use in National Security Establishment applications and is
the sole basis for a product being placed on the Evaluated Products List.
A formal product evaluation begins with a request by a vendor for the Center
to evaluate a product for which the product itself and accompanying
documentation needed to meet the requirements defined by this publication are
complete. Non-disclosure agreements are executed and a formal product
evaluation team is formed by the Center. An initial meeting is then held with
the vendor to work out the schedule for the formal evaluation. Since testing
of the implemented product forms an important part of the evaluation process,
access by the evaluation team to a working version of the system is negotiated
with the vendor. Additional support required from the vendor includes
complete design documentation, source code, and access to vendor personnel who
can answer detailed questions about specific portions of the product. The
evaluation team tests the product against each requirement, making any
necessary interpretations of the criteria with respect to the product being
evaluated.
The evaluation team writes a final report on their findings about the system.
The report is publicly available (containing no proprietary or sensitive
information) and contains the overall class rating assigned to the system and
the details of the evalution team's findings when comparing the product against
the evaluation criteria. Detailed information concerning vulnerabilities found
by the evaluation team is furnished to the system developers and designers as
each is found so that the vendor has a chance to eliminate as many of them as
possible prior to the completion of the Formal Product Evaluation.
Vulnerability analyses and other proprietary or sensitive information are
controlled within the Center through the Vulnerability Reporting Program and
are distributed only within the U.S. Government on a strict need-to-know and
non-disclosure basis, and to the vendor.
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA DIVISIONS
The divisions of systems recognized under the trusted computer system
evaluation criteria are as follows. Each division represents a major
improvement in the overall confidence one can place in the system to protect
classified and other sensitive information.
Division (D): Minimal Protection
This division contains only one class. It is reserved for those systems that
have been evaluated but that fail to meet the requirements for a higher
evaluation class.
Division (C): Discretionary Protection
Classes in this division provide for discretionary (need-to-know) protection
and, through the inclusion of audit capabilities, for accountability of
subjects and the actions they initiate.
Division (B): Mandatory Protection
The notion of a TCB that preserves the integrity of sensitivity labels and
uses them to enforce a set of mandatory access control rules is a major
requirement in this division. Systems in this division must carry the
sensitivity labels with major data structures in the system. The system
developer also provides the security policy model on which the TCB is based
and furnishes a specification of the TCB. Evidence must be provided to
demonstrate that the reference monitor concept has been implemented.
Division (A): Verified Protection
This division is characterized by the use of formal security verification
methods to assure that the mandatory and discretionary security controls
employed in the system can effectively protect classified or other sensitive
information stored or processed by the system. Extensive documentation is
required to demonstrate that the TCB meets the security requirements in all
aspects of design, development and implementation.
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA CLASSES
The classes of systems recognized under the trusted computer system evaluation
criteria are as follows. They are presented in the order of increasing
desirablity from a computer security point of view.
Class (D): Minimal Protection
This class is reserved for those systems that have been evaluated but that
fail to meet the requirements for a higher evaluation class.
Class (C1): Discretionary Security Protection
The Trusted Computing Base (TCB) of a class (C1) system nominally satisfies
the discretionary security requirements by providing separation of users and
data. It incorporates some form of credible controls capable of enforcing
access limitations on an individual basis, i.e., ostensibly suitable for
allowing users to be able to protect project or private information and to
keep other users from accidentally reading or destroying their data. The
class (C1) environment is expected to be one of cooperating users processing
data at the same level(s) of sensitivity.
Class (C2): Controlled Access Protection
Systems in this class enforce a more finely grained discretionary access
control than (C1) systems, making users individually accountable for their
actions through login procedures, auditing of security-relevant events, and
resource isolation.
Class (B1): Labeled Security Protection
Class (B1) systems require all the features required for class (C2). In
addition, an informal statement of the security policy model, data labeling,
and mandatory access control over named subjects and objects must be present.
The capability must exist for accurately labeling exported information. Any
flaws identified by testing must be removed.
Class (B2): Structured Protection
In class (B2) systems, the TCB is based on a clearly defined and documented
formal security policy model that requires the discretionary and mandatory
access control enforcement found in class (B1) systems be extended to all
subjects and objects in the ADP system. In addition, covert channels are
addressed. The TCB must be carefully structured into protection-critical and
non- protection-critical elements. The TCB interface is well-defined and the
TCB design and implementation enable it to be subjected to more thorough
testing and more complete review. Authentication mechanisms are strengthened,
trusted facility management is provided in the form of support for system
administrator and operator functions, and stringent configuration management
controls are imposed. The system is relatively resistant to penetration.
Class (B3): Security Domains
The class (B3) TCB must satisfy the reference monitor requirements that it
mediate all accesses of subjects to objects, be tamperproof, and be small
enough to be subjected to analysis and tests. To this end, the TCB is
structured to exclude code not essential to security policy enforcement, with
significant system engineering during TCB design and implementation directed
toward minimizing its complexity. A security administrator is supported,
audit mechanisms are expanded to signal security- relevant events, and system
recovery procedures are required. The system is highly resistant to
penetration.
Class (A1): Verified Design
Systems in class (A1) are functionally equivalent to those in class (B3) in
that no additional architectural features or policy requirements are added.
The distinguishing feature of systems in this class is the analysis derived
from formal design specification and verification techniques and the resulting
high degree of assurance that the TCB is correctly implemented. This
assurance is developmental in nature, starting with a formal model of the
security policy and a formal top-level specification (FTLS) of the design. In
keeping with the extensive design and development analysis of the TCB required
of systems in class (A1), more stringent configuration management is required
and procedures are established for securely distributing the system to sites.
A system security administrator is supported.
APPENDIX D
REQUIREMENT DIRECTORY
This appendix lists requirements defined in "Department of Defense Trusted
Computer System Evaluation Criteria" alphabetically rather than by class. It
is provided to assist in following the evolution of a requirement through the
classes. For each requirement, three types of criteria may be present. Each
will be preceded by the word: NEW, CHANGE, or ADD to indicate the following:
NEW: Any criteria appearing in a lower class are superseded
by the criteria that follow.
CHANGE: The criteria that follow have appeared in a lower class
but are changed for this class. Highlighting is used
to indicate the specific changes to previously stated
criteria.
ADD: The criteria that follow have not been required for any
lower class, and are added in this class to the
previously stated criteria for this requirement.
Abbreviations are used as follows:
NR: (No Requirement) This requirement is not included in
this class.
NAR: (No Additional Requirements) This requirement does not
change from the previous class.
The reader is referred to Part I of this document when placing new criteria
for a requirement into the complete context for that class.
Figure 1 provides a pictorial summary of the evolution of requirements through
the classes.
Audit
C1: NR.
C2: NEW: The TCB shall be able to create, maintain, and protect from
modification or unauthorized access or destruction an audit trail of
accesses to the objects it protects. The audit data shall be
protected by the TCB so that read access to it is limited to those
who are authorized for audit data. The TCB shall be able to record
the following types of events: use of identification and
authentication mechanisms, introduction of objects into a user's
address space (e.g., file open, program initiation), deletion of
objects, and actions taken by computer operators and system
administrators and/or system security officers and other security
relevant events. For each recorded event, the audit record shall
identify: date and time of the event, user, type of event, and success
or failure of the event. For identification/authentication events the
origin of request (e.g., terminal ID) shall be included in the audit
record. For events that introduce an object into a user's address
space and for object deletion events the audit record shall include
the name of the object. The ADP system administrator shall be able to
selectively audit the actions of any one or more users based on
individual identity.
B1: CHANGE: For events that introduce an object into a user's address
space and for object deletion events the audit record shall include
the name of the object and the object's security level. The ADP
system administrator shall be able to selectively audit the actions
of any one or more users based on individual identity and/or object
security level.
ADD: The TCB shall also be able to audit any override of
human-readable output markings.
B2: ADD: The TCB shall be able to audit the identified events that may be
used in the exploitation of covert storage channels.
B3: ADD: The TCB shall contain a mechanism that is able to monitor the
occurrence or accumulation of security auditable events that may
indicate an imminent violation of security policy. This mechanism
shall be able to immediately notify the security administrator when
thresholds are exceeded, and, if the occurrence or accumulation of
these security relevant events continues, the system shall take the
lease disruptive action to terminate the event.
A1: NAR.
Configuration Management
C1: NR.
C2: NR.
B1: NR.
B2: NEW: During development and maintenance of the TCB, a configuration
management system shall be in place that maintains control of changes
to the descriptive top-level specification, other design data,
implementation documentation, source code, the running version of the
object code, and test fixtures and documentation. The configuration
management system shall assure a consistent mapping among all
documentation and code associated with the current version of the TCB.
Tools shall be provided for generation of a new version of the TCB
from source code. Also available shall be tools for comparing a
newly generated version with the previous TCB version in order to
ascertain that only the intended changes have been made in the code
that will actually be used as the new version of the TCB.
B3: NAR.
A1: CHANGE: During the entire life-cycle, i.e., during the design,
development, and maintenance of the TCB, a configuration management
system shall be in place for all security-relevant hardware, firmware,
and software that maintains control of changes to the formal model,
the descriptive and formal top-level specifications, other design
data, implementation documentation, source code, the running version
of the object code, and test fixtures and documentation. Also
available shall be tools, maintained under strict configuration
control, for comparing a newly generated version with the previous
TCB version in order to ascertain that only the intended changes have
been made in the code that will actually be used as the new version
of the TCB.
ADD: A combination of technical, physical, and procedural safeguards
shall be used to protect from unauthorized modification or
destruction the master copy or copies of all material used to
generate the TCB.
Covert Channel Analysis
C1: NR.
C2: NR.
B1: NR.
B2: NEW: The system developer shall conduct a thorough search for covert
storage channels and make a determination (either by actual
measurement or by engineering estimation) of the maximum bandwidth of
each identified channel. (See the Covert Channels Guideline section.)
B3: CHANGE: The system developer shall conduct a thorough search for
covert channels and make a determination (either by actual
measurement or by engineering estimation) of the maximum bandwidth
of each identified channel.
A1: ADD: Formal methods shall be used in the analysis.
Design Documentation
C1: NEW: Documentation shall be available that provides a description of
the manufacturer's philosophy of protection and an explanation of how
this philosophy is translated into the TCB. If the TCB is composed
of distinct modules, the interfaces between these modules shall be
described.
C2: NAR.
B1: ADD: An informal or formal description of the security policy model
enforced by the TCB shall be available and an explanation provided to
show that it is sufficient to enforce the security policy. The
specific TCB protection mechanisms shall be identified and an
explanation given to show that they satisfy the model.
B2: CHANGE: The interfaces between the TCB modules shall be described. A
formal description of the security policy model enforced by the TCB
shall be available and proven that it is sufficient to enforce the
security policy.
ADD: The descriptive top-level specification (DTLS) shall be shown to
be an accurate description of the TCB interface. Documentation shall
describe how the TCB implements the reference monitor concept and
give an explanation why it is tamper resistant, cannot be bypassed,
© 2022 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.
%7Cutmcsr%3D(direct)%7Cutmcmd%3D(none)){kind=small}
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Subscribe to an RSS Feed