Зарубежные нормативные документы и критерии на английском / CCPART3V21
.pdfMisuse (AVA_MSU) |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
AVA_MSU.2.3E
AVA_MSU.2.4E
The evaluator shall determine that the use of the guidance documentation allows all insecure states to be detected.
The evaluator shall confirm that the analysis documentation shows that guidance is provided for secure operation in all modes of operation of the TOE.
AVA_MSU.3 Analysis and testing for insecure states
493
494
AVA_MSU.3.1D
AVA_MSU.3.2D
AVA_MSU.3.1C
Objectives
The objective is to ensure that misleading, unreasonable and conflicting guidance is absent from the guidance documentation, and that secure procedures for all modes of operation have been addressed. Insecure states should be easy to detect. In this component, an analysis of the guidance documentation by the developer is required to provide additional assurance that the objective has been met, and this analysis is validated and confirmed through testing by the evaluator.
Application notes
In this component the evaluator is required to undertake testing to ensure that if and when the TOE enters an insecure state this may easily be detected. This testing may be considered as a specific aspect of penetration testing.
Dependencies:
ADO_IGS.1 Installation, generation, and start-up procedures
ADV_FSP.1 Informal functional specification
AGD_ADM.1 Administrator guidance
AGD_USR.1 User guidance
Developer action elements:
The developer shall provide guidance documentation.
The developer shall document an analysis of the guidance documentation.
Content and presentation of evidence elements:
The guidance documentation shall identify all\ possible modes of operation of the TOE (including operation following failure or operational error), their consequences and implications for maintaining secure operation.
AVA_MSU.3.2C
AVA_MSU.3.3C
AVA_MSU.3.4C
The guidance documentation shall be complete, clear, consistent and reasonable.
The guidance documentation shall list all assumptions about the intended environment.
The guidance documentation shall list all requirements for external security measures (including external procedural, physical and personnel controls).
August 1999 |
Version 2.1 |
Page 173 of 208 |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
Misuse (AVA_MSU) |
AVA_MSU.3.5C
AVA_MSU.3.1E
AVA_MSU.3.2E
The analysis documentation shall demonstrate that the guidance documentation is complete.
Evaluator action elements:
The evaluator shall confirm that the information provided meets all requirements for content and presentation of evidence.
The evaluator shall repeat all configuration and installation procedures, and other procedures selectively, to confirm that the TOE can be configured and used securely using only the supplied guidance documentation.
AVA_MSU.3.3E
AVA_MSU.3.4E
AVA_MSU.3.5E
The evaluator shall determine that the use of the guidance documentation allows all insecure states to be detected.
The evaluator shall confirm that the analysis documentation shows that guidance is provided for secure operation in all modes of operation of the TOE.
The evaluator shall perform independent testing to determine that an administrator or user, with an understanding of the guidance documentation, would reasonably be able to determine if the TOE is configured and operating in a manner that is insecure.
Page 174 of 208 |
Version 2.1 |
August 1999 |
Strength of TOE security functions (AVA_SOF) |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability |
14.3Strength of TOE security functions (AVA_SOF)
|
Objectives |
495 |
Even if a TOE security function cannot be bypassed, deactivated, or corrupted, it |
|
may still be possible to defeat it because there is a vulnerability in the concept of its |
|
underlying security mechanisms. For those functions a qualification of their |
|
security behaviour can be made using the results of a quantitative or statistical |
|
analysis of the security behaviour of these mechanisms and the effort required to |
|
overcome them. The qualification is made in the form of a strength of TOE security |
|
function claim. |
|
Component levelling |
496 |
There is only one component in this family. |
|
Application notes |
497 |
Security functions are implemented by security mechanisms. For example, a |
|
password mechanism can be used in the implementation of the identification and |
|
authentication security function. |
498 |
The strength of TOE security function evaluation is performed at the level of the |
|
security mechanism, but its results provide knowledge about the ability of the |
|
related security function to counter the identified threats. |
499 |
The strength of TOE security function analysis should consider at least the contents |
|
of all the TOE deliverables, including the ST, for the targeted evaluation assurance |
|
level. |
AVA_SOF.1 Strength of TOE security function evaluation
AVA_SOF.1.1D
AVA_SOF.1.1C
Dependencies:
ADV_FSP.1 Informal functional specification
ADV_HLD.1 Descriptive high-level design
Developer action elements:
The developer shall perform a strength of TOE security function analysis for each mechanism identified in the ST as having a strength of TOE security function claim.
Content and presentation of evidence elements:
For each mechanism with a strength of TOE security function claim the strength of TOE security function analysis shall show that it meets or exceeds the minimum strength level defined in the PP/ST.
August 1999 |
Version 2.1 |
Page 175 of 208 |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
Strength of TOE security functions |
AVA_SOF.1.2C
AVA_SOF.1.1E
AVA_SOF.1.2E
For each mechanism with a specific strength of TOE security function claim the strength of TOE security function analysis shall show that it meets or exceeds the specific strength of function metric defined in the PP/ST.
Evaluator action elements:
The evaluator shall confirm that the information provided meets all requirements for content and presentation of evidence.
The evaluator shall confirm that the strength claims are correct.
Page 176 of 208 |
Version 2.1 |
August 1999 |
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
14.4Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA)
|
Objectives |
500 |
Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether vulnerabilities |
|
identified, during the evaluation of the construction and anticipated operation of the |
|
TOE or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses), could allow users to violate the |
|
TSP. |
501 |
Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that a user will be able to discover flaws |
|
that will allow unauthorised access to resources (e.g. data), allow the ability to |
|
interfere with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other |
|
users. |
|
Component levelling |
502 |
Levelling is based on an increasing rigour of vulnerability analysis by the developer |
|
and the evaluator. |
|
Application notes |
503 |
A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer in order to ascertain the |
|
presence of security vulnerabilities, and should consider at least the contents of all |
|
the TOE deliverables including the ST for the targeted evaluation assurance level. |
|
The developer is required to document the disposition of identified vulnerabilities |
|
to allow the evaluator to make use of that information if it is found useful as a |
|
support for the evaluator's independent vulnerability analysis. |
504 |
The intent of the developer analysis is to confirm that no identified security |
|
vulnerabilities can be exploited in the intended environment for the TOE and that |
|
the TOE is resistant to obvious penetration attacks. |
505 |
Obvious vulnerabilities are considered to be those that are open to exploitation that |
|
requires a minimum of understanding of the TOE, skill, technical sophistication, |
|
and resources. These might be suggested by the TSF interface description. Obvious |
|
vulnerabilities include those in the public domain, details of which should be known |
|
to a developer or available from an evaluation authority. |
506 |
Performing a search for vulnerabilities in a systematic way requires that the |
|
developer identify those vulnerabilities in a structured and repeatable way, as |
|
opposed to identifying them in an ad-hoc fashion. The associated evidence that the |
|
search for vulnerabilities was systematic should include identification of all TOE |
|
documentation upon which the search for flaws was based. |
507 |
Independent vulnerability analysis goes beyond the vulnerabilities identified by the |
|
developer. The main intent of the evaluator analysis is to determine that the TOE is |
|
resistant to penetration attacks performed by an attacker possessing a low (for |
AVA_VLA.2), moderate (for AVA_VLA.3) or high (for AVA_VLA.4) attack potential. To accomplish this intent, the evaluator first assesses the exploitability of
August 1999 |
Version 2.1 |
Page 177 of 208 |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) |
all identified vulnerabilities. This is accomplished by conducting penetration testing. The evaluator should assume the role of an attacker with a low (for AVA_VLA.2), moderate (for AVA_VLA.3) or high (for AVA_VLA.4) attack potential when attempting to penetrate the TOE. Any exploitation of vulnerabilities by such an attacker should be considered by the evaluator to be “obvious penetration attacks” (with respect to the AVA_VLA.*.2C elements) in the context of the components AVA_VLA.2 through AVA_VLA.4.
AVA_VLA.1 Developer vulnerability analysis
|
Objectives |
508 |
A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer to ascertain the presence of |
|
obvious security vulnerabilities, and to confirm that they cannot be exploited in the |
|
intended environment for the TOE. |
|
Application notes |
509 |
The evaluator should consider performing additional tests as a result of potential |
|
exploitable vulnerabilities identified during other parts of the evaluation. |
Dependencies:
ADV_FSP.1 Informal functional specification
ADV_HLD.1 Descriptive high-level design
AGD_ADM.1 Administrator guidance
AGD_USR.1 User guidance
Developer action elements:
AVA_VLA.1.1D
AVA_VLA.1.2D
AVA_VLA.1.1C
AVA_VLA.1.1E
AVA_VLA.1.2E
The developer shall perform and document an analysis of the TOE deliverables searching for obvious ways in which a user can violate the TSP.
The developer shall document the disposition of obvious vulnerabilities.
Content and presentation of evidence elements:
The documentation shall show, for all identified vulnerabilities, that the vulnerability cannot be exploited in the intended environment for the TOE.
Evaluator action elements:
The evaluator shall confirm that the information provided meets all requirements for content and presentation of evidence.
The evaluator shall conduct penetration testing, building on the developer vulnerability analysis, to ensure obvious vulnerabilities have been addressed.
Page 178 of 208 |
Version 2.1 |
August 1999 |
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
AVA_VLA.2 Independent vulnerability analysis
|
Objectives |
510 |
A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer to ascertain the presence of |
|
security vulnerabilities, and to confirm that they cannot be exploited in the intended |
|
environment for the TOE. |
511
AVA_VLA.2.1D
AVA_VLA.2.2D
AVA_VLA.2.1C
AVA_VLA.2.2C
AVA_VLA.2.1E
AVA_VLA.2.2E
AVA_VLA.2.3E
The evaluator performs independent penetration testing, supported by the evaluator’s independent vulnerability analysis, to determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by attackers possessing a low attack potential.
Dependencies:
ADV_FSP.1 Informal functional specification
ADV_HLD.2 Security enforcing high-level design
ADV_IMP.1 Subset of the implementation of the TSF
ADV_LLD.1 Descriptive low-level design
AGD_ADM.1 Administrator guidance
AGD_USR.1 User guidance
Developer action elements:
The developer shall perform and document an analysis of the TOE deliverables searching for ways in which a user can violate the TSP.
The developer shall document the disposition of identified vulnerabilities.
Content and presentation of evidence elements:
The documentation shall show, for all identified vulnerabilities, that the vulnerability cannot be exploited in the intended environment for the TOE.
The documentation shall justify that the TOE, with the identified vulnerabilities, is resistant to obvious penetration attacks.
Evaluator action elements:
The evaluator shall confirm that the information provided meets all requirements for content and presentation of evidence.
The evaluator shall conduct penetration testing, building on the developer vulnerability analysis, to ensure the identified vulnerabilities have been addressed.
The evaluator shall perform an independent vulnerability analysis.
August 1999 |
Version 2.1 |
Page 179 of 208 |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) |
AVA_VLA.2.4E The evaluator shall perform independent penetration testing, based on the independent vulnerability analysis, to determine the exploitability of additional identified vulnerabilities in the intended environment.
AVA_VLA.2.5E The evaluator shall determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by an attacker possessing a low attack potential.
AVA_VLA.3 Moderately resistant
|
Objectives |
512 |
A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer to ascertain the presence of |
|
security vulnerabilities, and to confirm that they cannot be exploited in the intended |
|
environment for the TOE. |
513
AVA_VLA.3.1D
AVA_VLA.3.2D
AVA_VLA.3.1C
AVA_VLA.3.2C
AVA_VLA.3.3C
The evaluator performs independent penetration testing, supported by the evaluator’s independent vulnerability analysis, to determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by attackers possessing a moderate attack potential.
Dependencies:
ADV_FSP.1 Informal functional specification
ADV_HLD.2 Security enforcing high-level design
ADV_IMP.1 Subset of the implementation of the TSF
ADV_LLD.1 Descriptive low-level design
AGD_ADM.1 Administrator guidance
AGD_USR.1 User guidance
Developer action elements:
The developer shall perform and document an analysis of the TOE deliverables searching for ways in which a user can violate the TSP.
The developer shall document the disposition of identified vulnerabilities.
Content and presentation of evidence elements:
The documentation shall show, for all identified vulnerabilities, that the vulnerability cannot be exploited in the intended environment for the TOE.
The documentation shall justify that the TOE, with the identified vulnerabilities, is resistant to obvious penetration attacks.
The evidence shall show that the search for vulnerabilities is systematic.
Page 180 of 208 |
Version 2.1 |
August 1999 |
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
AVA_VLA.3.1E
AVA_VLA.3.2E
AVA_VLA.3.3E
AVA_VLA.3.4E
Evaluator action elements:
The evaluator shall confirm that the information provided meets all requirements for content and presentation of evidence.
The evaluator shall conduct penetration testing, building on the developer vulnerability analysis, to ensure the identified vulnerabilities have been addressed.
The evaluator shall perform an independent vulnerability analysis.
The evaluator shall perform independent penetration testing, based on the independent vulnerability analysis, to determine the exploitability of additional identified vulnerabilities in the intended environment.
AVA_VLA.3.5E The evaluator shall determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by an attacker possessing a moderate attack potential.
AVA_VLA.4 Highly resistant
|
Objectives |
514 |
A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer to ascertain the presence of |
|
security vulnerabilities, and to confirm that they cannot be exploited in the intended |
|
environment for the TOE. |
515
AVA_VLA.4.1D
The evaluator performs independent penetration testing, supported by the evaluator’s independent vulnerability analysis, to determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by attackers possessing a high attack potential.
Dependencies:
ADV_FSP.1 Informal functional specification
ADV_HLD.2 Security enforcing high-level design
ADV_IMP.1 Subset of the implementation of the TSF
ADV_LLD.1 Descriptive low-level design
AGD_ADM.1 Administrator guidance
AGD_USR.1 User guidance
Developer action elements:
The developer shall perform and document an analysis of the TOE deliverables searching for ways in which a user can violate the TSP.
AVA_VLA.4.2D The developer shall document the disposition of identified vulnerabilities.
August 1999 |
Version 2.1 |
Page 181 of 208 |
14 - Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment |
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) |
AVA_VLA.4.1C
AVA_VLA.4.2C
AVA_VLA.4.3C
AVA_VLA.4.4C
AVA_VLA.4.1E
AVA_VLA.4.2E
AVA_VLA.4.3E
AVA_VLA.4.4E
Content and presentation of evidence elements:
The documentation shall show, for all identified vulnerabilities, that the vulnerability cannot be exploited in the intended environment for the TOE.
The documentation shall justify that the TOE, with the identified vulnerabilities, is resistant to obvious penetration attacks.
The evidence shall show that the search for vulnerabilities is systematic.
The analysis documentation shall provide a justification that the analysis completely addresses the TOE deliverables.
Evaluator action elements:
The evaluator shall confirm that the information provided meets all requirements for content and presentation of evidence.
The evaluator shall conduct penetration testing, building on the developer vulnerability analysis, to ensure the identified vulnerabilities have been addressed.
The evaluator shall perform an independent vulnerability analysis.
The evaluator shall perform independent penetration testing, based on the independent vulnerability analysis, to determine the exploitability of additional identified vulnerabilities in the intended environment.
AVA_VLA.4.5E The evaluator shall determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by an attacker possessing a high attack potential.
Page 182 of 208 |
Version 2.1 |
August 1999 |