Advertisement

Security Evaluation and Common Criteria

Chapter

Abstract

Security evaluation of embedded devices presents a number of challenges, primarily because the relevant attacks for a particular device are determined by the software application that ultimately runs on or uses services from the embedded device, but the device is often designed and evaluated before details of this application context are known. This chapter examines how the common criteria (CC) security evaluation scheme can be used for embedded devices, and how current directions in the evolution of CC provide a particular opportunity to deal effectively with embedded device security.

Keywords

Integrate Circuit Smart Card Security Requirement Technical Community Trust Platform Module 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 1: Introduction and General Model, Version 3.1 Revision 3, CCMB-2009-07-001, July 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Security Functional Components, Version 3.1 Revision 3, CCMB-2009-07-002, July 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security Assurance Components, Version 3.1 Revision 3, CCMB-2009-07-003, July 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation: Evaluation Methodology, v3.1 Release 3, CCMB-2009-07-004, July 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mayes K, Markantonakis K (eds) (2008), Smart Cards, Tokens, Security and Applications, Springer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Application of CC to Integrated Circuits, version 3.0 revision 1, CCDB-2009-03-002, March 2009 [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/supporting/.
  7. 7.
    Requirements to perform Integrated Circuit Evaluations, version 1.0 revision 1, CCDB-2009-09-001, September 2009 [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/supporting/.
  8. 8.
    Application of Attack Potential to Smart Cards, version 2.7 revision 1, CCDB-2009-03-001, March 2009 [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/supporting/.
  9. 9.
    Composite product evaluation for Smart Cards and similar devices, version 1.0 revision 1, CCDB-2007-09-001, September 2007 [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/supporting/
  10. 10.
    Eurosmart, Security IC Platform Protection Profile, version 1.0, BSI-PP-0035, 15 June 2007, [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/ppfiles/pp0035b.pdf
  11. 11.
    Government Computer News, Engineer shows how to crack a “secure” TPM chip, [Online] http://gcn.com/articles/2010/02/02/black-hat-chip-crack-020210.aspx, (accessed 2 June 2011)
  12. 12.
    Boswell T, Smart card security evaluation: Community solutions to intractable problems, Information Security Technical Report, Volume 14 issue 2, May 2009, pp57-69.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    NIST, Security Requirements For Cryptographic Modules, FIPS PUB 140–2, issued 25 May 2001, with change notices as at 12 March 2002 (The original FIPS 140 standard was FIPS 140–1; this was superseded by FIPS140-2, and FIPS 140–3 is in draft at the time of writing. In this chapter, FIPS 140 is used as a general name for the scheme.).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    NIST, Derived Test Requirements for FIPS PUB 140–2, draft of 4 January 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Assurance Continuity: CCRA Requirements, CCIMB-2004-02-009, version 1.0, February 2004, [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/supplements/2004-02-009.pdf.
  16. 16.
    Payment Card Industry (PCI), PIN Transaction Security (PTS) Point of Interaction (POI) Modular Security Requirements, version 3.0, April 2010, [Online] https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/pci_pts_poi_sr.pdf.
  17. 17.
    Payment Card Industry (PCI), PIN Transaction Security (PTS) Point of Interaction (POI) Modular Evaluation Vendor Questionnaire, version 3.0, April 2010, [Online] https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/pci_pts_poi_vq.pdf.
  18. 18.
    Common Approval Scheme, Point of Interaction Protection Profile, version 2.0, 26 November 2010, [Online] http://www.ssi.gouv.fr/IMG/certificat/ANSSI-CC-cible_PP-2010-10en.pdf.
  19. 19.
    Information Assurance Directorate, Protection Profile for USB Flash Drives, version 1.0, 1 December 2011, [Online] http://www.niap-ccevs.org/pp/pp_usb_fd_v1.0.pdf.
  20. 20.
    Trusted Computing Group, Trusted Computing Group Protection Profile PC Client specific Trusted Platform Module TPM Family 1.2; Level 2, version 1.1, 10 July 2008, [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/ppfiles/pp0030b.pdf
  21. 21.
    GlobalPlatform, The Trusted Execution Environment: Delivering Enhanced Security at a Lower Cost to the Mobile Market, February 2011, [Online] http://www.globalplatform.org/documents/GlobalPlatform_TEE_White_Paper_Feb2011.pdf.
  22. 22.
    Global Platform, GlobalPlatform Device Technology TEE Client API Specification, version 0.17, 27 April 2010, [Online] http://www.globalplatform.org/specificationsdevice.asp.
  23. 23.
    ARM, Building a Secure System using TrustZone Technology, issue C, April 2009, [Online] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.prd29-genc-009492c/PRD29-GENC-009492C_trustzone_security_whitepaper.pdf.
  24. 24.
    Description of the CMVP, and list of CMVP validated modules, [Online] http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/index.html.
  25. 25.
    Mutual Recognition Agreement of Information Technology Security Evaluation Certificates, version 3.0, January 2010, [Online] http://sogisportal.org/.
  26. 26.
    International Common Criteria website, [Online] http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org.
  27. 27.
    PCI Security Standards council website, [Online] https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SiVenture, Unit 6Maidenhead, BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations