1248 lines
54 KiB
Plaintext
1248 lines
54 KiB
Plaintext
|
NCSC-TG-008
|
|||
|
Library No. S-228,592
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FOREWORD
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"A Guide to Understanding Trusted Distribution in Trusted Systems," is the
|
|||
|
latest in the series of technical guidelines that are being published by the National
|
|||
|
Computer Security Center. These publications are designed to provide insi ht to the
|
|||
|
Trusted Computer Systems Evaluation Criteria requirements and guiance for
|
|||
|
meeting each requirement.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The specific guidelines in this document provide a set of good practices related to
|
|||
|
trusted distribution of the hardware, software, and firmware portions, both
|
|||
|
originals and updates, of automated data processing systems employed for processing classified and other sensitive information. This technical guideline has been written
|
|||
|
to help the vendor and evaluator community understand what trusted distribution
|
|||
|
is, why it is important, and how an effective trusted distribution system may be
|
|||
|
implemented to meet the requirements of the Trusted Computer Systems Evaluation
|
|||
|
Criteria.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As the Director, National Computer Security Center, I invite your
|
|||
|
recommendations for revision to this technical guideline. We plan to review this
|
|||
|
document biannually. Please address any proposals for revision through appropriate
|
|||
|
channels to:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
National Computer Security Center
|
|||
|
9800 Savage Road
|
|||
|
Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Attention: Chief, Criteria and Guidelines
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Patrick R. Gallagher ,Jr. 15 December 1988
|
|||
|
Director
|
|||
|
National Computer Security Center
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
i
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Special recognition is extended to James N. Menendez, National Computer
|
|||
|
Security Center (NCSC), as project manager and coauthor of this document.
|
|||
|
Recognition is also extended to Scott Wright, Advanced Information Management
|
|||
|
(AIM), Inc., as coauthor and researcher of this document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Acknowledgment is also given to all those members of the computer security
|
|||
|
community who contributed their time and expertise by actively participating in
|
|||
|
the review of this document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ii
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
CONTENTS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FOREWORD.............................................................................i
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. INTRODUCTION 1
|
|||
|
1.1 PURPOSE 1
|
|||
|
1.2 SCOPE 2
|
|||
|
1.3 CONTROL OBJECTIVE 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. OVERVIEW OF TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION 3
|
|||
|
2.1 THREATS 3
|
|||
|
2.2 PURPOSE OF TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION 5
|
|||
|
2.3 LIFE-CYCLE ASSURANCE 6
|
|||
|
2.3.1 Assurance for Different Types of Production 7
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. THE TCSEC REQUIREMENTS FOR TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION 9
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. IMPLEMENTATION METHODS 11
|
|||
|
4.1 PROTECTIVE PACKAGING 12
|
|||
|
4.1.1 Shrink Wrapping 13
|
|||
|
4.1.2 Active Systems 14
|
|||
|
4.1.3 Tamper-Resistant Seals 14
|
|||
|
4.2 COURIERS 15
|
|||
|
4.3 REGISTERED MAIL 16
|
|||
|
4.4 MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES 17
|
|||
|
4.5 ENCRYPTION 18
|
|||
|
4.6 SITE VALIDATION 18
|
|||
|
4.6.1 Checksum Programs 19
|
|||
|
4.6.2 Inventory 20
|
|||
|
4.6.3 Engineering Inspection 21
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
iii
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
CONTENTS (cont'd)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION 23
|
|||
|
5.1 TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION OF HARDWARE, FIRMWARE, AND
|
|||
|
SOFTWARE 23
|
|||
|
5.2 TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTATION 23
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. SUMMARY OF TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION 25
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
GLOSSARY 27
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
REFERENCES 31
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
iv
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Introduction
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1.1 Purpose
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) is the metric used for
|
|||
|
evaluating the effectiveness of security controls built into Automated Data
|
|||
|
Processing (ADP) systems. The TCSEC is 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 best available level of assurance.. Within division C through A
|
|||
|
are a number of subdivisions known as classes, which are also ordered in a
|
|||
|
hierarchical manner to represent different levels of security.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
At TCSEC class A1, trusted distribution of the hardware, software, and firmware
|
|||
|
portions of the Trusted Computing Base (TCB) and their updates shall be provided.
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution includes procedures to ensure that all of hte TCB configuration
|
|||
|
items, such as the TCB software, firmware, hardware, and updates, distributed to a
|
|||
|
customer site arrive exactly as intended by the vendor without any alterations.
|
|||
|
Additionally, trusted distribution may include procedures that enable the customer
|
|||
|
site to determine that what was received at the site was actually sent by the vendor.
|
|||
|
The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance to vendors of trusted systems on
|
|||
|
what trusted distribution is, why it is important, and how to select and implement an
|
|||
|
effective trusted distribution system to meet the TCSEC requirement.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Examples in this document are not to be construed as the only implementations
|
|||
|
that will satisfy the TCSEC requirement. The examples are merely suggestions of
|
|||
|
appropriate implementations. The recommendations in this document are also not
|
|||
|
to be construed as supplementary requirements to the TCSEC. The TCSEC is the only
|
|||
|
metric against which systems are to be evaluated.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This guideline is part of an ongoing program to provide helpful guidance on
|
|||
|
TCSEC issues and the features they address.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1.2 Scope
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An important assurance requirement of TCSEC class Al is that the TCB
|
|||
|
software, firmware, hardware, and their updates be distributed to a customer site
|
|||
|
in a trusted manner. This guideline is to be used by vendors of trusted systems in
|
|||
|
the preparation of procedures, techniques, and equipment to establish trusted
|
|||
|
distribution between a vendor site and a customer site. This guideline will discuss
|
|||
|
trusted distribution as it relates to computer systems and products that are
|
|||
|
intended to meet the Al requirements of the TCSEC.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1.3 Control Objective
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution focuses primarily on the assurance control objective of
|
|||
|
the TCSEC. The assurance control objective states:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"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."[7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Any alteration to the TCB at any time during the system life cycle could
|
|||
|
result in a violation of the system security policy. Assurance that the system
|
|||
|
security policy is correctly implemented and operational throughout the system life
|
|||
|
cycle is provided by different TCSEC requirements. At TCSEC class Al, trusted
|
|||
|
distribution, in conjunction with configuration management, provides assurance
|
|||
|
that the TCB software, firmware, and hardware, both original and updates, are
|
|||
|
received by a customer site exactly as specified by the vendor's master copy.
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution also ensures that TCB copies sent from other than legitimate
|
|||
|
parties are detected.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. OVERVIEW OF TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.1 Threats
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The different divisions of the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria
|
|||
|
(TCSEC) were developed to protect against threats that could be directed towards
|
|||
|
Automated Data Processing (ADP) systems. Each higher class is required to
|
|||
|
provide additional features and assurances over the next lower class, thus
|
|||
|
providing increasing levels of trust. At the C level and above, passwords and audit
|
|||
|
mechanisms provide ways to restrict access to a system and make users
|
|||
|
accountable for their actions. At the TCSEC B level, the addition of labeling
|
|||
|
mechanisms control access to data based on clearances of subjects and
|
|||
|
classifications of objects.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The class of system needed by a specific site should be determined by the
|
|||
|
types of threats that are faced by that site. Generally, the class of system is
|
|||
|
dependent upon the sensitivity level of the data that are being processed by the site
|
|||
|
and the clearance of the system users. According to the Guideline for Applying the
|
|||
|
Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria in Specific
|
|||
|
Environments[5], a risk index corresponding to the minimum clearance or
|
|||
|
authorization of system users and the maximum sensitivity of data processed by
|
|||
|
the system can be used to determine the minimum evaluation class required by a
|
|||
|
site.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The features and assurances in lower class systems protect against the
|
|||
|
threat that someone will tamper with a system while it is in operation, but it is at
|
|||
|
TCSEC class Al that the threat of subversion is addressed. Computer subversion is
|
|||
|
the name generally applied to deliberate, malicious modification of executable code
|
|||
|
or hardware within a computer system. The subversion can be accomplished at any
|
|||
|
time during the system's life from the earliest stages of design to the last day of its
|
|||
|
use. A component can be subverted either to permit later penetration or as an act of
|
|||
|
sabotage -- to nullify or to degrade the system's capability. Forms of subversion
|
|||
|
include the trap door, the Trojan horse, and computer viruses. The threat of
|
|||
|
subversion exists at all classes; however, the benefit of providing assurance
|
|||
|
features to guard against it in lower class systems may not justify the cost of this
|
|||
|
type of protection.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are basically two threats that trusted distribution protects against.
|
|||
|
The first is the threat of someone tampering with a system during its movement
|
|||
|
from a vendor site to a customer site. Throughout this document the term "vendor
|
|||
|
site" will be used to mean the point from which the TCB hardware, software, and
|
|||
|
firmware to be distributed are sent. The term "customer site" is the point at which
|
|||
|
the distributed material is accepted. Specifically, any system component that
|
|||
|
participates in the enforcement of the security policy of the system is what needs to
|
|||
|
be protected. For example, someone may break into a delivery truck and insert
|
|||
|
malicious code into a trusted system before it reaches the customer site. The
|
|||
|
system or update being delivered, when installed at the site, will contain the
|
|||
|
harmful code that could cause compromise of the system's security policy. Trusted
|
|||
|
distribution may include protective packaging methods that protect against
|
|||
|
changes being made to a system (see Section 4.1 Protective Packaging). Trusted
|
|||
|
distribution may also include methods of detecting if a system and/or its updates
|
|||
|
have been accidentally or maliciously altered during or after distribution through
|
|||
|
validation tests (see Section 4.7 Site Validation).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The second threat protected against by trusted distribution is that the TCB is
|
|||
|
a counterfeit; that is the system or update did not come from the vendor site.
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution includes procedures for the distribution of TCB components,
|
|||
|
such as requiring the vendor to notify a customer site of an impending delivery. By
|
|||
|
doing this, trusted distribution protects against the threat of sites receiving
|
|||
|
systems that were not distributed by the vendor and provides assurance that the
|
|||
|
vendor was the actual sender of the product or update. Trusted distribution should
|
|||
|
be able to answer the question, "Was what I received really sent from the vendor or
|
|||
|
an imposter?" Without trusted distribution, all a penetrator needs to do is package
|
|||
|
a system or update containing a virus or Trojan horse so that it looks as though it
|
|||
|
came from an actual vendor. The receiving site, upon seeing the packaging,
|
|||
|
assumes that the system or update is genuine, unaware that it is really a
|
|||
|
counterfeit. To prevent this from happening, the vendor and customer sites may
|
|||
|
establish procedures requiring them to agree on when deliveries will be made and
|
|||
|
what they will contain.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.2 Purpose of Trusted Distribution
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hostile attacks may occur on computer systems when they are in use, but it
|
|||
|
is also possible for computer systems to be attacked even before they are installed
|
|||
|
at a customer site. The TCSEC requires that assurance mechanisms be in place
|
|||
|
throughout the life cycle of a system to prevent modifications being made to the
|
|||
|
TCB which could adversely affect the security policy of a system. One such
|
|||
|
assurance requirement for class Al systems is trusted distribution. Trusted
|
|||
|
distribution maintains the integrity of the current TCB software, firmware, and
|
|||
|
hardware as well as any updates to these by ensuring that any changes made to the
|
|||
|
TCB during the distribution process do not go unnoticed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Trap doors can be inserted during the distribution phase. If updates are
|
|||
|
sent via insecure communications - either U.S. Mail or insecure
|
|||
|
telecommunications, the penetrator can intercept the update and subtly
|
|||
|
modify it. The penetrator could also generate his own updates and distribute
|
|||
|
them using forged stationery. "[3]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The main purpose of trusted distribution is to protect a trusted system as it is
|
|||
|
being distributed, and consequently to provide protection for the information that
|
|||
|
will be processed on the system. Trusted distribution provides assurance that a
|
|||
|
trusted system arrives at a customer site with all of its security properties intact
|
|||
|
and that the system or update that is received at the customer site is the, "same
|
|||
|
system or update which was produced from the master copy of the system evaluated
|
|||
|
against the TCSEC."[6] Any tampering with the TCB software, firmware,
|
|||
|
hardware, whether originals or updates, from the time they leave the vendor site to
|
|||
|
the time they arrive at the customer site may permit the security policy of the
|
|||
|
system to be circumvented.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution provides protection against tampering and a means of
|
|||
|
detecting that a system has been altered; it accomplishes this through physical
|
|||
|
devices (locks), electronic devices (encryption), and procedures (bonding of
|
|||
|
couriers). It also provides procedures for site validation so that if the protection
|
|||
|
mechanism[s] should fail, any modification to the TCB software, firmware,
|
|||
|
hardware, both originals and updates, will not go unnoticed. If sufficient trust can
|
|||
|
be placed in either the protection methods or the customer site validation, it is
|
|||
|
possible to use that method exclusively. If not, it may be necessary to apply
|
|||
|
techniques for both the protection of the shipment and validation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.3 Life-Cycle Assurance
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution is one link in a chain of assurances provided by trusted
|
|||
|
systems. It is helpful to take a look at all of the other activities that take place to
|
|||
|
ensure that the system in operation is the one that the vendor and customer agree
|
|||
|
upon.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The following is a summary of the assurances that are needed to ensure that
|
|||
|
the product delivered to a customer site is operating under a correct
|
|||
|
implementation of the system's security policy:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Assurance that the product evaluated is the one the manufacturer built
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Assurance that the product built is the one that was sent
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Assurance that the product sent is the one the customer site received.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Long before a system is boxed and prepared to be sent to a customer site,
|
|||
|
assurance needs to be provided that the system is being built as specified. The
|
|||
|
TCSEC class Al design specification and verification requirements require a
|
|||
|
formal top-level specification (FTLS) to be maintained that accurately describes the
|
|||
|
system. The FTLS is shown to be consistent with the TCB interface. Additionally,
|
|||
|
specification to code mapping provides assurance that the design has been properly
|
|||
|
implemented.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Configuration management provides control over the design and
|
|||
|
development of a system, ensuring that the system is built to specification. The
|
|||
|
main purpose of configuration management is to ensure that any changes to the
|
|||
|
system during design, development, or during the system life cycle "take place in
|
|||
|
an identifiable and controlled environment and that they do not adversely affect
|
|||
|
the implementation of the security policy of the TCB."[4] More information on
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
configuration management can be found in A Guide to Understanding
|
|||
|
Configuration Management in Trusted Systems (NCSC-TG-006).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Once the system has been built, security testing shall be performed to ensure
|
|||
|
that the system works exactly as claimed in the system documentation. The
|
|||
|
security testing shall demonstrate that the TCB implementation is consistent with
|
|||
|
the FTLS.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution provides assurance that the security policy of a system
|
|||
|
is not violated during distribution of the system. For trusted distribution to be
|
|||
|
successful, the TCB shall have been under configuration management throughout
|
|||
|
the development process, ensuring that the integrity of the developer's master copy
|
|||
|
of the TCB has been maintained. Without configuration management in place
|
|||
|
during the design and development of a system, the assurance provided by trusted
|
|||
|
distribution will be suspect. True, it will still protect against any tampering with a
|
|||
|
system during delivery, but if the system being delivered has already been
|
|||
|
tampered with during development then the damage has already been done.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Once the system is in operation at a customer site, assurance shall be
|
|||
|
provided throughout the system life cycle that the security policy of the system is
|
|||
|
correctly implemented. Configuration management continues throughout the
|
|||
|
system life cycle ensuring that any changes to the system take place in a controlled
|
|||
|
environment. It is said that "a chain is only as strong at its weakest link," and if
|
|||
|
any of these assurances fails during the system life cycle, the probability that the
|
|||
|
security policy of the system could be violated increases.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.3.1 Assurance for Different Types of Production
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Not every distribution is as simple as having the entire computer system
|
|||
|
designed, developed, and assembled in a vendor's facility and then shipped to a
|
|||
|
customer site. Most computer systems, particularly large-scale computer systems,
|
|||
|
comprise several parts which are produced separately and need to be assembled.
|
|||
|
The distribution process for a trusted system may be as simple as shipping from
|
|||
|
vendor sites to customer sites, or may be as complex as from vendor to central sites
|
|||
|
to other sites, or from software development center sites to other sites, etc. If
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
development is done at different sites and then integrated at yet another site, the
|
|||
|
pieces of the system transferred between these sites during development should be
|
|||
|
subject to the same trusted distribution requirements as the final TCB product.
|
|||
|
The item, at the point of transfer to a customer site, should be a true reflection of
|
|||
|
the vendor's master copy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The manner in which the TCB components are handled prior to distribution
|
|||
|
will have an impact on the trusted distribution process. The following is a
|
|||
|
recommendation for how a vendor may provide assurance before the components
|
|||
|
are actually shipped. "There are basically two types of production that companies
|
|||
|
employ: mass production, and production per request basis. In either case, there
|
|||
|
will probably be idle time where the system(s) will be waiting for delivery probably
|
|||
|
in some type of warehouse. Strict accounting procedures and physical controls
|
|||
|
must be placed on the system(s) both during the delivery to and stay in the
|
|||
|
warehouse to ensure that no unauthorized modifications are made. For example,
|
|||
|
controls must exist which log any entry into the warehouse, authorizations for the
|
|||
|
alteration of any system or range of serial numbers within the warehouse must be
|
|||
|
properly documented, etc."[6]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The "trusted warehouse" spoken of in the preceding paragraph is not a
|
|||
|
TCSEC requirement, but when considering that trusted distribution really extends
|
|||
|
further than just providing assurance from vendor loading dock to customer site
|
|||
|
loading dock, it should be considered. The assurance that trusted distribution
|
|||
|
provides is dependent on a system not being altered before being loaded onto a
|
|||
|
delivery truck. The control of the system during "idle time" should be performed by
|
|||
|
configuration management practices, emphasizing the importance of configuration
|
|||
|
management in trusted distribution.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
8
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. THE TCSEC REQUIREMENTS FOR TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This section lists the TCSEC requirements for trusted distribution. These
|
|||
|
requirements have been extracted from the TCSEC and have been listed separately
|
|||
|
and numbered. How these requirements can be met will be discussed in the
|
|||
|
following sections of this document. This section is designed to serve as a quick
|
|||
|
reference for the TCSEC requirements for trusted distribution.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution is required at TCSEC class Al, and the requirement can
|
|||
|
be broken down into two parts.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Requirement 1 - "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."[7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Requirement 2 - "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."[7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
9
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
*** Page 10 is intentionally left blank
|
|||
|
4. IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This section describes various implementation methods that can be used to
|
|||
|
establish a trusted distribution system and the advantages and disadvantages of
|
|||
|
each method. When choosing a protective packaging system or a customer site
|
|||
|
validation process, remember that some devices or techniques provide a higher
|
|||
|
degree of protection than others. The higher the threat to the distribution system,
|
|||
|
the greater the need for more stringent measures or multiple levels of trusted
|
|||
|
distribution methods. In many situations, multiple methods for trusted
|
|||
|
distribution should be used, such as a protective packaging system during
|
|||
|
distribution and site validation upon receipt. This layered approach will counter
|
|||
|
the insider threat or the threat of collusion where employees themselves alter the
|
|||
|
contents of a package before it is distributed. Each situation that requires trusted
|
|||
|
distribution is unique and requires that the system be addressed individually.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For a National Computer Security Center Al evaluation, a vendor must
|
|||
|
submit a plan that describes the trusted distribution method(s) for the system
|
|||
|
under evaluation. This plan should include a description of the procedures to be
|
|||
|
followed and the mechanisms (type of packaging) to be used for distribution of both
|
|||
|
initial versions and updates. Any deviation from the trusted distribution plan
|
|||
|
submitted could jeopardize the evaluation rating.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are other requirements in the TCSEC which are related to trusted
|
|||
|
distribution, namely those concerning configuration management. A vendor
|
|||
|
should be sure that the system sitting on the loading dock is the system that the
|
|||
|
vendor thinks it is. At TCSEC class Al, the configuration management system
|
|||
|
shall include, "a combination of technical, physical, and procedural safeguards" to
|
|||
|
be "used to protect from unauthorized modification or destruction the master copy
|
|||
|
or copies of all materials used to generate the TCB."[7] All of the implementation
|
|||
|
methods that follow are contingent upon prior performance of configuration
|
|||
|
management, ensuring that the system has not been maliciously altered before
|
|||
|
being distributed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
11
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A related concern that plays a part in trusted distribution is that
|
|||
|
communication should be established between the vendor and customer sites for
|
|||
|
both the initial and updated distribution of the TCB software, firmware, and
|
|||
|
hardware. The procedures used should include agreement between the vendor and
|
|||
|
customer sites as to the methods to be used for distribution and the time frame in
|
|||
|
which the distribution will be made. The sender (the vendor) and receiver (the
|
|||
|
customer) should be uniquely identified prior to distribution for the trusted
|
|||
|
distribution system to function successfully. It is essential that this identification
|
|||
|
be made and that procedures be in place for manufacturers to notify users of
|
|||
|
pending shipments. Included in this identification should be the unique
|
|||
|
identification of every component to be shipped. This identification will allow for
|
|||
|
the detection of any system configuration changes. Additionally, the customer
|
|||
|
should have procedures in place that will keep the customer advised of the latest
|
|||
|
changes from the vendor. At a minimum the customer should enforce a policy that
|
|||
|
forbids the use of any new TCB software, firmware, or hardware without prior
|
|||
|
notification from the vendor of the most current change, to include the date each
|
|||
|
change to the TCBo was sent and the means by which the TCB software, firmware,
|
|||
|
and hardware was sent.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Another concern is the reliance on the individuals involved in the design,
|
|||
|
development, manufacturing, and distribution of the trusted system. Each
|
|||
|
individual who is involved in the system prior to and during distribution should be
|
|||
|
subject to review that would verify his or her trustworthiness and reliability.
|
|||
|
Particularly for distribution, all individuals who play a significant role in the
|
|||
|
establishment of the control at the shipping end, or the validation at the receiving
|
|||
|
end should be worthy of the trust placed in them to perform their roles reliably.
|
|||
|
Without this step, any process for protection is subject to an insider compromise.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.1 Protective Packaging
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Protective packaging is a way of wrapping an item so that it cannot be
|
|||
|
opened and resealed without leaving some obvious indication that the package has
|
|||
|
been tampered with. Protective packaging can be provided to limit access to the
|
|||
|
TCB software, firmware, and hardware during shipment and to guarantee their
|
|||
|
delivery in an unaltered form. Protective packaging ranges from simple shrink
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
12
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
wrapping to complex fiber-optic techniques. The wrapping for shipments should
|
|||
|
allow the sender and the package contents to remain anonymous. Techniques such
|
|||
|
as double wrapping the materials to be distributed or an absence of exterior
|
|||
|
markings when using shrink wrapping could accomplish this. The technique used
|
|||
|
for packaging the TCB components for distribution shall be documented in the
|
|||
|
trusted distribution plan.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Protective packaging not only limits access to the materials being
|
|||
|
distributed, but also aids in protection against environmental factors, such as dust
|
|||
|
and water. It is not possible to present every protective packaging technique;
|
|||
|
however, the examples that follow are provided to present some of the methods that
|
|||
|
are currently in use.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.1.1 Shrink Wrapping
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Shrink wrapping is one method of trusted distribution which consists of
|
|||
|
enclosing the product in a plastic film. This method may be used for TCB
|
|||
|
hardware, software, or firmware, but since it does involve the use of heat, it should
|
|||
|
not be used for computer-related equipment that is very sensitive to heat.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When heat is applied to the plastic film in shrink wrapping, the film
|
|||
|
contracts, or shrinks, forming a tight seal around the product. If the shrink-
|
|||
|
wrapped seal is broken, this is an indication that the product being shipped has
|
|||
|
been tampered with. Not only is shrink wrapping used for the trusted distribution
|
|||
|
of TCB components, but many industries including the food and drug industry use
|
|||
|
shrink wrapping to provide consumer protection that products have not been
|
|||
|
tampered with. Additional special shrink-wrap techniques are available that may
|
|||
|
increase the reliability of the shrink wrap.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
13
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The size and construction of the materials to be packaged are important
|
|||
|
considerations when selecting a shrink-wrapping technique. For example, shrink
|
|||
|
wrapping products the size of mainframe central processing units (CPUs) or
|
|||
|
mainframe disk drives is currently not done because of their large size. Techniques
|
|||
|
will need to be improved to make shrink wrapping a feasible packaging option for
|
|||
|
these types of products.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.1.2 Active Systems
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The use of active systems for protective packaging is a viable method for the
|
|||
|
distribution of TCB software, firmware, and hardware. This method was originally
|
|||
|
intended to secure personal computers and electronic equipment. Conceptually, an
|
|||
|
active system could include looping a fiber-optic cable through a latch on the
|
|||
|
opening of a container and attaching the cable to a control unit via an alarm. An
|
|||
|
active system provides assurance that a package cannot be entered without
|
|||
|
triggering the alarm.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An advantage to the active systems method is that there is a real-time
|
|||
|
notification of any tampering with the TCB hardware, software, or firmware as
|
|||
|
they are being delivered. It is very possible that anyone tampering with the
|
|||
|
product could be caught before having a chance to modify the system. This real-
|
|||
|
time notification can be circumvented, though, by interfering with the alarm so
|
|||
|
that the signal will not be picked up. In these cases, the break-in will be detected
|
|||
|
but not until the delivery truck reaches its destination. True, it will presumably be
|
|||
|
too late to catch those responsible for the attack, but the detection provided by
|
|||
|
active systems will prevent an altered component from being used that could result
|
|||
|
in a security policy compromise.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.1.3 Tamper-Resistant Seals
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The use of tamper-resistant seals is another method of protective packaging
|
|||
|
that may be used to protect the distribution of large TCB software, firmware, and
|
|||
|
hardware items. One example of a tamper-resistant seal for large items shipped by
|
|||
|
truck is a special-purpose truck seal. This device generates a random 4-digit
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
14
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
number when installed on a truck door. When the door is opened a new random
|
|||
|
number is generated. The device is encased in metal and epoxy resin to prevent
|
|||
|
tampering. By sealing the truck at the vendor facility and sending the number to
|
|||
|
the customer site by secure means, it is possible for the user to determine whether
|
|||
|
or not the truck cargo has been opened.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Other forms of locking devices and seals, such as a high impact security lock
|
|||
|
or company registered seals, can also be applied before shipment and verified prior
|
|||
|
to opening. The different sealing devices used provide different degrees of
|
|||
|
assurance and should be selected based on the needs of the item being distributed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.2 Couriers
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The use of a courier service is a possible way to establish the trusted
|
|||
|
distribution of TCB software, hardware, firmware, both originals and updates.
|
|||
|
Couriers provide the advantage of constant surveillance of the materials they are
|
|||
|
transporting. The use of couriers increases the reliability of any delivery system
|
|||
|
and can easily be used in conjunction with other protective methods such as locking
|
|||
|
devices and protective packaging.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are several commercial firms that can supply bonded services, or
|
|||
|
manufacturers may use their own internal courier service, if available. Within the
|
|||
|
military, the Defense Courier Service (DCS), formerly known as the Armed Forces
|
|||
|
Courier Service (ARFCOS), is an alternative.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It is possible to transport the most sensitive materials by means of couriers.
|
|||
|
The TCB products to be distributed should be considered to be as sensitive as the
|
|||
|
data they are being used to process and should be treated accordingly. Depending
|
|||
|
upon the sensitivity of the material to be distributed, the vendor and/or customer
|
|||
|
site may want to establish regulations regarding who may act as a courier, what
|
|||
|
type of materials they may transport, and where the material may be delivered. A
|
|||
|
partial list of guidelines for the use of courier service is provided below.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Persons acting as couriers should be trusted to the level of the
|
|||
|
material they are transporting
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
15
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Material should remain in their personal custody at all times
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Vendor as consignor should be responsible for the safety of the
|
|||
|
material
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Vendor should notify the customer site of the nature of the shipment,
|
|||
|
the means of the shipment, number of seals (if used), and the anticipated
|
|||
|
time and date of arrival by separate communication at least 24 hours in
|
|||
|
advance of the arrival of the shipment in order that the customer site may
|
|||
|
take appropriate steps to receive and protect the shipment.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For the use of a courier service to provide trusted distribution successfully,
|
|||
|
assurance should exist that the TCB software, firmware, or hardware is not
|
|||
|
modified while stored in a warehouse before being picked up by the courier.
|
|||
|
Otherwise, the assurance provided by the courier will have been defeated.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.3 Registered Mail
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Registered mail can be part of the trusted distribution of TCB hardware,
|
|||
|
software, and firmware to a customer site without any undetected disclosure or
|
|||
|
loss. Although registered mail alone is not sufficient for meeting the TCSEC
|
|||
|
trusted distribution requirement, it does not preclude it from being a part of the
|
|||
|
trusted distribution process. The reason that registered mail alone does not satisfy
|
|||
|
the TCSEC requirement is that although the customer site has to verify its identity
|
|||
|
before being allowed to receive a package via registered mail, the sender does not
|
|||
|
have to show any form of identification to mail a package. This can result in the
|
|||
|
scenario detailed earlier in which someone can duplicate a vendor's wrapping and
|
|||
|
markings and mail a malicious update or system. Provided that the registered mail
|
|||
|
is supplemented by other adequate mechanisms to compensate for its shortcomings,
|
|||
|
such as an unforgeable internal signature to ensure the identity of the sender, it
|
|||
|
can meet the trusted distribution requirement and provide assurance that what
|
|||
|
was delivered through the mail actually came from the vendor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
16
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When sending TCB software, firmware, hardware, originals or updates, via
|
|||
|
registered mail, the products should be considered to be as sensitive as the data
|
|||
|
they are being used to process and should be treated accordingly. Some procedures
|
|||
|
to be observed when using registered mail for trusted distribution include:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Material to be transmitted should be enclosed in opaque inner and
|
|||
|
outer containers
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- If the material is in a hard-copy form and is of such size as to permit
|
|||
|
the use of envelopes for wrapping, the contents should be protected from
|
|||
|
direct contact with the inner container by a cover sheet or by folding inward.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.4 Message Authentication Codes
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Message Authentication Codes provide an effective means for transmitting
|
|||
|
segments of TCB software. The banking system is one of the largest users of
|
|||
|
electronic distribution, and has successfully used Message Authentication Codes
|
|||
|
for several years. A Message Authentication Code employs an encryption process
|
|||
|
for a data stream and from this process develops a unique code that is appended to
|
|||
|
the data stream. It is important to note that only the appended code is actually
|
|||
|
encrypted, and the message remains in plaintext. The process, repeated by the
|
|||
|
recipient, must then produce the identical code.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If the codes are not the same, this is an indication that the code being
|
|||
|
transmitted has been tampered with. The length of the appended code can vary,
|
|||
|
but the strength of the process is directly related to the length of the code. As with
|
|||
|
all encryption-based processes, the management and protection of the key ancinor
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
algorithm is a critical factor that shall be addressed in the design documentation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
17
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.5 Encryption
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Encryption of the entire text is an effective way of protecting data from
|
|||
|
compromise or modification attacks. Encryption has the advantage not only of
|
|||
|
preventing undetected changes to the TCB software, but also of preventing viewing
|
|||
|
of the code for any person without the key. Encryption of TCB software with public
|
|||
|
or private key techniques is a viable method of trusted distribution, provided that
|
|||
|
the keys are properly managed, protected, and changed at frequent intervals. In
|
|||
|
the event that the keys are compromised, it would be possible to alter the TCB
|
|||
|
software without detection of the alteration.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As stated before, the success of encryption is dependent upon the protection
|
|||
|
of the key. For this reason, the key should be subject to some form of trusted
|
|||
|
distribution, such as courier, to ensure that it is not compromised. Encryption
|
|||
|
provides a significant increase in the quality of assurance; however, management
|
|||
|
of the system, for example, key generation and distribution, can become a very
|
|||
|
complex and time-consuming activity that needs to be well defined in the design
|
|||
|
documentation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.6 Site Validation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Site validation is validation by the customer site that the TCB hardware,
|
|||
|
software, and firmware received are exactly as specified in the master copy. Site
|
|||
|
validation is most commonly performed on the TCB hardware items that are
|
|||
|
shipped, but TCB software and firmware items should also be subject to some type
|
|||
|
of validation testing upon receipt. Site validation includes methods for validating
|
|||
|
that a system has not been tampered with during its movement from vendor site to
|
|||
|
the customer site. Site validation provides a second layer of assurance for trusted
|
|||
|
distribution. In the event that any of the TCB components were altered during
|
|||
|
distribution, site validation procedures should detect the alteration before the
|
|||
|
system is installed and any compromise of security policy can take place.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
18
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.6.1 Checksum Programs
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Checksum programs provide an acceptable means to detect TCB software
|
|||
|
and firmware changes during electronic or physical distribution. In this validation
|
|||
|
method, a group of digits are summed and then checked against a previously
|
|||
|
computed sum to verify that no digits have been changed since the last summation.
|
|||
|
Any difference in the two sums would indicate that the piece of software being
|
|||
|
checked had been modified. The following is taken from the Final Evaluation
|
|||
|
Report of SCOMP [2] and describes how SCOMP used the checksum method for
|
|||
|
software distribution.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"When a site purchases a SCOMP system, a description of the desired
|
|||
|
configuration must be sent to Honeywell. A set of configuration files are
|
|||
|
then set up and the desired release, with the site specific configuration files,
|
|||
|
is generated. A checksum algorithm is then applied to the executable code.
|
|||
|
The executable code is sent to the site along with a checksum generation
|
|||
|
program. The checksum that was originally generated is then sent to the
|
|||
|
site. The site can run the checksum generation program and compare the
|
|||
|
result with the checksum delivered through the mail. The two checksums
|
|||
|
provide a means whereby the site can ascertain that the system that they
|
|||
|
received was the same system that Honeywell sent to them."[2]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It should be noted that there are ways to improve this approach. The
|
|||
|
checksum program should not be distributed with the TCB software. Trusted
|
|||
|
distribution implementing checksums should consist of sending one package
|
|||
|
containing the checksum generation program and checksum result and another
|
|||
|
package containing the TCB software. Both packages should be protected by
|
|||
|
appropriate means of trusted distribution such as courier or registered mail.
|
|||
|
Anyone having access to both the checksum generator and the TCB software could
|
|||
|
retrieve the output from the checksum program through a print command and alter
|
|||
|
the system so that the change would go unnoticed by saving the original checksum
|
|||
|
value, modifying the system, and running the checksum program until it matches
|
|||
|
the original checksum, adding modules to inconsequential areas of the system
|
|||
|
when necessary. It may take some time to get the checksum of the modified
|
|||
|
software to equal the original checksum, but with a 16-bit or smaller checksum it
|
|||
|
may be a practical method for modifying TCB software.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
19
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Additionally, current Al systems should enhance their checksum
|
|||
|
implementation by using cryptographically protected checksums. Encryption of
|
|||
|
the checksum and result increases the assurance provided, by preventing anyone
|
|||
|
from viewing the checksum result. It also provides protection against the scenario
|
|||
|
described above because no one would be able to view the checksum result without
|
|||
|
possessing the proper cryptographic key.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A disadvantage to this implementation is that a checksum program will not
|
|||
|
limit viewing of the TCB software; it will, however, provide a level of assurance
|
|||
|
that the transmission has not been altered.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.6.2 Inventory
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An inventory is a minimal way of performing customer site validation of
|
|||
|
TCB hardware. Although this will not meet the TCSEC requirement for trusted
|
|||
|
distribution, it may provide an acceptable level of assurance for some sites. An
|
|||
|
inventory is a simple means of inspecting for the presence or absence of a piece of
|
|||
|
hardware. It consists of an inspection to see if each piece of equipment listed on the
|
|||
|
inventory arrived at its destination. The assurance provided by an inventory may
|
|||
|
be increased by inspecting the lower level elements of the TCB hardware. These
|
|||
|
elements would include such things as circuit boards and chips.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The disadvantage of conducting a physical inventory is that many different
|
|||
|
hardware families use some of the same hardware components, and a physical
|
|||
|
inventory of hardware at each end of the distribution chain will not detect the
|
|||
|
substitution or change of these similar components in the hardware. It will,
|
|||
|
however, serve to detect any gross discrepancies between the items sent and
|
|||
|
received.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The advantage of performing an inventory is that it provides a quick method
|
|||
|
of checking that the TCB components sent were the ones requested. The assurance
|
|||
|
it provides will be minimal, but a simple oversight or error in shipping or the loss of
|
|||
|
an item may be detected in this manner. A copy of the invoice should always be in a
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
20
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
sealed envelope and a second copy should be sent by alternate means, such as a
|
|||
|
courier, so that any invoice tampering can be easily detected.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.6.3 Engineering Inspection
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An engineering inspection provides a more thorough check than an
|
|||
|
inventory and may satisfy the TCSEC requirement for trusted distribution of TCB
|
|||
|
hardware components. It differs from an inventory in that it is a detailed
|
|||
|
inspection by a qualified technician in a specific area. The technician should be
|
|||
|
capable of detecting any changes to the inspected equipment that would affect the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
TCB. Engineering inspections should be provided for critical parts of the TCB
|
|||
|
hardware to ensure that the components of the hardware are present and
|
|||
|
unchanged, such as ensuring, for example, physical location and serial numbered
|
|||
|
parts, are as specified.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A disadvantage to an engineering inspection is that it can be very time-
|
|||
|
consuming and it may not be possible for a technician to inspect all of the TCB
|
|||
|
hardware components because of the locations and construction of the equipment
|
|||
|
being inspected. This time element may be offset by a simplified version of this
|
|||
|
safeguard consisting of a confidential agreement between the vendor and the
|
|||
|
customer as to which parts of the TCB hardware are to be inspected in detail. This
|
|||
|
will reduce the amount of effort to a reasonable level and, if the specific components
|
|||
|
are properly identified, will provide an acceptable level of assurance that no
|
|||
|
changes have been made.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
21
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
***Page 22 was intentionally left blank
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5.1 Trusted Distribution of Hardware, Firmware, and Software
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The preceding sections of this document have addressed different methods
|
|||
|
that may be used for trusted distribution, but none has explicitly stated what will
|
|||
|
satisfy the TCSEC class Al requirement for trusted distribution. The following
|
|||
|
paragraphs describe sample methods for meeting the trusted distribution
|
|||
|
requirements. It should be noted that these are not the only methods that will
|
|||
|
satisfy the requirement. Through the guidance offered in this document, it is hoped
|
|||
|
that vendors will be able to investigate other creative methodologies to satisfy the
|
|||
|
trusted distribution requirement.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When a system is directed to be transported, an acceptable methodology
|
|||
|
would be the use of a bonded courier service. The courier would accompany and be
|
|||
|
responsible for the safety of the system. Alternate methodologies would be
|
|||
|
protective packaging (protecting against unauthorized modifications), registered
|
|||
|
mail, and, specifically on software, the use of encrypted checksums.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Upon arrival of the system at the purchaser's site, the success of the
|
|||
|
protective packaging methods provided by the vendor should be validated. It is,
|
|||
|
however, the vendor's responsibility to provide either the documentation or the
|
|||
|
manpower to assist the purchaser in determining if the methods used were
|
|||
|
successful. Additionally, it is the purchaser's responsibility to provide
|
|||
|
configuration management for the system throughout the remaining life cycle of
|
|||
|
the system.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5.2 Trusted Distribution of Documentation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution shall be provided for the distribution of the TCB
|
|||
|
hardware, software, and firmware. It can also be said that trusted distribution is
|
|||
|
required for all of the TCB configuration items as identified in the configuration
|
|||
|
management plan for a system. When speaking of configuration items, one should
|
|||
|
include the documentation for the system. Although not required by the TCSEC,
|
|||
|
the documentation and configuration records for a TCSEC class Al system should
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
23
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
be delivered to the customer site through trusted distribution. In the event that
|
|||
|
these documents are altered during distribution, it is possible that the system could
|
|||
|
be configured in a manner that would violate the security policy of the system. For
|
|||
|
instance, documentation on a TCB mechanism could be altered to allow the
|
|||
|
mechanism to be used in a harmful way. Trusted distribution of the documentation
|
|||
|
of the system will ensure that the documentation has not been altered during
|
|||
|
distribution and accurately describes the system.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
24
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. SUMMARY OF TRUSTED DISTRIBUTION
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution is necessary to ensure that the TCB software, firmware,
|
|||
|
and hardware developed by a vendor arrive at a customer site exactly as specified
|
|||
|
by the master copy that has been evaluated against the TCSEC. Modification of
|
|||
|
any TCB software, firmware, or hardware, originals and updates, could result in a
|
|||
|
compromise of the system's security policy. Trusted distribution is a part of the life-
|
|||
|
cycle assurance required for trusted systems that ensures that the security policy of
|
|||
|
a trusted system remains intact throughout the life cycle of the system. Trusted
|
|||
|
distribution provides assurance that the TCB components will not be altered
|
|||
|
during their distribution from a vendor to a customer site. Generically, this process
|
|||
|
of end-to-end control can be broken down into three stages: post-production, transit,
|
|||
|
and delivery. Along with configuration management and the other assurance
|
|||
|
requirements of the TCSEC, assurance is provided that no violation of a system's
|
|||
|
security policy can occur.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted distribution includes methods of protecting the TCB components
|
|||
|
during distribution, and in the event of alteration, methods of detecting that the
|
|||
|
system has been altered before it is installed and compromise of the security policy
|
|||
|
occurs. In the latter case, TCB software containing a virus could be distributed to a
|
|||
|
customer site by an imposter with the intentions of compromising the data
|
|||
|
processing facilities.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Advances in the ways of attacking a system and an increase in insiders
|
|||
|
committing crimes necessitate greater degrees of protection to be provided ADP
|
|||
|
systems. Therefore, a successful trusted distribution system should consist of dual
|
|||
|
methods of protection and detection and should not rely on any one technique.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
25
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
***Page 26 was intentionally left blank
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
GLOSSARY
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Check Sum
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A check in which groups of digits are summed, usually without regard for
|
|||
|
overflow, and that sum checked against a previously computed sum to verify
|
|||
|
that no digits have been changed since the last summation. [9]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Configuration Item
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The smallest component of hardware, software, firmware, documentation, or
|
|||
|
any of its discrete portions, which is tracked by the configuration
|
|||
|
management system. [4]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Configuration Management
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The management of security features and assurances through control of
|
|||
|
changes to a system's hardware, software, firmware, and documentation
|
|||
|
throughout the development and operational life of the system. [8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Encryption
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The process of transforming data to an unintelligible form in such a way that
|
|||
|
the original data either cannot be obtained (one-way encryption) or cannot be
|
|||
|
obtained without using the inverse decryption process (two-way encryption).
|
|||
|
[8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fiber-Optic Latches
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An active system method available for trusted distribution. In this method,
|
|||
|
a fiber optic cable is looped through a latch on the opening of a container and
|
|||
|
attached to a control unit. The control unit sends a light signal through the
|
|||
|
cable. If the light is interrupted by the cutting or damaging of the cable in
|
|||
|
any way, an alarm is set off. The alarm can be audible or telemetric.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
27
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Formal Top-Level Specification
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A top-level specification that is written in a formal mathematical language
|
|||
|
to allow theorems showing the correspondence of the system specification to
|
|||
|
its formal requirements to be hypothesized and formally proven.[7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Message Authentication Code
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A cryptographically computed number which is the result of passing a
|
|||
|
message through the authentication algorithm using a specific key. Lengths
|
|||
|
of from 8 to 16 hexadecimal characters can be used.[1]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
System Life-Cycle
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The period of time that a system is in existence, including its design,
|
|||
|
development, implementation, transportation, installation, maintenance,
|
|||
|
and disposal.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trap Door
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A hidden software or hardware mechanism that can be triggered to permit
|
|||
|
system protection mechanisms to be circumvented. It is activated in some
|
|||
|
innocent-appearing manner; e.g., special "random" key sequence at a
|
|||
|
terminal. Software developers often introduce trap doors in their code to
|
|||
|
enable them to reenter the system and perform certain functions.[8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trojan Horse
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A computer program with an apparently or actually useful function that
|
|||
|
contains additional (hidden) functions that surreptitiously exploit the
|
|||
|
legitimate authorizations of the invoking process to the detriment of security
|
|||
|
or integrity. [8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
28
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trusted Computing Base (TCB)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The totality of protection mechanisms within a computer system -- including
|
|||
|
hardware, firmware, and software -- the combination of which is responsible
|
|||
|
for enforcing the security policy. A TCB consists of one or more components
|
|||
|
that together enforce a unified security policy over a product or system. The
|
|||
|
ability of a TCB to correctly enforce a security policy depends solely on the
|
|||
|
mechanisms within the TCB and on the correct input by system
|
|||
|
administrative personnel of parameters (e.g., a user's clearance) related to
|
|||
|
the security policy. [7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
29
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
REFERENCES
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. American National Standards Institute, Financial Institution Key
|
|||
|
Management (wholesale), X9.9, 1982.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Department of Defense Computer Security Center, "Final Evaluation of
|
|||
|
SCOMP, Secure Communications Processor, STOP Release 2.1," CSC-EPL-85-001,
|
|||
|
September 23,1985.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. Karger, 2LT Paul A. and Schell, Maj. Roger R., Multics Security Evaluation,
|
|||
|
Vulnerability Analysis, Electronic System Division, ESD-TR-74-193, June 1974.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. National Computer Security Center, A Guide to Understanding
|
|||
|
Configuration Management in Trusted Systems, NCSC-TG-006, March 28,1988.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. National Computer Security Center, Computer Security Requirements
|
|||
|
Guidance for Applying the Department of Defense Trusted Computer System
|
|||
|
Evaluation Criteria in Specific Environments, CSC-STD-003-85, 1985.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. National Computer Security Center, Criterion Interpretation Discussion
|
|||
|
#943, September 1986.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7. National Computer Security Center, DoD Trusted Computer System
|
|||
|
Evaluation Criteria, DoD 5200.28-STD, 1985.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
8. National Computer Security Center, Glossary of Computer Security Terms,
|
|||
|
NCSC-TG-004, 1988.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
9. Sippl, Charles J., Computer Dictionary, Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc. Fourth
|
|||
|
Edition, 1985.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
31
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|