1719 lines
87 KiB
Plaintext
1719 lines
87 KiB
Plaintext
Guidelines for Writing Trusted Facility Manuals
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
FOREWORD
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|
PREFACE
|
|
1 INTRODUCTION
|
|
1.1 Purpose
|
|
1.2 Scope and Contents
|
|
1.3 Control Objectives
|
|
1.4 TFM Introduction
|
|
2 SYSTEM SECURITY OVERVIEW
|
|
2.1 Threats
|
|
2.2 Countermeasures Based on Security and Accountability Policies
|
|
and Procedures
|
|
2.3 Explicit Physical Security Assumptions
|
|
2.4 Protection Mechanisms Available to Administrative Users
|
|
2.5 Security Vulnerabilities and Warnings
|
|
2.6 Separation of Administrative Roles
|
|
3 SECURITY POLICY
|
|
4 ACCOUNTABILITY
|
|
4.1 Identification and Authentication Functions of Administrative
|
|
Users
|
|
4.2 Audit
|
|
5 ROUTINE OPERATIONS
|
|
6 SECURITY OF THE TCB
|
|
7 SATISFYING THE TCSEC REQUlREMENTS
|
|
7.1 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class C1
|
|
7.1.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
7.1.2 System Security Overview
|
|
7.1.3 Accountability
|
|
7.1.4 Routine Operations
|
|
7.1.5 Security of the TCB
|
|
7.2 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class C2
|
|
7.2.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
7.2.2 System Security Overview
|
|
7.2.3 Security Policy
|
|
7.2.4 Accountability
|
|
7.2.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
7.2.4.2 Audit
|
|
7.2.5 Routine Operations
|
|
7.2.6 Security of the TCB
|
|
7.3 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class B1
|
|
7.3.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
7.3.2 System Security Overview
|
|
7.3.3 Security Policy
|
|
7.3.4 Accountability
|
|
7.3.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
7.3.4.2 Audit
|
|
7.3.5 Routine Operations
|
|
7.3.6 Security of the TCB
|
|
7.4 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class B2
|
|
7.4.1 Introduction
|
|
7.4.2 System Security Overview
|
|
7.4.3 Security Policy
|
|
7.4.4 Accountability
|
|
7.4.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
7.4.4.2 Audit
|
|
7.4.5 Routine Operations
|
|
7.4.6 Security of the TCIB
|
|
7.5 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class B3
|
|
7.5.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
7.5.2 System Overview
|
|
7.5.3 Security Policy
|
|
7.5.4 Accountability
|
|
7.5.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
7.5.4.2 Audit
|
|
7.5.5 Routine Operations
|
|
7.5.6 Security of the TCB
|
|
7.6 Requirements of Security Class A1
|
|
GLOSSARY
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
NATIONAL COMPUTER SECURITY CENTER
|
|
|
|
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000
|
|
|
|
NCSC-TG-016
|
|
|
|
Library No. S239,639
|
|
|
|
Version 1
|
|
|
|
FOREWORD
|
|
|
|
Guidelines for Writing Trusted Facility Manuals provides a set of good
|
|
practices related to the documentation of trusted facility management
|
|
functions of systems employed for processing classified and other sensitive
|
|
information. A Trusted Facility Manual (TFM) is a document written by a
|
|
system vendor that describes how to configure and install a specific secure
|
|
system, operate the system in a secure manner, and make effective use of the
|
|
system privileges and protection mechanisms to control access to
|
|
administrative functions and databases.
|
|
|
|
Guidelines for Writing Trusted Facility Manuals is the latest addition to
|
|
the "Rainbow Series" of documents. These publications are the product of the
|
|
Technical Guidelines Program. The National Computer Security Center designed
|
|
these technical guidelines to provide insight to the Trusted Computer System
|
|
Evaluation Criteria requirements and guidance for meeting each requirement.
|
|
|
|
Recommendations for revision to this guideline are encouraged and will be
|
|
reviewed by the National Computer Security Center through a formal review
|
|
process.
|
|
|
|
Patrick R. Gallagher, Jr. October 1992
|
|
Director
|
|
National Computer Security Center
|
|
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|
|
|
The National Computer Security Center wishes to extend special recognition
|
|
and acknowledgement for their contributions to this document to Infosystems
|
|
Technology, Inc., and to Dr. Virgil D. Gligor of the University of Maryland
|
|
as primary author and preparer of this document. Special thanks also go to
|
|
the many computer vendor representatives, and members of the National
|
|
Computer Security Center (NCSC) community who enthusiastically gave of their
|
|
time and technical expertise in reviewing the material and providing
|
|
valuable comments and suggestions.
|
|
|
|
Special recognition goes to Leon Neufeld, NCSC, who served as project
|
|
manager for the preparation and production of this document.
|
|
|
|
PREFACE
|
|
|
|
Throughout this guideline there will be recommendations made that are not
|
|
included in the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) as
|
|
requirements. Any recommendations that are not in the TCSEC are prefaced by
|
|
the word "should," whereas all requirements are prefaced by the word
|
|
"shall." It is hoped that this will help to avoid any confusion.
|
|
|
|
Examples in this document are not to be construed as the only implementation
|
|
that will satisfy the TCSEC requirement. The examples and literature
|
|
citations provided herein are merely suggestions of appropriate designs and,
|
|
possibly, 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.
|
|
|
|
1 INTRODUCTION
|
|
|
|
The Department of Defense Computer Security Center (DoDCSC), established in
|
|
January 1981, expands on the work started by the DoD Security Initiative. In
|
|
1985, the DoDCSC became the National Computer Security Center (NCSC) to
|
|
reflect its responsibility for computer security throughout the Federal
|
|
Government. The Director, NCSC, has the responsibility for establishing and
|
|
publishing criteria and guidelines for all areas of computer security.
|
|
|
|
The principal goal of the NCSC is to encourage the widespread availability
|
|
of trusted computer systems. In support of that goal, the NCSC created a
|
|
metric, known as the DoD Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria
|
|
(TCSEC), against which computer systems could be evaluated for security. The
|
|
DoDCSC originally published the TCSEC on 15 August 1983 as CSC-STD-001-83.
|
|
In December 1985, the DoD adopted it, with a few changes, as a DoD Standard,
|
|
DoD 5200.28-STD. DoD Directive 5200.28, Security Requirements for Automated
|
|
Information Systems (AIS) requires the TCSEC to be used throughout the DoD.
|
|
The TCSEC is the standard used for evaluating the effectiveness of security
|
|
controls built into Automated Data Processing (ADP) systems. The TCSEC has
|
|
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 divisions C, B, and A, a number of subdivisions,
|
|
known as classes, are also ordered in a hierarchical manner to represent
|
|
different levels of assurance in these classes.
|
|
|
|
1.1 Purpose
|
|
|
|
A Trusted Facility Manual (TFM) is one of the documents necessary to satisfy
|
|
the requirements of any class in the TCSEC. The TFM is directed towards the
|
|
administrators of an installation, and its goal is to provide detailed,
|
|
accurate information on how to (1) configure and install a specific secure
|
|
system, (2) operate the system in a secure manner, (3) make effective use of
|
|
the system privileges and protection mechanisms to control access to
|
|
administrative functions and databases, and (4) avoid pitfalls and improper
|
|
use of the administrative functions that would compromise the Trusted
|
|
Computing Base (TCB) and user security.
|
|
|
|
The importance of the TFM in supporting the operation of a secure computer
|
|
system cannot be over estimated. Even if one assumes, hypothetically, that
|
|
all users of a system and their applications are trusted, and that they will
|
|
use all of the available protection mechanisms correctly, the system may
|
|
still be administered and operated in an insecure manner. This may be
|
|
especially true when administrative users lack the skill, the care, or the
|
|
interest to use the system properly. Furthermore, the security damage that
|
|
administrative users can cause by careless use, or deliberate misuse, of
|
|
administrative authority is significantly larger than that caused by
|
|
ordinary users. Although use of a detailed, accurate TFM cannot address or
|
|
counter deliberate misuse of administrative authority, it can help minimize
|
|
chances of misuse due to lack of awareness of proper system use. To help
|
|
minimize these instances of system misuse, the TFM should include examples
|
|
of both proper uses and warnings about consequences of misuse of
|
|
administrative functions, procedures, privileges, and databases.
|
|
|
|
This guideline presents the issues involved in writing TFMs. Its objectives
|
|
are (1) to provide guidance to manufacturers on how to document functions of
|
|
trusted facility management implemented by their systems and (2) recommend a
|
|
TFM structure, format, and content that would satisfy the TCSEC
|
|
requirements. The recommendations made herein should not be considered as
|
|
the-only means to satisfy the TCSEC requirements. Additionally, this
|
|
document contains suggestions and recommendations derived from the TCSEC
|
|
objectives but which are not required by TCSEC in the TFM area. For example,
|
|
the TFM may include documentation required by the TCSEC in the areas of
|
|
System Architecture, Design Documentation, and Trusted Distribution. The
|
|
inclusion of this documentation in a TFM instead of other separate documents
|
|
is optional.
|
|
|
|
1.2 Scope and Contents
|
|
|
|
The TFM should give specific guidance to administrative users on how to
|
|
configure, install, and operate a secure computer system, and should clearly
|
|
illustrate the intended use of all security features, citing actual system
|
|
commands and procedures. Although a high level of detail in illustrating key
|
|
security concepts would benefit administrative users, the TFM cannot be
|
|
considered to be, nor can it be, a training manual in the area of computer
|
|
security in general, nor in the area of system administration in particular.
|
|
Instead, the TFM user is assumed to have some familiarity with the notion of
|
|
trusted systems within the realm of computer security. The TFM will provide
|
|
the user with detailed information on how to administer and operate a
|
|
specific trusted system in a secure manner.
|
|
|
|
Many different organizations of the TFM are possible. For example, an
|
|
acceptable TFM format would provide a separate section describing specific
|
|
security responsibilities of any separate administrative roles, such as
|
|
those of the security administrator, auditor, system programmer, operator,
|
|
that are supported in the system; available commands for each role; use of
|
|
each command; parameter and default settings; specific warnings and advice
|
|
regarding the use of functions, privileges and databases of that role; and
|
|
the specific responsibilities of that role for TCB security. Use of this
|
|
format is advisable for manuals of systems in higher security classes,
|
|
namely B2, B3, and A1, where separation of administrative roles is required.
|
|
|
|
An equally acceptable TFM organization and section format would provide a
|
|
separate section for each functional requirement area of the TCSEC, namely,
|
|
for security policy (e.g., Discretionary Access Control (DAC), Mandatory
|
|
Access Control, (MAC)), accountability, and TCB protection. Each section
|
|
would include available commands, system calls, and procedures relevant to
|
|
that area; use of each command (including the effects of each command when
|
|
used by different administrative roles); parameter and default settings; and
|
|
specific warnings and advice regarding the use of functions, privileges, and
|
|
databases available to commands of that area. Use of this alternate format
|
|
is advisable for lower security classes, namely C1-B1, where the TCSEC does
|
|
not mandate any separation of administrative roles. Either of the two
|
|
alternate TFM formats mentioned above is equally acceptable for all TCSEC
|
|
security classes as long as the TFM satisfies the TCSEC requirements
|
|
Furthermore, other TFM formats would also be acceptable as long as they
|
|
satisfy the stated TCSEC requirements. The TCSEC neither requires nor
|
|
suggests a specific TFM format.
|
|
|
|
This guideline contains eight additional sections. Section 2 defines the
|
|
security and accountability policies and mechanisms of systems. Section 3
|
|
identifies and explains the security-relevant and security-irrelevant
|
|
functions of an administrator. Section 4 identifies and explains the use of
|
|
TCB commands and interfaces used by administrative users. Section 5 defines
|
|
day-to-day routine operations performed by administrative users and the
|
|
security vulnerabilities of these operations. Section 6 identifies all TCB
|
|
security and integrity responsibilities of administrative users.
|
|
|
|
Section 7 presents recommendations for writing the TFM that satisfy the
|
|
requirements of the TCSEC. Section 8 is a glossary. Section 9 lists the
|
|
references cited in the text. Each section consists of three parts: a
|
|
statement of purpose, an explanation of how that purpose can be achieved,
|
|
and an outline summarizing the recommendations made.
|
|
|
|
These guidelines apply to computer systems and products built or modified
|
|
with the intention of satisfying the TCSEC requirements.
|
|
|
|
1.3 Control Objectives
|
|
|
|
The control objectives for the TFM are similar to those of other
|
|
documentation areas of the TCSEC. They refer to what should be documented in
|
|
a particular area, such as the trusted facility management, and how this
|
|
documentation should be structured. Thus, the control objectives for writing
|
|
the TFM are:
|
|
|
|
(1) the TFM shall address all the requirements specified by the TCSEC
|
|
that are relevant to it; and
|
|
(2) the TFM shall provide detailed, accurate information on how to:
|
|
- configure and install a specific secure system;
|
|
- operate a system in a secure manner;
|
|
- avoid pitfalls and improper use of administrative functions that
|
|
would compromise system and user security.
|
|
|
|
1.4 TFM Introduction
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this section in the TFM is to explain the scope, use, and
|
|
contents of the TFM of a particular system. In general, the scope of the TFM
|
|
should include explanations of how to configure and maintain secure systems,
|
|
administer and operate them in a secure manner, make effective use of the
|
|
system's privileges and protection mechanisms for administrative use, and
|
|
avoid pitfalls and misuse of administrative authority. Depending on the
|
|
particular computer system, the complexity of trusted facility management
|
|
may differ and thus the scope of the TFM may differ accordingly. For
|
|
example, in large systems, system configuration and installation is a
|
|
complex activity described in a separate system administration manual that
|
|
may, or may not, include the other important areas of the TFM. In contrast,
|
|
system configuration and installation is a relatively simple activity
|
|
defined in a single chapter of a TFM for a small system, such as a
|
|
multi-user workstation.
|
|
|
|
The introduction to the TFM should also discuss the recommended use of the
|
|
manual. In particular, this section should define the skills and general
|
|
computer systems and security background assumed for administrative
|
|
personnel. This is necessary because different administrative functions
|
|
require different levels of skill. For example, an individual in the system
|
|
programming staff that configures, installs, and maintains the TCB code
|
|
often needs considerably more technical skills than an individual in the
|
|
accounts management staff. Similarly, a security administrator needs more
|
|
detailed knowledge of the system security policy and accountability than
|
|
individuals assigned to operator's roles. The definition of required skills
|
|
and background is important in aiding the management of a particular
|
|
organization in assigning appropriately trained individuals to various
|
|
administrative tasks.
|
|
|
|
In defining the use of the TFM, the introductory section should also include
|
|
a list of other system manuals that may be consulted by the administrative
|
|
staff. For example, most administrators may benefit from an understanding of
|
|
the Security Features User's Guide (SFUG). Most system designs use the DAC
|
|
mechanisms described in the SFUG for protection of, at least, some
|
|
administrative files, and may use the trusted path mechanism to prevent
|
|
spoofing of administrative commands. Similarly, whenever manual sections
|
|
that logically belong in the TFM are in fact provided in other manuals ---
|
|
system configuration and installation manuals, and system reference manuals
|
|
containing descriptive top-level specifications (DTLSs) of commands and
|
|
interfaces used by administrative users---the TFM Introduction should
|
|
include references to these additional manuals. The TFM should place the
|
|
references to these manuals in context and provide a brief synopsis of the
|
|
relevant information from the specific manual citation. This citation would
|
|
help narrow the reader's focus to a few pages of the referenced manual.
|
|
Furthermore, references to documents, manuals, and standards that may be
|
|
beneficial to some administrative personnel, such as password management and
|
|
use guidelines and standards, should be made in this section. References to
|
|
educational and training documents that are helpful to administrative
|
|
personnel may also be included here.
|
|
|
|
The TFM writer may also want to define the limitations of the TFM in terms
|
|
of security scope. For example, some security issues such as personnel
|
|
background verification, assignment and maintenance of users' trust levels,
|
|
physical system and environmental security, proper use of cryptographic
|
|
techniques and devices, and procedures that assign individuals to
|
|
administrative roles, generally fall outside the scope of TFM definition.
|
|
Explicit recognition of such limitations enables the management of a secure
|
|
facility to plan countermeasures for areas of vulnerability not countered by
|
|
the trusted systems.
|
|
|
|
Finally, the introductory section of the TFM should include a "road map"
|
|
defining the contents of each TFM section and possibly the relationships
|
|
between various manual sections. This road map may also identify the
|
|
self-contained sections of the manual that can be read independently of
|
|
other sections.
|
|
|
|
In summary, the introductory section of the TFM should include:
|
|
|
|
(1) Scope of the manual
|
|
- guide the configuration and installation of secure systems;
|
|
- guide the operation of a system in a secure manner;
|
|
- enable administrative personnel to make effective use of the
|
|
system's privileges and protection mechanisms;
|
|
-issue warnings about possible misuse of administrative authority.
|
|
(2) Recommended use of the manual
|
|
- review skills and systems background necessary for
|
|
administrative personnel;
|
|
- suggest additional manuals, reference material, and standard,
|
|
needed by administrative personnel;
|
|
- specify the limitations of security scope;
|
|
(3) TFM contents
|
|
-contents of each section;
|
|
- section relationships.
|
|
|
|
2 SYSTEM SECURITY OVERVIEW
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this section of the TFM is to define the security and
|
|
accountability policies and mechanisms of the system that are designed to
|
|
counter a set of perceived threats. The focus of this section should be on
|
|
the administrative-user functions available to counter threats, the
|
|
privileges and protection mechanisms available to administrative users, and
|
|
the general vulnerabilities associated with actions of administrative users.
|
|
This section should also include a list of dependencies on other security
|
|
measures, such as those for the maintenance of physical security, which,
|
|
although not required by the TCSEC, should be taken into account by the
|
|
management of the system installation and by system accreditors.
|
|
|
|
2.1 Threats
|
|
|
|
Examples of the general security threat handled by systems built to satisfy
|
|
a TCSEC class is that of unauthorized disclosure of information through
|
|
either unauthorized direct or indirect access to system and user objects
|
|
through system failures, subversion, and TCB tampering or through use of
|
|
covert channels. The manual should describe some of the common attacks that
|
|
cause unauthorized disclosure of information, in the context of the specific
|
|
system. These examples might include the use of Trojan horses in untrusted
|
|
shared programs, the use of covert channels by untrusted users and
|
|
applications, the use of known penetration methods that cause unauthorized
|
|
disclosure of sensitive or proprietary information, and the misuse of access
|
|
authorization to retrieve and disclose sensitive information (e.g., insider
|
|
attacks).
|
|
|
|
2.2 Countermeasures Based on Security and Accountability Policies and
|
|
Procedures
|
|
|
|
This section of the TFM should include a brief discussion of the protection
|
|
mechanisms available in the system that help counter the threats defined in
|
|
the above section. This discussion should serve as a summary of the
|
|
protection philosophy used in the design and implementation of the
|
|
protection mechanisms and should include a presentation of the role of
|
|
security policy (both discretionary and mandatory policy, if any),
|
|
accountability, and assurance (both operational and life-cycle assurance).
|
|
The dependency of the system security mechanisms on administrative-user
|
|
actions should be emphasized here.
|
|
|
|
This section should point out clearly the types of threats that can, or
|
|
cannot, be countered by a specific policy or mechanism. For example, this
|
|
section should state that DAC mechanisms cannot, and are not meant to,
|
|
prevent or contain threats posed by Trojan horses implementing time bombs,
|
|
trap doors, or viruses placed in shared, untrusted applications [2]. DAC
|
|
mechanisms cannot, nor are they meant to, detect or prevent access performed
|
|
by an authorized subject on behalf of an unauthorized subject (e.g., the
|
|
surrogate access problem [3]). Furthermore, DAC mechanisms are not, nor were
|
|
they ever claimed to be, capable of controlling information (as opposed to
|
|
access privilege) flows. Only MAC can handle these problems.
|
|
|
|
This section should discuss, in the context of the specific system, the role
|
|
of specific accountability mechanisms and policies in countering security
|
|
threats not handled by access control mechanisms. An example is the use of
|
|
audit mechanisms to complement access control mechanisms in the sense that
|
|
they can detect attacks initiated by authorized users (i.e., by "insiders"),
|
|
or that trusted-path mechanisms are required to prevent spoofing, a threat
|
|
not usually countered by access control mechanisms or policies.
|
|
|
|
The emphasis in describing the above-mentioned threats and countermeasures
|
|
should be on the identification of the TCB mechanisms and policies that
|
|
counter a specific threat. For example, the summary of the countermeasures
|
|
supported by the system should include the basic assertion (and in other
|
|
design documents, the justification) that the TCB itself is
|
|
non-circumventable and tamper proof. Additional points of emphasis may be
|
|
that all countermeasures supported in the system require the interaction of
|
|
both access control and accountability mechanisms, and that these mechanisms
|
|
should be employed by both ordinary and administrative users. This section
|
|
should provide examples of interaction between ordinary and administrative
|
|
user decisions to illustrate both the positive and negative consequences of
|
|
such interaction.
|
|
|
|
2.3 Explicit Physical Security Assumptions
|
|
|
|
The TCSEC does not include requirements for physical security of the system
|
|
installation. However, the TFM should include a section or a subsection that
|
|
states the physical security assumptions made by the system designers. These
|
|
assumptions should be satisfied by the management of the organization
|
|
responsible for deploying the system, as the evaluation of physical security
|
|
is the responsibility of the system's accreditors.
|
|
|
|
The explicit inclusion of the physical security assumptions made by
|
|
designers in the TFM will provide the accreditors with the necessary input
|
|
for the deployment of the system in different operational environments and
|
|
provide the administrative users an important input for the sound definition
|
|
of the system security profile. For example, systems that do not provide
|
|
trusted paths for administrative users usually assume that a set of terminal
|
|
ports is reserved for the connection of administrative consoles that are
|
|
physically separated from the rest of the user terminals for the entire
|
|
lifetime of the system. Also, a common assumption is that the system
|
|
definition of the security profile ensures that the level of trust
|
|
associated with the physical environment containing a system's peripheral
|
|
will always dominate the maximum sensitivity associated with that
|
|
peripheral. Similarly, this section should emphasize that systems allowing
|
|
legitimate users to access their components (e.g., removable media) should
|
|
be used only in environments where both administrative and ordinary users
|
|
are trusted to access all data in the system and are trusted not to misuse
|
|
their physical access permissions. (In such environments, the use of
|
|
untrusted applications may still require the use of trusted systems even
|
|
though all users are trusted to access all data.) In systems that do not
|
|
allow users to access the system components, or when the above level of user
|
|
trust cannot be guaranteed, the TFM should suggest the physical controls
|
|
necessary to counter, or deter, the potential threat of physical access to
|
|
system components. The presentation of the physical security assumptions
|
|
made by system designers should enable accreditors to determine the security
|
|
risks and exposures assumed by system use as well as the required
|
|
countermeasures.
|
|
|
|
2.4 Protection Mechanisms Available to Administrative Users
|
|
|
|
The security of any system depends directly on the security of the
|
|
administrative commands, interfaces, and databases. For this reason,
|
|
administrative commands, privileges, and databases shall be protected from
|
|
ordinary users, and in some TCSEC security classes, shall be separated on a
|
|
role basis. This section should identify the protection mechanisms available
|
|
to administrative users to ensure that these users are aware of the means
|
|
available to control access to their commands, privileges, and databases.
|
|
|
|
All protection mechanisms that can be manipulated by ordinary users are also
|
|
usually available to administrative users. For example, all user
|
|
identification and authentication, and DAC mechanisms are available to
|
|
administrative users. In addition to mentioning these mechanisms, which the
|
|
SFUG already defines, this TFM section should include the description of the
|
|
mechanisms available only to the administrative users and the mode of their
|
|
safe use. For example, the use of special trusted-path mechanisms based on
|
|
physically protected, hard-wired consoles, which may allow the invocation of
|
|
command processors available only to administrative users, and the use of
|
|
audit mechanisms to detect potential intrusion by authorized users, are only
|
|
a few of the protection mechanisms specific to administrative users [7].
|
|
|
|
2.5 Security Vulnerabilities and Warnings
|
|
|
|
This section should describe the security vulnerabilities of administrative
|
|
commands and procedures, and should suggest specific ways to counter them.
|
|
Reference [7] cites generic examples of common vulnerabilities of
|
|
administrative roles and role-specific vulnerabilities. In addition to
|
|
similar examples, this TFM section should include a discussion of
|
|
system-specific vulnerabilities and countermeasures required in the assumed
|
|
environments of system use.
|
|
|
|
In any system, design and implementation assumptions are made about
|
|
administrative actions and their sequence of use. For example, the loading
|
|
of a system during the installation phase, and the installation itself, may
|
|
require the use of special administrative commands in a specific sequence.
|
|
The definition of a user security profile may require that administrators do
|
|
not reuse user and group identifiers, and that the definition of the system
|
|
security profile prohibits the reuse of bit encodings of sensitivity levels
|
|
without careful analysis of consequences. Other potential vulnerabilities,
|
|
such as those resulting from mismanagement of audit logs and post processing
|
|
of files (in on-line, off-line, and hard-copy form) should also be explained
|
|
here. Design and implementation assumptions should be stated explicitly in
|
|
this section to ensure that administrative users are aware of the negative
|
|
consequences of not satisfying these assumptions.
|
|
|
|
2.6 Separation of Administrative Roles
|
|
|
|
Security classes B2-A1 of the TCSEC require that the roles of the
|
|
administrative users be separated. This requirement means that the commands,
|
|
procedures, privileges, and databases of the various administrative roles
|
|
shall be separated by system design and shall be documented as such. Role
|
|
separation of classes B3 and A1 also requires the separation of
|
|
security-relevant functions from the security irrelevant ones. Reference [7]
|
|
cites the rationale and the means of achieving role separation in trusted
|
|
systems.
|
|
|
|
The TFM shall define each separate role supported by the system. Each role
|
|
should be clearly defined in terms of the commands and TCB interfaces
|
|
available to the role, the use of each command, the command effects and
|
|
exceptions (whenever these are not defined in the DTLS of the TCB),
|
|
parameter and default settings, specific warnings for the command use, and
|
|
advice. The TFM should also define the specific security mechanisms used to
|
|
protect privileged commands and data used by administrators.
|
|
|
|
In summary, the TFM section presenting the system security overview for
|
|
administrative users should include the following subsections:
|
|
|
|
2.1 Threats to System Security
|
|
2.2 Countermeasures Based on Security Policy and Accountability
|
|
2.3 Explicit Physical Security Assumptions
|
|
2.4 Protection Mechanisms Available to Administrative Users
|
|
2.5 Security Vulnerabilities of Administrative Users and Warnings
|
|
2.6 Separation of Administrative Roles (for classes B2-A1)
|
|
|
|
3 SECURITY POLICY
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this section is to identify and explain the security-relevant
|
|
and security-irrelevant functions of the administrators. In particular, this
|
|
section should explain, in the area of security-relevant functions, the use
|
|
of the TCB commands and interfaces by administrative users to initialize
|
|
discretionary access privileges, to set default user accesses to system
|
|
objects after user registration, and to distribute, review, and revoke
|
|
access privileges on behalf of users in systems that implement DAC in a
|
|
centralized way (2]. In systems that support MAC, this section also
|
|
identifies and explains the use of TCB commands and interfaces by
|
|
administrators to define and change the system security profile (e.g., the
|
|
system-sensitivity map, sensitivity level limits for system devices, and
|
|
file systems), to define and change object sensitivity levels (e.g., label
|
|
imported, unlabeled data, and media), and to change the trust level of
|
|
active subjects, whenever such a function is supported. This section also
|
|
should define the administrator's interfaces for other functions related to
|
|
the support of DAC and MAC, such as changing object ownership, restoring
|
|
privileges deleted accidentally, destroying errant processes, running
|
|
consistency checks on system and user security profiles, and managing user
|
|
accounts.
|
|
|
|
Reference [7] outlines the role of the security administrators in support of
|
|
the security policy defined in a system. The TFM should specify the
|
|
commands, system calls, functions, their parameters and default settings
|
|
provided for each area of security policy and support, and should provide
|
|
examples of use, potential misuse, and security implications of command
|
|
misuse. For example, the TFM should explain how the administrator can change
|
|
the sensitivity label of an object or a subject, and cite the expected
|
|
security consequences Of such action and also how the administrator may
|
|
determine the consequences of such a change in the given system. Similarly,
|
|
the administrator may decide to reuse a binary representation of a
|
|
sensitivity level to define a new sensitivity level. For this process, the
|
|
manual shall state the circumstances in which this change is allowed, if
|
|
ever, and should explain the conditions under which this change is safe. All
|
|
commands, system calls, and functions should be defined in terms of their
|
|
effects, exceptions, and parameters. The use of commands should be
|
|
illustrated by examples showing the correct settings of various command
|
|
options. This section should describe the recommended reactions of the
|
|
administrator to such exceptions (unless these reactions are already
|
|
described in the call/command DTLS).
|
|
|
|
The administrative functions and interfaces used in supporting the security
|
|
policy have potential vulnerabilities. Reference [7] outlines some of these
|
|
generic vulnerabilities. The TFM shall include warnings of all known
|
|
specific vulnerabilities in the given system and possibly suggest means of
|
|
reducing system risk associated with such vulnerabilities. Minimally, the
|
|
TFM should specify the dependencies of the administrative roles on external
|
|
policies and procedures that would help reduce system risk associated with
|
|
identified vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
In summary, the security policy section of the TFM should include the
|
|
following subsections (whose contents are discussed in more detail in
|
|
reference [7]):
|
|
|
|
3.1 Discretionary Access Control
|
|
-TCB commands and interfaces used to initialize DAC privileges and
|
|
defaults;
|
|
-TCB command interfaces to distribute, review, and revoke user
|
|
privileges in systems that support centralized DAC;
|
|
-group membership definition and impact on DAC.
|
|
-change of object ownership (if any), restoration of accidentally
|
|
deleted privileges, destruction of errant processes;
|
|
3.2 Mandatory Access Control
|
|
- TCB commands and interfaces to define and change system security
|
|
profile; classify, reclassify and import objects; and change trust
|
|
level of active subjects;
|
|
- consistency checking of system security and user profiles.
|
|
3.3 Management of User Accounts
|
|
-definition and deletion of user and group accounts and
|
|
identifiers.
|
|
3.4 Command System Call and Function Definitions
|
|
- effects and exceptions (if not defined in DTLSs);
|
|
- parameter and default settings;
|
|
- examples of command use and potential misuse.
|
|
3.5 Warnings of Specific Vulnerabilities of Administrative Procedures
|
|
and Activities Related to Security Policy.
|
|
|
|
4 ACCOUNTABILITY
|
|
|
|
4.1 Identification and Authentication Functions of Administrative Users
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this section is to identify and explain the use of TCB
|
|
commands and interfaces that should be used by administrative users to set
|
|
up user security profiles, and to determine authentication and authorization
|
|
parameters associated with the user identification and authentication
|
|
mechanism. Reference [7] defines the role of the security administrator in
|
|
the identification and authentication area. The TFM shall specify the
|
|
commands, system calls and functions, and their parameters and default
|
|
settings that are provided by the specific system, and should provide
|
|
examples of the use, or potential misuse of these commands, and the security
|
|
implications of command misuse. For example, the TFM should explain how the
|
|
administrator can initialize user passwords, can distribute special
|
|
passwords to other administrative users, and set up account restrictions
|
|
(e.g., restricted time intervals for login, account cutoff). The commands
|
|
that allow the definition of user and group identifiers shall include an
|
|
explanation of how these identifiers should be chosen, why they should not
|
|
be reused, and what the consequences of identifier reuse are.
|
|
|
|
In most systems, the setting of the user security profile also includes the
|
|
definition of some discretionary privileges associated with the user
|
|
account. For example, in systems that use groups to enforce DAC policies,
|
|
administrators define the group membership. The TFM shall explain the
|
|
consequences of adding or deleting a user identity to a group in terms of
|
|
the added or lost discretionary privileges, and provide appropriate
|
|
warnings. In systems where the user security profile also includes the
|
|
specification of the maximum level of trust for each user, the TFM shall
|
|
also discuss the security implications of incorrect definition or change of
|
|
these levels and the interactions between these levels and the sensitivity
|
|
levels of various system components (defined in the system security
|
|
profile). It should also include examples of and warnings about such
|
|
changes. The commands available to system administrators also include those
|
|
to define and change the parameters of the login/logout mechanism used by a
|
|
system. Consequently, the TFM should explain how to define these parameters,
|
|
which include the time-out period, multiple login attributes, maximum Iogin
|
|
time, and limits on unsuccessful logins from a terminal or into an account
|
|
[7] (e.g., specific commands, command options, formats, parameter ranges,
|
|
and default values). Whenever the trusted path mechanisms available to
|
|
administrative users require special procedures, such as use of specific
|
|
hard-wired consoles, the TFM shall specify how the administrative users can
|
|
use the trusted path mechanism in a secure manner.
|
|
|
|
The TFM shall also explain the implications of the system security profile
|
|
definition in providing authorization data for user log ins. For example, a
|
|
terminal's maximum and minimum sensitivity levels provide cutoff values for
|
|
whether a certain user login level can be used and whether a certain user
|
|
with a given user and group level clearance can log in at all from a given
|
|
terminal. The relationship between the terminals minimum and maximum
|
|
sensitivity levels and the user's clearance level shall be explained so that
|
|
consistent levels can be defined for both terminal sensitivity and user
|
|
level of trust.
|
|
|
|
Finally, administrator commands for temporarily terminating a user access to
|
|
the system and for permanently deleting the user account shall be defined,
|
|
and the implications of such actions defined. This section should also
|
|
include warnings about potential vulnerabilities, such as object ownership
|
|
set to the identity of an user or account that is no longer valid, or the
|
|
reuse of an old identifier, that persist when a user account is not deleted
|
|
correctly or completely, and examples of such vulnerabilities [7].
|
|
|
|
For all administrative commands defined in this and other system security
|
|
areas, this TFM section should include an explanation of all exceptions and,
|
|
possibly, a administrator's recommended response to these exceptions. (This
|
|
reaction may already be described in the system call/command DTLS). All
|
|
administrative data bases that are accessed by these commands should be
|
|
identified showing how they are, or can be, protected. All mechanisms
|
|
available for the protection of the identification and authentication data
|
|
shall be clearly explained. The use of these mechanisms should be
|
|
illustrated by examples.
|
|
|
|
4.2 Audit
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this section of the TFM is to familiarize administrative
|
|
users with the TCB commands and interfaces of the system's audit mechanism.
|
|
These commands include those that enable or disable the audit selectivity
|
|
mechanism (e.g., audit-event setup and change), those that help manage the
|
|
audit trails (logs), those that perform data compression and post processing
|
|
analysis, and in classes B2---A1, those that set correct channel delays and
|
|
randomize variables.
|
|
|
|
Some system includes a set of audit events that should always be selected
|
|
for audit to ensure the consistency of subsequent events selected by the
|
|
auditor and the proper functioning of the post processing tools. These
|
|
events should be explicitly highlighted for special discussion in the list
|
|
of auditable events supported by the system. The complete list of events
|
|
shall be defined in the TFM. The audit selection mechanism should also be
|
|
presented, and examples of use should be provided. Commands of the audit
|
|
selectivity mechanism include those that turn on and off events on a
|
|
per-user, per-process, per-terminal, per-sensitivity-level, or per-object
|
|
basis. In TCSEC classes B3 and A1, the commands that turn on and off events
|
|
representing accumulations of other auditable events and audit-system alarms
|
|
(if any) shall also be presented.
|
|
|
|
Systems that support audit mechanisms include commands that help manage the
|
|
audit files. These commands, which include those to create new and destroy
|
|
old audit logs, to change audit log size and warning points, to display,
|
|
format, and compress audit data, and to check the consistency of the audit
|
|
database after crashes, and when these changes take effect, shall also be
|
|
included in the TFM. The procedures that shall be used by auditors to ensure
|
|
that the audit files do not overflow shall also be presented. The format in
|
|
the audit log file of each record field and of each type of auditable event
|
|
shall be presented and explained. Commands for post processing of audit logs
|
|
(if any) shall also be included in the TFM. Systems designed to satisfy the
|
|
B2---A1 security requirements need to have covert channels restricted to
|
|
certain limits. One means of reducing covert channel bandwidths is by
|
|
placement of delays and by setting of randomization variables in system
|
|
kernels and trusted processes. Commands that accomplish this task should be
|
|
presented in the TFM of these systems along with a description of the covert
|
|
channel handling policy recommended for enforcement. These recommendations
|
|
should be derived from the covert-channel analysis guideline of the TCSEC
|
|
and are important because they affect not only the security policy and the
|
|
accountability areas of the system, but also system performance. Reference
|
|
[7] defines the administrative functions necessary to support audit
|
|
activities. As suggested in the covert channel guidelines of the TCSEC,
|
|
bandwidth reduction policy should be coordinated with audit policy. For this
|
|
reason, the TFM should present the bandwidth reduction policy in the same
|
|
section with that presenting the audit policy.
|
|
|
|
Recommendations on audit procedures should also be included in the TFM.
|
|
These procedures would suggest auditing groups of specific events that may
|
|
reveal misuse of access privileges, potential system-penetration attacks,
|
|
and covert channel usage. They may also suggest the frequency of audit
|
|
review and provide advice on how to manage audit files on-line and off-line.
|
|
|
|
For commands used by administrative users for audit, the TFM should include
|
|
a description of their effects and exceptions, and should provide examples
|
|
of use, potential misuse, and security implications of command misuses.
|
|
Recommendations for administrator's reactions to command exceptions should
|
|
also be made. Reference [7] provides examples of vulnerabilities caused by
|
|
misuse of audit command and authority. These examples include loss of audit
|
|
log consistency, loss of audit logs, loss of user privacy, and various forms
|
|
of denial of service. Specific instances of vulnerability in a given system
|
|
and possible suggestions for reducing the system's exposure to such
|
|
vulnerabilities should also be included in the audit section of the TFM.
|
|
|
|
In summary, the accountability section of the TFM should include the
|
|
following subsections:
|
|
|
|
4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
- TCB commands and interfaces for setting up user security
|
|
profiles and authentication and authorization parameters of the
|
|
login mechanism;
|
|
- password distribution to ordinary and administrative users,
|
|
management of password generation, and protection of passwords;
|
|
- account restrictions (e.g., restricted time intervals for log
|
|
in, and account cutoffs);
|
|
- choice of user and group identifiers;
|
|
- maximum levels of trust for users and groups;
|
|
- computation of the current level of trust for subjects (e.g.,
|
|
subject's clearance).
|
|
4.2 Definition and Change of System Parameters of the Log in Mechanism
|
|
and when they take effect
|
|
- timeout interval;
|
|
- multiple login attributes;
|
|
- maximum login time;
|
|
- limits on unsuccessful logins from a terminal or to an account;
|
|
- use of special trusted path mechanisms for administrative users.
|
|
4.3 Audit Mechanisms
|
|
- audit-event selection mechanisms (e.g., audit-event setup and
|
|
change);
|
|
- management of audit logs (e.g., protections of audit logs);
|
|
- functions for formatting, compressioning, and postprocessing of
|
|
audit files;
|
|
- interfaces for setting of covert channel delays and
|
|
randomization of variables;
|
|
- description of audit log and event formats.
|
|
4.4 Commands, System Calls and Function Definition
|
|
- effects and exceptions of each command of the accountability
|
|
area (if not defined in DTLSs);
|
|
- parameter and default settings;
|
|
- examples of use and potential misuse.
|
|
4.5 Warnings of Specific Security Vulnerabilities of Administrative
|
|
Activities and Procedures Related to Identification, Authentication,
|
|
Trusted Path and Audit
|
|
|
|
5 ROUTINE OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this section of the TFM is to define the routine operations
|
|
performed by administrative users, describe the operation's security,
|
|
describe the vulnerabilites associated with these operations, and provide
|
|
appropriate warnings. These operations are carried out, in most cases, by
|
|
execution of appropriate commands from a system console. However, in some
|
|
instances, these operations involve manipulation of physical devices, such
|
|
as printers, storage devices, removable media, communication switches, and
|
|
modems. For this reason, this TFM section may differ from the rest of the
|
|
TFM. It should contain not only definitions of specific commands and TCB
|
|
interfaces, but also procedures and policies for secure use and manipulation
|
|
of hardware devices.
|
|
|
|
Routine operations of administrative personnel include both
|
|
security-relevant and security-irrelevant operations. Security-relevant
|
|
functions include those that boot and shut down the system, set system
|
|
clocks, identify damaged user volumes and files, perform TCB backups and
|
|
on-line device tests, run system integrity tests, and respond to user
|
|
requests to mount/unmount volumes. Routine security- irrelevant operations
|
|
include those that perform system metering, and that require operator
|
|
response to various user requests [7]
|
|
|
|
This section the TFM should include a description of each command used for
|
|
routine operations, including its effects and exceptions, and should provide
|
|
examples of use, potential misuse, and security implications of command
|
|
misuse. Examples of vulnerabilities of security-relevant, routine operations
|
|
include the booting of an old version of the TCB, causing inconsistency
|
|
problems for users; system shutdown while still in normal operation causing
|
|
loss of files and file system inconsistencies; and inadequate use of devices
|
|
and device interfaces (e.g., printers).
|
|
|
|
This section the TFM should also include descriptions of administrative
|
|
commands that perform security-irrelevant routine operations. These commands
|
|
include those traditionally performed by account administrators, such as
|
|
commands used for maintenance of accounting files, for turning on and off
|
|
accounting, for running accounting tools, for collecting statistics of
|
|
system and resource usage, and billing information.
|
|
|
|
Administrative policies and procedures that define security-relevant
|
|
handling of devices shall also be included in the TFM. For example,
|
|
procedures to install, activate, and set the current sensitivity level of a
|
|
printer within the pre-defined range should be defined, and examples of the
|
|
installation procedure should be given. In summary, the TFM section defining
|
|
the routine administrative operations and procedure in the following
|
|
subsections:
|
|
|
|
5.1 Security-Relevant Procedures and Operations
|
|
- running of system diagnostics;
|
|
- system boot and shutdown;
|
|
- setting of system clocks;
|
|
- identification of damaged user files and volumes;
|
|
- routine backup of TCB files;
|
|
- on-line device testing;
|
|
- response to user requests to mount/unmount volumes;
|
|
- handling of peripheral devices, removable storage, and output
|
|
(e.g., printers, printer output, diskpacks, tape reels).
|
|
5.2 Security-Irrelevant Procedures and Operations
|
|
- back-up of user volumes;
|
|
- system metering;
|
|
- response to various user requests;
|
|
- user account administration;
|
|
5.3 Commands, System Calls and Function Definitions
|
|
- effects and exceptions of each command of the routine operations
|
|
area
|
|
(unless defined in the DTLSs);
|
|
- parameter and default settings;
|
|
- examples of use and potential misuse.
|
|
5.4 Warning of Specific Security Vulnerabilities of Routine Operations
|
|
|
|
6 SECURITY OF THE TCB
|
|
|
|
The two purposes of this TFM section are to identify and explain all aspects
|
|
of TCB security and integrity that become the responsibility of
|
|
administrative users. Because the security of all user programs, data, and
|
|
application subsystems is provided by the TCB, the maintenance of TCB
|
|
security and integrity is one of the most sensitive administrative
|
|
functions.
|
|
|
|
Maintenance of TCB security spans the entire system life cycle. It includes
|
|
procedures for strict configuration management during system development and
|
|
use, and for secure system distribution, installation, and local
|
|
maintenance. In some cases, administrative users are allowed and required to
|
|
generate another evaluated version of the TCB from source code (e.g., make
|
|
changes to the TCB source code and regenerate the TCB on site). In such
|
|
cases, the TFM shall include detailed descriptions of procedures that
|
|
generate a new TCB version from source code, the necessary system commands,
|
|
the list of approved tools (e.g., compilers, linkers, loaders) for TCB
|
|
generation, examples of command use, warnings of possible problems in
|
|
generating a new TCB, vulnerabilities that may affect TCB security, and
|
|
configuration management.
|
|
|
|
The TFM shall also provide, or reference a separate document that provides,
|
|
a description of command exceptions, appropriate warnings, and possible
|
|
exception handling advice. The TFM should also provide, or reference a
|
|
separate document that describes, the configuration management tools. The
|
|
TFM shall include descriptions of the procedures that must be followed by
|
|
site administrators to install new releases of the TCB.
|
|
|
|
TCB security may be violated during installation and maintenance (see [7]).
|
|
For this reason, the TFM shall provide a description of the TCB installation
|
|
procedures, including the required commands, exceptions, parameter settings,
|
|
required system configuration, warnings, and advice. The installation
|
|
procedures should contain descriptions of the TCB data structures that must
|
|
be initialized by the user, and of the TCB loading. Also, the installation
|
|
procedures should include a list of tools (e.g., editors, loaders) approved
|
|
for TCB installation and an appropriate description of secure installation
|
|
assumptions (e.g., administrative procedures, such as those that require
|
|
physical audit of the installation procedure by independent personnel).
|
|
|
|
All TCB maintenance procedures shall be defined in the TFM. These procedures
|
|
should include analyzing system "dumps" after crashes, conducting
|
|
crash-recovery and restart actions, performing consistency checking of TCB
|
|
files and directories, changing system configuration parameters (e.g., table
|
|
sizes, devices, and device drivers), running periodic system integrity
|
|
checks, and repairing damaged labels. A list of the approved tools for TCB
|
|
maintenance, relevant commands, exceptions, warnings, and advice should also
|
|
be included in this section.
|
|
|
|
The ability to install and maintain a system's TCB in a secure manner
|
|
requires that administrative users be cognizant of all TCB modules.
|
|
Administrators should especially be cognizant of those hardware modules
|
|
containing the reference monitor mechanism, and of all the of default file
|
|
protections for TCB files or objects. If available, the command needed to
|
|
run a tool that checks the correct privilege and sensitivity-level
|
|
initialization for TCB files or objects shall be identified and its use
|
|
illustrated. Thus, either the TFM itself shall provide a list of all TCB
|
|
modules, including their interfaces, and shall specify the TCB file or
|
|
object privileges necessary to protect the TCB or the TFM shall list a
|
|
separate document that does.
|
|
|
|
The TFM shall include warnings and advice on how to handle both generic and
|
|
system-specific vulnerabilities (if any) of TCB installation and
|
|
maintenance. For example, administrative users should be warned that
|
|
interchanges of dedicated- console and user-terminal communication lines can
|
|
`cause potential loss of trusted path for administrative users, that
|
|
placement of extraneous code in the TCB configuration may result from using
|
|
an unapproved tool, and that running a borrowed untrusted program under
|
|
administrative identity may cause an untold number of TCB security problems
|
|
[7].
|
|
|
|
Finally, the TFM shall include a description of policies and procedures that
|
|
define the distribution procedures for a trusted system (i.e., a class A1
|
|
requirement). These policies and procedures shall be used to maintain the
|
|
integrity of the mapping between the master copy defining the current
|
|
version of the TCB and the on-site installed copy.
|
|
|
|
In summary, the TFM section that defines the security measures necessary for
|
|
protection of the TCB should include the following subsections:
|
|
|
|
6.1 The Generation of the TCB Source Code
|
|
- list of TCB code modules, module interface and data (including
|
|
modules of the reference monitor);
|
|
- list of approved tools for TCB generation
|
|
- procedures for TCB generation;
|
|
- vulnerabilities.
|
|
6.2 Configuration Management Policy (if required, reference to a
|
|
separate configuration management document)
|
|
6.3 Ratings-maintenance Plan (if applicable, reference to a separate
|
|
rating maintenance document)
|
|
6.4 TCB Installation Procedure
|
|
- TCB generation from source code (whenever allowed by the system
|
|
manufacturer);
|
|
- TCB hardware installation;
|
|
- TCB data structure initialization;
|
|
- TCB loading;
|
|
- setting of TCB file protection;
|
|
- list of approved tools.
|
|
6.5 TCB Maintenance Procedures
|
|
- analysis of system dumps;
|
|
- crash recovery and restart;
|
|
- changes of configuration parameters;
|
|
- repair of damaged TCB data structures;
|
|
- consistency-checking procedures;
|
|
- running of periodic system-integrity checks
|
|
6.6 Trusted Distribution of the TCB
|
|
- policies and procedures;
|
|
- correspondence between master copy and installed copy
|
|
6.7 Commands, System Calls, and Function Definitions for TCB Generation
|
|
from Source Code, Installation, Maintenance, and Trusted Distribution
|
|
- effects and exceptions (unless defined in DTLSs);
|
|
- parameter and default settings;
|
|
- examples of use and potential misuse.
|
|
6.8 Warnings of Specific Security Vulnerabilities of TCB Generation,
|
|
Installation, Maintenance, and Distribution
|
|
|
|
7 SATISFYING THE TCSEC REQUlREMENTS
|
|
|
|
This section of the TFM should contain the definition of the TFM
|
|
requirements on a TCSEC class basis. All of the requirements listed below
|
|
derive from corresponding documentation requirements and objectives of the
|
|
TCSEC. Although similar TFM requirements appear in multiple classes, the
|
|
contents of TFM sections shall reflect the complexity of policy,
|
|
accountability, assurance, and documentation of the evaluation class.
|
|
Consequently, this section should contain suggestions and recommendations
|
|
that may not be found in the TFM requirements area but that derive from
|
|
other TCSEC areas. These suggestions and recommendations illustrate the
|
|
added complexity of various TCSEC classes.
|
|
|
|
7.1 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class C1
|
|
|
|
The TFM of a C1 class system may have the following structure:
|
|
|
|
7.1.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
|
|
The TFM introduction may include the following topics:
|
|
|
|
Scope of the TFM
|
|
- guide to configure and install secure systems;
|
|
- guide to operate a system in a secure manner;
|
|
- enable administrative personnel to make effective use of the
|
|
system's privileges and protection mechanisms;
|
|
- issue warnings about possible misuse of administrative
|
|
authority.
|
|
Recommended use of the TFM
|
|
- review skills and systems background necessary for
|
|
administrative personnel, suggest additional manuals, reference
|
|
material, and standards needed by administrative personnel;
|
|
- specify the limitations of security scope;
|
|
Contents of the TFM
|
|
- contents of each section;
|
|
- section relationships.
|
|
|
|
(For specific DAC requirements, the reader should refer to [2].)
|
|
|
|
7.1.2 System Security Overview
|
|
|
|
This section of the TFM shall include a brief description of the system
|
|
administration vulnerabilites specific to the given system, warnings, and
|
|
advice on how to counter these vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
"A manual addressed to the ADP administration shall present cautions
|
|
about the function and privileges that should be controlled when
|
|
runninga sucure facility [6]."
|
|
|
|
The above TCSEC requirement sugguest that the administrative functions and
|
|
privileges that need to be controlled when running a sucure facility shall
|
|
be identifies, and the vulnerabilities associated with those functgions and
|
|
privileges shall be determined. Warnings relatiing to thes vulnerabilites
|
|
shall be presented.
|
|
|
|
The administrative functions and privileges that need to be controlled when
|
|
running a class C1 secure facility include those supporting security olicy
|
|
(i.e., DAC), accountability (i.e., identification and authentication), and
|
|
operational assurance (i.e., system integrity).
|
|
|
|
Security Policy
|
|
|
|
This section of the TFM shall include descriptions of the TCB commands,
|
|
interfaces, and procedures to:
|
|
|
|
- initialize discretionary access privileges and defaults for
|
|
individual users and groups;
|
|
- distribute, review, and revoke privileges on an individual user or
|
|
group basis;
|
|
- change object ownership (if any), restore accidentally deleted
|
|
privileges, and kill errant processes;
|
|
- define and change group membership (whenever groups are supported),
|
|
and explain the effect of such action on DAC;
|
|
- explain the implications of creating and deleting user and group
|
|
accounts on DAC.
|
|
|
|
7.1.3 Accountability
|
|
|
|
Identification and Authentication
|
|
|
|
This section of the TFM shall include descriptions of the TCB commands,
|
|
interfaces and procedures to perform the following functions:
|
|
|
|
- conduct setup of user/group security profiles, and authentication and
|
|
authorization parameters of the login mechanism;
|
|
- conduct password management distribution to ordinary and
|
|
administrative users or groups (see [4]);
|
|
- define account restrictions (e.g., time intervals for login, account
|
|
cutoff time).
|
|
|
|
This section shall also include descriptions of the definition and change of
|
|
log in mechanism parameters. These parameters include:
|
|
|
|
- types of terminals supported and terminal; interface initialization;
|
|
- time---out interval;
|
|
- multiple log in attributes (if supported);
|
|
- maximum login time;
|
|
- limits on unsuccessful logins from a terminal or to an account.
|
|
|
|
7.1.4 Routine Operations
|
|
|
|
Although the TCSEC does not cite specific requirements in this area, the TFM
|
|
should include commands and procedures for the following activities:
|
|
|
|
- perform system boot and shut down;
|
|
- set system clocks;
|
|
- conduct on-line device testing;
|
|
- perform backup of user volumes;
|
|
- perform system metering;
|
|
- response to various user requests.
|
|
|
|
7.1.5 Security of the TCB
|
|
|
|
This section of the TFM shall include descriptions of the TCB command
|
|
procedures that are provided "to validate periodically the correct operation
|
|
of the on-site hardware and firmware elements of the TCB."[6]
|
|
|
|
In all areas of the TFM, and for all security classes where TCB commands and
|
|
interface descriptions are required, the TFM shall include:
|
|
|
|
- effects and exceptions of each command (if not already defined in the
|
|
DTLS);
|
|
- parameter and default setting;
|
|
- examples of potential use and misuse.
|
|
- In all areas of the TFM, and for all security classes, warnings
|
|
(i.e., cautions) shall be provided for specific security
|
|
vulnerabilities of the relevant administrative commands, interfaces,
|
|
and procedures. Any modification to the TCB, for all security classes,
|
|
may invalidate the systems rating [5].
|
|
|
|
7.2 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class C2
|
|
|
|
Security class C2 includes all the TFM requirements of security class Cl. In
|
|
addition, the following documentation requirements are added.
|
|
|
|
7.2.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
|
|
No Additional Requirements/Recommendations (NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.2.2 System Security Overview
|
|
|
|
The first design documentation requirement of TCSEC is that:
|
|
|
|
"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."[6]
|
|
|
|
The above requirement suggests that the system security overview section
|
|
should include an additional subsection on security philosophy. This section
|
|
should contain a discussion of the security threats that could be countered
|
|
by the use of this system, and of specific countermeasures based on security
|
|
policy and accountability.
|
|
|
|
7.2.3 Security Policy
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.2.4 Accountability
|
|
|
|
The second documentation requirement is: "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 [6]. This requirements implies
|
|
that the following sections should be added to the accountability area:
|
|
|
|
7.2.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.2.4.2 Audit
|
|
|
|
The TFM should include a section describing the audit mechanisms, TCB
|
|
commands, interfaces, and procedures for the following activities:
|
|
|
|
- determine audit selection mechanisms; these mechanisms include the
|
|
commands and procedures necessary to display all security-relevant
|
|
auditable events, to select the required and the optional audit events,
|
|
and to turn on and off events selectively on a per-user and per-process
|
|
basis;
|
|
- conduct audit log management; this activity includes commands and
|
|
procedures to create, save, and destroy saved audit logs; to change
|
|
audit log size and warning point for audit log overflow; to format,
|
|
compress and display audit logs;
|
|
- protect audit commands and databases;
|
|
- ensure maintenance of audit consistency;
|
|
- perform post processing of audit data; this is an optional
|
|
feature of a system and of the TFM, and includes mostly
|
|
application-specific commands and procedures for intrusion
|
|
detection. (However, all of these commands and procedures, and
|
|
also the available tools and their protection from unauthorized
|
|
user access, should be described whenever they are provided);
|
|
The audit section of the TFM shall include a detailed description
|
|
of the audit record structure for each type of audit event and of
|
|
the entire audit log. (For specific details of audit requirements,
|
|
the reader should refer to [1]).
|
|
|
|
7.2.5 Routine Operations
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.2.6 Security of the TCB
|
|
|
|
Additional requirement that is relevant to TCB protection is included here.
|
|
|
|
7.3 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class B1
|
|
|
|
All TFM requirements of a class C2 system are included here. The
|
|
documentation requirements of class B1 suggest significant additions to the
|
|
TFM contents beyond those implied by the TCSEC requirements of security
|
|
policy and accountability.
|
|
|
|
The TFM of a class B1 system should include the following additional
|
|
documentation:
|
|
|
|
7.3.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.3.2 System Security Overview
|
|
|
|
This section should include any additional requirement referring to the
|
|
system security overview. That is, this section of the TFM "shall provide
|
|
guidelines on the consistent and effective use of the protection features of
|
|
the system; [and] how they interact." [6] This suggests that the TFM should
|
|
include a discussion of the interaction between the protection mechanisms
|
|
and functions available to administrative users and those available to
|
|
ordinary users. As mentioned in Section 2 above, this interaction is
|
|
particularly important in the areas of security policy and accountability.
|
|
|
|
7.3.3 Security Policy
|
|
|
|
The additional security policy requirements of MAC and labeling suggest that
|
|
additional administrative responsibilities should be documented in the TFM.
|
|
The TFM requirement that the "manual shall describe the operator and
|
|
administrator functions related to security,"[6] suggests that the TFM
|
|
should include a description of all TCB commands, interfaces and procedures
|
|
to perform the following functions:
|
|
|
|
- define and change system security profiles;
|
|
- classify, reclassify, import, and export objects;
|
|
- perform consistency checks on system and user security profiles.
|
|
|
|
7.3.4 Accountability
|
|
|
|
7.3.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
|
|
The B1 requirements mandate the identification and authentication
|
|
recommendations of classes Cl and C2 (i.e., they mandate the identification
|
|
and authentication on a per-individual-user basis). In addition, it requires
|
|
that the TFM includes TCB commands and procedures to define and change the
|
|
user (and, possibly, group) levels of trust. It also requires that the
|
|
computation of a subject's login level of trust be included in the TFM.
|
|
|
|
7.3.4.2 Audit
|
|
|
|
The additional B1 requirements that shall be included in the TFM
|
|
documentation include:
|
|
|
|
- a description of how the audit mechanism records any override of
|
|
output markings;
|
|
- a description of how the TCB commands, interfaces, and procedures
|
|
support audit on a per-object sensitivity level basis
|
|
|
|
7.3.5 Routine Operations
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.3.6 Security of the TCB
|
|
|
|
The additional TFM requirement in this area is that the TFM "shall provide
|
|
guidelines on [...] how to securely generate a new TCB" [6].
|
|
|
|
This requirement suggests that the TFM include:
|
|
|
|
- a list of approved tools for TCB generation;
|
|
- a description of procedures for TCB generation;
|
|
- a description of the vulnerabilities in generating a new TCB.
|
|
The B1 requirements of the TFM also state that the TFM "shall provide
|
|
guidelines on [...] privileges needed to be controlled in order to
|
|
operate the facility in a secure manner" [6]. This implies that the
|
|
settings and the defaults for the protection privileges of the TCB
|
|
files should be specified. Warnings about the improper setting of such
|
|
privileges should be included.
|
|
|
|
7.4 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class B2
|
|
|
|
All TFM requirements of the class B1 are included here. The documentation
|
|
requirements of class B2 suggest additions to the TFM contents beyond those
|
|
implied by the TCSEC requirements of security policy, accountability, and
|
|
operational assurance.
|
|
|
|
The TFM of a B2 system should include the following additional
|
|
documentation.
|
|
|
|
7.4.1 Introduction
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.4.2 System Security Overview
|
|
|
|
The only additional requirement for inclusion in this section is the
|
|
separation of administrative functions into two roles, namely that of the
|
|
administrator and that of the operator. Section 3 discusses the
|
|
documentation requirements for B2 role separation.
|
|
|
|
7.4.3 Security Policy
|
|
|
|
The two additional security-policy requirements that should be documented in
|
|
the TFM address the areas of subject sensitivity and device labels. The TFM
|
|
shall include the TCB commands and procedures to:
|
|
|
|
- change the security label of an active subject (if this function is
|
|
provided);
|
|
- assign and change the device sensitivity levels.
|
|
|
|
This section of the TFM shall also include a discussion of the security
|
|
vulnerabilities associated with change of trust level of an active subject.
|
|
Also it shall include a discussion of the relationship between the device
|
|
sensitivity levels and the level of trust associated with the physical
|
|
environment in which the devices are located.
|
|
|
|
7.4.4 Accountability
|
|
|
|
7.4.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
|
|
The only additional TFM requirement here is that of documenting the trusted
|
|
path mechanisms available to administrative users whenever this mechanism
|
|
differs from that available to ordinary users (and documented in the SFUG).
|
|
|
|
7.4.4.2 Audit
|
|
|
|
The only additional TFM requirement of the audit area is that of defining
|
|
the TCB commands and interfaces for auditing covert channels, for setting
|
|
delays in covert channels, and for randomizing covert-channel variables.
|
|
|
|
7.4.5 Routine Operations
|
|
|
|
The routine operations performed by administrative users should be presented
|
|
according to the separation of roles required by the trusted facility
|
|
management area of the TCSEC and suggested by [7].
|
|
|
|
7.4.6 Security of the TCIB
|
|
|
|
The additional TFM requirements for this section include:
|
|
|
|
- the list of TCB modules shall identify the modules of the reference
|
|
monitor mechanism;
|
|
- "[...] the procedures for secure generation of a new TCB from source
|
|
after modification of any modules in the TCB shall be described" [6].
|
|
(This requirement implies that configuration management shall be in
|
|
place. References to additional documents defining these procedures and
|
|
plans could be included in the TFM).
|
|
|
|
7.5 Requirements and Recommendations for Security Class B3
|
|
|
|
The only additional requirements of class B3 that shall be included in the
|
|
TFM are in the areas of system overview, audit, routine operations, and
|
|
security of the TCB.
|
|
|
|
7.5.1 TFM Introduction
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.5.2 System Overview
|
|
|
|
The TFM should include a discussion of the physical security assumptions
|
|
made by the system designers and implementators that must be satisfied by
|
|
the installed system. Also, this section shall include a discussion of the
|
|
separation between the security-relevant and security-irrelevant functions
|
|
of the administrators and operators (see [7]).
|
|
|
|
7.5.3 Security Policy
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.5.4 Accountability
|
|
|
|
7.5.4.1 Identification and Authentication
|
|
|
|
(NAR)
|
|
|
|
7.5.4.2 Audit
|
|
|
|
The TFM should describe the TCB commands and interfaces available to the
|
|
auditor that enable him or her to monitor the accumulation of auditable
|
|
events and to respond effectively to such event signals.
|
|
|
|
7.5.5 Routine Operations
|
|
|
|
The additional routine operations carried out by secure and ordinary
|
|
operators should be specified in the TFM. These should include:
|
|
|
|
- the identification of damaged user files and volumes;
|
|
- the routine backup of TCB files;
|
|
- the mounting and unmounting of volumes.
|
|
|
|
Security-irrelevant administrator and operator actions, such as handling
|
|
user requests and managing the accounting system, should also be documented
|
|
here.
|
|
|
|
7.5.6 Security of the TCB
|
|
|
|
Two additional TFM requirements are included here. The first is that "[The
|
|
TFM] shall include procedures to ensure that the system is initially started
|
|
in a secure manner" [6]. This requirement suggests that the TFM must
|
|
document procedures for:
|
|
|
|
- TCB hardware installation (using the list of approved hardware
|
|
modules);
|
|
- TCB loading; TCB data structure initialization;
|
|
- initialization of privileges for TCB file
|
|
- use of approved initialization tools.
|
|
|
|
The second requirement is that "procedures shall also be included to resume
|
|
secure system operation after any lapse in system operation" [6].
|
|
|
|
This requirement suggests that the TFM should document procedures for:
|
|
|
|
- analysis of system dumps;
|
|
- crash recovery and restart in a secure state;
|
|
- repair of damaged TCB data structures (e.g., labels);
|
|
- changes of configuration parameters (e.g., table sizes);
|
|
- consistency checking procedures.
|
|
|
|
7.6 Requirements of Security Class A1
|
|
|
|
Although no additional explicit TFM requirements beyond that required for B3
|
|
are included here, the TFM should define procedures for trusted distribution
|
|
consistent with the [6] requirements.
|
|
|
|
GLOSSARY
|
|
|
|
Access -
|
|
A specific type of interaction between a subject and an object that
|
|
results in the flow of information from one to the other.
|
|
Account Administrator -
|
|
An administrative role or user assigned to maintain accounting files,
|
|
tools, user accounts, and system statistics.
|
|
Administrative User -
|
|
A user assigned to supervise all or a portion of an AIS system.
|
|
Approval Accreditation -
|
|
The official authorization that is granted to an AIS system to process
|
|
sensitive information in its operational environment, based upon
|
|
comprehensive security evaluation of the system's hardware, firmware,
|
|
and software security design, configuration, and implementation and of
|
|
the other system procedural, administrative, physical, TEMPEST,
|
|
personnel, and communications security controls.
|
|
Audit -
|
|
To conduct the independent review and examination of system records and
|
|
activities.
|
|
Audit Event Selection -
|
|
Selection, by authorized personnel, of the auditable events that are to
|
|
be recorded on the audit trail.
|
|
Audit Mechanism -
|
|
The part of the TCB used to collect, review, and/or examine system
|
|
activities.
|
|
Audit Post Processing -
|
|
Processing, by authorized personnel, of specified events that had been
|
|
recorded on the audit trail.
|
|
Audit Trail -
|
|
A chronological record of system activities that is sufficient to
|
|
enable the reconstruction, reviewing, and examination of the sequence
|
|
of environments and activities surrounding or leading to an operation,
|
|
a procedure, or an event in transaction from its inception to final
|
|
results.
|
|
Auditable Event -
|
|
Any event that can be selected for inclusion in the audit trail. These
|
|
events should include, in addition to security-relevant events, events
|
|
taken to recover the system after failure and any events that might
|
|
prove to be security relevant at a later time.
|
|
Auditor -
|
|
An authorized individual, or role, with administrative duties, which
|
|
include selecting the events to be audited on the system, setting up
|
|
the audit flags that enable the recording of those events, and
|
|
analyzing the audit. trail
|
|
Authenticate -
|
|
(1) To verify the identity of a user, device, or other entity in a
|
|
computer system, often as a prerequisite to allowing access to
|
|
resources in a system. (2) To verify the integrity of data that has
|
|
been stored, transmitted, or otherwise exposed to possible unauthorized
|
|
modification.
|
|
Authenticated User -
|
|
A user who has accessed an AIS system with a valid identifier and
|
|
authenticator.
|
|
Automated Information System (AIS) -
|
|
An assembly of computer hardware, firmware, and software configured to
|
|
collect, create, communicate, compute, disseminate, process, store, and
|
|
/or control data or information.
|
|
Bandwidth -
|
|
A characteristic of a communication channel that is the amount of
|
|
information that can be passed through it in a given amount of time,
|
|
usually expressed in bits per second.
|
|
Category -
|
|
A restrictive label that has been applied to classified or unclassified
|
|
data as a means of increasing the protection of the data and further
|
|
restricting access to the data.
|
|
Channel -
|
|
An information transfer path within a system. May also refer to the
|
|
mechanism by which the path is effected.
|
|
Covert Channel -
|
|
A communication channel that allows two cooperating processes to
|
|
transfer information in a manner that violates the system's security
|
|
policy. Synonymous with Confinement Channel.
|
|
Covert Storage Channel -
|
|
A covert channel that involves the direct or indirect writing of a
|
|
storage location by one process and the direct or indirect reading of
|
|
the storage location by another process. Covert storage channels
|
|
typically involve a finite resource (e.g., sectors on a disk) that is
|
|
shared by two subjects at different security levels.
|
|
Covert Timing Channel -
|
|
A covert channel in which one process signals information to another by
|
|
modulating its own use of system resources (e.g., Central Processing
|
|
Unit time) in such a way that this manipulation affects the real
|
|
response time observed by these second process.
|
|
Data -
|
|
Information with a specific physical representation.
|
|
Data Integrity -
|
|
The state that exists when computerized data is the same as that in the
|
|
source documents and has not been exposed to accidental or malicious
|
|
alteration or destruction.
|
|
Descriptive Top-Level Specification (DTLS) -
|
|
A top-level specification that is written in a natural language (e.g.,
|
|
English), an informal program design notation, or a combination of the
|
|
two.
|
|
Discretionary Access Control -
|
|
A means of restricting access to objects based on the identity and
|
|
need-to-know of the user, process, and/or groups to which they belong.
|
|
The controls are discretionary in the sense that a subject with a
|
|
certain access permission is capable of passing that permission
|
|
(perhaps indirectly) on to any other subject.
|
|
Formal Security Policy Model -
|
|
A mathematically precise statement of a security policy. To be
|
|
adequately precise, such a model shall represent the initial state of a
|
|
system, the way in which the system progresses from one state to
|
|
another, and a definition of a "secure" state of the system. To be
|
|
acceptable as a basis for a TCB, the model shall be supported by a
|
|
formal proof that if the initial state of the system satisfies the
|
|
definition of a "secure" state. If all assumptions required by the
|
|
model hold, then all future states of the system will be secure. Some
|
|
formal modeling techniques include state transition models, temporal
|
|
logic models, denotational semantics models, and algebraic
|
|
specification models.
|
|
Formal Top-Level Specification (FTLS) -
|
|
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.
|
|
Functional Testing -
|
|
The portion of security testing in which the advertised features of a
|
|
system are tested, under operational conditions, for correct operation.
|
|
Least Privilege -
|
|
The principle that requires that each subject in a system be granted
|
|
the most restrictive set of privileges (or lowest clearance) needed for
|
|
the performance of authorized tasks. The application of this principle
|
|
limits the damage that can result from accident, error, or unauthorized
|
|
use.
|
|
Mandatory Access Control -
|
|
A means of restricting access to objects based on the sensitivity (as
|
|
represented by a label) of the information contained in the objects and
|
|
the formal authorization (i.e., clearance) of subjects to access
|
|
information of such sensitivity.
|
|
Multilevel Device -
|
|
A device that is used in a manner that permits simultaneous processing
|
|
of data of two or more security levels without risk of compromise. To
|
|
accomplish this, sensitivity labels are normally stored on the same
|
|
physical medium and in the same form (i.e., machine-readable or
|
|
human-readable) as the data being processed.
|
|
Multilevel Secure -
|
|
A class of system containing information with different sensitivities
|
|
that, simultaneously permits access by users with different security
|
|
clearances and need-to-know, but prevents users from obtaining access
|
|
to information for which they lack authorization.
|
|
Object -
|
|
A passive entity that contains or receives information. Access to an
|
|
object potentially implies access to the information it contains.
|
|
Examples of objects are records, blocks, pages, segments, files,
|
|
directories, directory trees, and programs, as well as bits, bytes,
|
|
words, fields, processors, video displays, keyboards, clocks, printers,
|
|
and network nodes.
|
|
Operator -
|
|
An administrative role or user assigned to perform routine maintenance
|
|
operations of the AIS system and to respond to routine user requests.
|
|
Output -
|
|
Information that has been exported by a TCB.
|
|
Password -
|
|
A private character string that is used to authenticate an identity.
|
|
Process -
|
|
A program in execution. It is completely characterized by a single
|
|
current execution point (represented by the machine state) and address
|
|
space.
|
|
Read -
|
|
A fundamental operation that results only in the flow of information
|
|
from an object to a subject.
|
|
Read Access (Privilege) -
|
|
Permission to read information.
|
|
Security Administrator -
|
|
An administrative role or user responsible for the security of an AS
|
|
and having the authority to enforce the security safeguards on all
|
|
others who have access to the AIS (with the possible exception of the
|
|
Auditor).
|
|
Security Level -
|
|
The combination of a hierarchical classification and a set of
|
|
non-hierarchical categories that represents the sensitivity of
|
|
information.
|
|
Security Policy -
|
|
The set of laws, rules, and practices that regulate how an organization
|
|
manages, protects, and distributes sensitive information.
|
|
Security Policy Model -
|
|
A formal (informal.in the case of B1) presentation of the security
|
|
policy enforced by the system. It must identify the set of rules and
|
|
practices that regulate how a system manages, protects, and distributes
|
|
sensitive information.
|
|
Security-Relevant Event -
|
|
Any event that attempts to change the security state of the system
|
|
(e.g., change the DAC, change the security level of the subject, change
|
|
user password). Also, any event that attempts to violate the security
|
|
policy of the system, (e.g., too many attempts to log in, attempts to
|
|
violate the MAC limits of a device, attempts to downgrade a file).
|
|
Security Testing -
|
|
A process used to determine that the security features of a system are
|
|
implemented as designed and that they are adequate for a proposed
|
|
application environment.
|
|
Sensitive Information -
|
|
Any information, the loss, misuse, modification of, or unauthorized
|
|
access to, that could affect the national interest or the conduct of
|
|
Federal programs, or the privacy to which individuals are entitled
|
|
under Section 552a of Title 5, U.S. Code, but that has not been
|
|
specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive
|
|
order or act of Congress to be kept classified in the interest of
|
|
national defense or foreign policy.
|
|
Sensitivity Label -
|
|
A piece of information that represents the security level of an object
|
|
and that describes the sensitivity (e.g., classification) of the data
|
|
in the object. Sensitivity labels are used by the TCB as the basis for
|
|
MAC decisions.
|
|
Subject -
|
|
An active entity, generally in the form of a person, process, or device
|
|
that causes information to flow among objects or changes in the system
|
|
state. Technically, a process/domain pair.
|
|
Subject Security Level -
|
|
A subject's security level that is equal to the security level of the
|
|
objects to which it has both read and write access. A subject's
|
|
security level shall always be dominated by the clearance of the user
|
|
associated with the subject.
|
|
System Programmer -
|
|
An administrative role or user responsible for the trusted system
|
|
distribution, configuration, installation, and non-routine maintenance.
|
|
System Security Map -
|
|
A map defining the correspondence between the binary and ASCII formats
|
|
of security levels (e.g., between binary format of security levels and
|
|
sensitivity labels).
|
|
Top-Level Specification (TLS) -
|
|
A non-procedural description of system behavior at the most abstract
|
|
level; typically, a functional specification that omits all
|
|
implementation details.
|
|
Trap Door -
|
|
A hidden software or hardware mechanism that can be triggered to
|
|
permits system protection mechanisms to be circumvented. It is
|
|
activated in some innocent-appearing manner (e.g., special "random" key
|
|
sequence at a terminal).
|
|
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; for example, making a "blind copy" of a sensitive file for
|
|
the creator of the Trojan horse.
|
|
Trusted Computer System -
|
|
A system that employs sufficient hardware and software assurance
|
|
measures to allow its use for simultaneous processing a range of
|
|
sensitive or classified information.
|
|
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 a 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 enforce a security
|
|
policy correctly 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.
|
|
Trusted Path -
|
|
A mechanism by which a person at a terminal can communicate directly
|
|
with the TCB. This mechanism can only be activated by the person or the
|
|
TCB and cannot be imitated by untrusted software.
|
|
User -
|
|
Person or process accessing an AS either by direct connections (i.e.,
|
|
via terminals), or indirect connections (i.e., prepare input data or
|
|
receive output that is not reviewed for content or classification by a
|
|
responsible individual).
|
|
Verification -
|
|
The process of comparing two levels of system specification for proper
|
|
correspondence (e.g., security policy model with top-level
|
|
specification, TLS with source code, or source code with object code).
|
|
This process may or may not be automated.
|
|
Write -
|
|
A fundamental operation that results only in the flow of information
|
|
from a subject to an object.
|
|
Write Access (Privilege) -
|
|
Permission to write an object.
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
[1]
|
|
National Computer Security Center, A Guide to Understanding Audit in
|
|
Trusted Systems, NCSC-TG-001, Version 2, June 1988.
|
|
[2]
|
|
National Computer Security Center, A Guide to Understanding
|
|
Discretionary Access Control in Trusted Systems, NCSC-TG-003,
|
|
version-I, September 1987.
|
|
[3]
|
|
Gligor V. D., J. C. Huskamp, S. R. Welke, C. J. Linn, W. T. Mayfield,
|
|
Traditional Capability-Based Systems: An Analysis of their Ability to
|
|
Meet the Trusted Computer Security Evaluation Criteria, Institute for
|
|
Defense Analyses, IDA Paper PI 935, February 1987.
|
|
[4]
|
|
Department of Defense, Password Management Guideline, CSC-STD-002-85,
|
|
April 1985.
|
|
[5]
|
|
National Computer Security Center, The Rating Maintenance Phase,
|
|
NCSCTG---013-89, 23 June 1989.
|
|
[6]
|
|
National Computer Security Center, Department of Defense Trusted
|
|
Computer System Evaluation Criteria, DoD 5200. 28-STD, 1985.
|
|
[7]
|
|
National Computer Security Center, Guidelines for Trusted Facility
|
|
Management, NCSC---TG---0I5-89, 18 October 1989.
|