Configuration management evaluation guidance for high robustness systems

Abstract

Configuration Management (CM) plays a vital role in the development of trusted computing systems. The Common Criteria (CC) provides a framework for performing Information Technology (IT) security evaluations of these systems and further emphasizes CM's role in the development and evaluation process by specifying a minimum set of CM qualities for each Evaluated Assurance Level (EAL). As an evaluation guide, the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Evaluation Methodology (CEM), recommends a set of minimum CM guidelines which can be used by evaluators in the performance of a CM evaluation at the lower Evaluated Assurance Levels. Evaluators and developers will quickly note the CEM's lack of recommended CM guidelines at the higher assurance levels. Thorough study of the listed references supports the hypothesis for this work: Configuration Management guidelines are useful in the evaluation of trusted computing systems. As an assurance mechanism, complete CM guidance helps users of high assurance products obtain a degree of confidence the system security requirements operate as intended and do not contain clandestine code. Complete CM guidance provides evaluators with a "completed assurance scale" and ensures only authorized changes were made to the TOE during development. Useful CM guidelines at the higher assurance levels (EAL5, 6, and 7) will help developers and evaluators ensure products meet the minimum requirements needed for high assurance systems.