Ask Securosis: Is Common Criteria Certification Worth Anything?

This week’s question comes from Rob, who works for a security vendor. It’s one that comes up a lot on both the vendor and the end user sides. I recall that sometime before Xmas you said that only certifications greater than EAL 5 were worth anything, and that you would write about that later. … Can a mickey mouse protection profile, or the TOE chosen effect the end value of the cert, in your opinion ? I’ll be honest, I’m not the biggest fan of Common Criteria. For those of you who don’t pay attention to these sorts of things, Common Criteria is an international standard to certify security products (or security features). Wikipedia has a reasonable entry for more details. More specifically, it is a standard for specifying and evaluating the security assurance of computer products and systems. It is a core part of the certification and accreditation process used by government agencies. I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty details of Common Criteria, but basically you certify products at one of 7 different Evaluation Assurance Levels (EAL 1-7), with 1 being “functionally tested”, and 7 being “formally verified design and tested”. To avoid any more acronyms, you basically document your security functions (usually against a common protection profile), and then certify to the degree your product meets those requirements. And there’s the rub. First, the system doesn’t evaluate the security of a product- it is a certification as to security features matching their documentation, at least at EAL 1-4. At those levels it’s pretty much, “here’s a list of features, and assurance, from an outside lab that charged us WAY too much money, that our features meet those requirements.” When you see EAL 4+ it usually means some more advanced criteria were pulled in as part of the evaluation. Many MANY EAL 4+ products are just as full of holes and bugs as anything else. The functions documented work as advertised, but that’s about it. That’s what Rob was asking about the protection profile and the TOE (Target of Evaluation; what part of the product is tested). With a weak protection profile and limited TOE you can still achieve high assurance, since the scope of the evaluation is limited. It’s the same beef I have with those worthless SAS70 evaluations. At EAL 5-7 life is more interesting, at least here in the US. The NSA gets involved at that point and you come closer to certifying the entire security of the product and the development process. Very cool, and very time consuming and expensive. Very few products certify at 5+ because of the cost. There are other problems with CC, including keeping a product certified as it changes over time. My advice? As an end user, unless you’re in government where this is mandated, ignore Common Criteria. Instead, ask your vendor for documentation of their security development process and what tools they use to test the code, or any independent lab evaluations as to the security of the product (vulnerability analysis and testing). CC is essentially meaningless to you if it’s under 5. As a vendor, if you want to sell to the government you’ll have to pony up for an evaluation. Keep it as low as you can to reduce costs, but if you want to play with classified agencies you’re looking at a minimum of 4+, and probably higher. I expect comments on this one will be either non-existent, or very interesting… < p style=”text-align:right;font-size:10px;”>Technorati Tags: Common Criteria Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.