Re: ST evaluation on threats and security objectives

[Gary Stoneburner <gary.stoneburner@nist.gov>]

At 04:16 AM 2/26/2003, YOKOTA HIROFUMI wrote:
> My impression on this
> change is:
>  
> 1. The effort to list 'all' threat would not be a point of the ST
> evaluation.

"All", like 'never' and similar words, are problematic. 
For the practical application of the CC to evaluations, a better reading
of a phrase like "lists all threats"  is "no obvious
threats have been overlooked".  Also, the PP or ST evaluator is
still expected to make sure that the environmental section is not
inconsistent with whatever is described in the Introduction and TOE
Description.

> 2. The 'sutability' of
> security objectives  woud not be a point of the ST
> evaluation.

Suitability of the objectives remains a point of the ST
evaluation.

>  
> If so, my opinion is that the interpretaion is to be applied to the
> current CC
> ( at leas, for EAL1 to EAL3 evaluation).
>  
> How do you think about this?

The CC makes no distinctions between ST/PP evaluations based upon what
assurances are included in the ST or PP.  So, whatever applies to
one ST/PP applies to all.

Cheers,
Gary

**************************************************************************
* Opinions expressed are not intended to reflect an official position
**************************************************************************
* Gary Stoneburner
* Computer Security Division, National Institute of Standards & Technology
* 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-8930         
* Phone: 301-975-5394, FAX: 301-948-0279, Email: Stoneburner@nist.gov
**************************************************************************