Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: [Full-disclosure] CC evaluation |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:28:04 -0400 |
There are a few things you have to be careful with online information. Some of it is great and some of it is plain junk or not what I would called researched. It seems the specific portion of this paper that talks about CC is first a cut an past of online resource and second written by someone who has done a couple hours of reading on the subject and not thorough research as it should be. The second issue I see is the references being used are all dating back to year 2000, six years within the information security field is like centuries in other fields. Things have changed a whole lot since the year 2000 bug. Myself I would visit the CC website and find from the authoritative source on the subject what a real CC evaluation is all about. Protection profiles are not written on the fly to satisfy vendors as claimed in this paper. Obviously it was written by someone who was pro TCSEC. Thanks for the link to the document Clement _____ From: Nguyen Pham [mailto:nguyen.petronius@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:09 AM To: Clement Dupuis Cc: pen-test@securityfocus.com; full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] CC evaluation Sorry for this missing. This text found on this report "Evaluation of the Security of Components in Distributed Information Systems", p20 (http://www2.foi.se/rapp/foir1042.pdf ) Best, Nguyen Pham. On 8/26/06, Clement Dupuis <cdupuis@cccure.org> wrote: Obviously this is a paragraph extracted out of context from some documents. By itself it is totally wrong but it might make sense if we have access to the whole document. Depending on the EAL level being sought you might not even look at the design process or development process at all. Only the higher level would require this. Can you tell us where the paragraph was extracted from? Take care Clement _____ From: Nguyen Pham [mailto:nguyen.petronius@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 6:32 AM To: pen-test@securityfocus.com; full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: [Full-disclosure] CC evaluation Hi all, Could you please give your comments on the following point: "CC is an evaluation of design methods, not an evaluation of security functionality. It is the system development process that is being evaluated, not the system itself. This means that the given EAL only states whether a larger enough pile of paperwork over the design process exists or not. The correctness and importance of those papers doase not even have to be verified and examined". Thanks for your helps, Nguyen Pham.
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] CC evaluation, Nguyen Pham |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Full-disclosure] AttackAPI 0.5 (JavaScript tools), pdp (architect) |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Full-disclosure] CC evaluation, Nguyen Pham |
| Next by Thread: | [Full-disclosure] AttackAPI 0.5 (JavaScript tools), pdp (architect) |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |