full-disclosure - Can ISO15408 evaluated products be trusted?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <428DCD86.2000300@yahoo.co.jp>
Date: Fri May 20 12:44:31 2005
From: h_hikita at yahoo.co.jp (HHikita)
Subject: Can ISO15408 evaluated products be trusted?

Nora Barrera wrote:

>Who understands this strange CC dialect? For me, a ST
>is black magic, not a security specification.
>
Functional Requirements and Assurance Requirements might seem mind
boggling at first.
But you  need a common vocabulary to describe security specifications.
How else would you expect to archive common recognition between all
those countries. :-P

Well actually,  for each section of the PP/ST there is a requirement
that says
the section must be coherent.  For example CEM says in paragraph 300

"The statement of the TOE description is coherent if the text and
structure of
the statement are understandable by its target audience (i.e. evaluators and
consumers)."

So everything other than those FDP_,FCS_, FIA_, FAU_, ALC_... things,
is supposed to be understandable.

__________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Upgrade Your Life
http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/