skip to main content
10.1145/2480362.2480604acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Common criteria compliant software development (CC-CASD)

Published:18 March 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

In order to gain their customers' trust, software vendors can certify their products according to security standards, e.g., the Common Criteria (ISO 15408). However, a Common Criteria certification requires a comprehensible documentation of the software product. The creation of this documentation results in high costs in terms of time and money.

We propose a software development process that supports the creation of the required documentation for a Common Criteria certification. Hence, we do not need to create the documentation after the software is built. Furthermore, we propose to use an enhanced version of the requirements-driven software engineering process called ADIT to discover possible problems with the establishment of Common Criteria documents. We aim to detect these issues before the certification process. Thus, we avoid expensive delays of the certification effort. ADIT provides a seamless development approach that allows consistency checks between different kinds of UML models. ADIT also supports traceability from security requirements to design documents. We illustrate our approach with the development of a smart metering gateway system.

References

  1. S. Ardi and N. Shahmehri. Introducing vulnerability awareness to common criteria's security targets. In Software Engineering Advances, 2009. ICSEA '09. Fourth International Conference on, pages 419--424, sept. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Bialas. Ontology-based security problem definition and solution for the common criteria compliant development process. In Dependability of Computer Systems, 2009. DepCos-RELCOMEX '09. Fourth International Conference on, pages 3--10, 30 2009-july 2 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Bialas. Ontological approach to the it security development. In E. Tkacz and A. Kapczynski, editors, Internet -- Technical Development and Applications, volume 64 of Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, pages 261--269. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. BSI. Protection Profile for the Gateway of a Smart Metering System (Gateway PP). Version 01.01.01(final draft), Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI) -Federal Office for Information Security Germany, 2011. https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BSI/SmartMeter/PP-SmartMeter.pdf?___blob=publicationFile.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S.-C. Chang and C.-F. Fan. Construction of an ontology-based common criteria review tool. In Computer Symposium (ICS), 2010 International, pages 907--912, dec. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. D. Coleman, P. Arnold, S. Bodoff, C. Dollin, H. Gilchrist, F. Hayes, and P. Jeremaes. Object-Oriented Development: The Fusion Method. Prentice Hall, 1994. (out of print). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. I. Côté. A Systematic Approach to Software Evolution. Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag (DWV) Baden-Baden, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. I. Côté, D. Hatebur, M. Heisel, and H. Schmidt. UML4PF -- a tool for problem-oriented requirements analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), pages 349--350. IEEE Computer Society, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B. Fabian, S. Gürses, M. Heisel, T. Santen, and H. Schmidt. A comparison of security requirements engineering methods. Requirements Engineering -- Special Issue on Security Requirements Engineering, 15(1):7--40, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. Hatebur. Pattern and Component-based Development of Dependable Systems. Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag (DWV) Baden-Baden, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. D. Hatebur and M. Heisel. A UML profile for requirements analysis of dependable software. In SAFECOMP, pages 317--331, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Hatebur, M. Heisel, and H. Schmidt. A formal metamodel for problem frames. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), volume 5301, pages 68--82. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. ISO/IEC. Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements. ISO/IEC 27001, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO/IEC. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation. ISO/IEC 15408, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Jackson. Problem Frames. Analyzing and structuring software development problems. Addison-Wesley, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Mellado, E. Fernandez-Medina, and M. Piattini. A comparison of the common criteria with proposals of information systems security requirements. In Availability, Reliability and Security, 2006. ARES 2006. The First International Conference on, page 8 pp., april 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D. Mellado, E. Fernández-Medina, and M. Piattini. Applying a security requirements engineering process. In D. Gollmann, J. Meier, and A. Sabelfeld, editors, Computer Security -- ESORICS 2006, volume 4189 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 192--206. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. Rottke, D. Hatebur, M. Heisel, and M. Heiner. A problem-oriented approach to common criteria certification. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, SAFECOMP '02, pages 334--346, London, UK, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. UML Revision Task Force. OMG Unified Modeling Language (UML), Superstructure. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/Superstructure/PDF.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. UML Revision Task Force. OMG Object Constraint Language: Reference, February 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. L. Yin and F.-L. Qiu. A novel method of security requirements development integrated common criteria. In Computer Design and Applications (ICCDA), 2010 International Conference on, volume 5, pages V5--531--V5--535, june 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Common criteria compliant software development (CC-CASD)

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SAC '13: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
        March 2013
        2124 pages
        ISBN:9781450316569
        DOI:10.1145/2480362

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 March 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SAC '13 Paper Acceptance Rate255of1,063submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader