DOD Orange Book

Preface

The trusted computer system evaluation criteria defined in this document classify systems into four broad hierarchical divisions of enhanced security protection. They provide a basis for the evaluation of effectiveness of security controls built into automatic data processing system products. The criteria were developed with three objectives in mind: (a) to provide users with a yardstick with which to assess the degree of trust that can be placed in computer systems for the secure processing of classified or other sensitive information; (b) to provide guidance to manufacturers as to what to build into their new, widely-available trusted commercial products in order to satisfy trust requirements for sensitive applications; and (c) to provide a basis for specifying security requirements in acquisition specifications. Two types of requirements are delineated for secure processing: (a) specific security feature requirements and (b) assurance requirements. Some of the latter requirements enable evaluation personnel to determine if the required features are present and functioning as intended. The scope of these criteria is to be applied to the set of components comprising a trusted system, and is not necessarily to be applied to each system component individually. Hence, some components of a system may be completely untrusted, while others may be individually evaluated to a lower or higher evaluation class than the trusted product considered as a whole system. In trusted products at the high end of the range, the strength of the reference monitor is such that most of the components can be completely untrusted. Though the criteria are intended to be application-independent, the specific security feature requirements may have to be interpreted when applying the criteria to specific systems with their own functional requirements, applications or special environments (e.g., communications processors, process control computers, and embedded systems in general). The underlying assurance requirements can be applied across the entire spectrum of ADP system or application processing environments without special interpretation.

I'm filing the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TRUSTED COMPUTER SYSTEM EVALUATION CRITERIA (DECEMBER l985) as a library reference to this blog site.

Update on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 8:46AM by Steve Holcombe

See also the NSA Rainbow Series at http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/rainbow.htm.

Data Ownership in the Cloud networking group

Extending to all an invitation to join the Data Ownership in the Cloud networking group on LinkedIn.

The Data Ownership in the Cloud group on LinkedIn is a global platform for multi-disciplinary networking between technologists and non-technologists interested in examining data ownership in the Cloud.

What technologies and standards (Cloud Computing, Web 2.0, Semantic Web, Enterprise 2.0, Manufacturing 2.0, Social Networking, SaaS, Security 2.0, RFID 2.0, microformat standards, identification standards) will enable data ownership in the Cloud?

What are the non-technological factors (sociological, political, psychological, legal)?

What is the right mix? Where will data ownership first firmly take root?

I will still be posting here at this blog site from time to time, but the greater part of my online activity is now with the Data Ownership in the Cloud group and my related Twitter account (http://twitter.com/Steve_Holcombe).

Kindest regards,

Steve Holcombe
Owner, Data Ownership in the Cloud

Kim Cameron: Why OpenID leads to Information Cards

From Kim Cameron's short biography:

"Kim Cameron is Chief Architect of Identity in the Connected Systems Division at Microsoft, where heworks on theevolution of Active Directory, Federation Services, Identity Lifecycle Manager, CardSpace and Microsoft’s other Identity Metasystem products. "

Why OpenID leads to Information Cards (5m 41s)

Ars Technica: Inside the AP's plan to "wrap" its content

The following was published by Nate Anderson for ARS Technica on 28 July 2009:

The Associated Press last week rolled out its brave new plan to "apply protective format to news." The AP's news registry will "tag and track all AP content online to assure compliance with terms of use," and it will provide a "platform for protect, point, and pay." That's a lot of "p"-prefaced jargon, but it boils down to a sort of DRM for news—"enforcement," in AP-speak.

For the complete article go to DRM for news? Inside the AP's plan to "wrap" its content. And see in particular the technical specifications for hNews, an extension of hAtom.

For a comparable publication, see Author-Level Digital Rights Management and the Common Point Authoring System: Protecting Information Exchange.

Foodproductiondaily.com: Consumer confidence in food manufacturers plunges

Published in Foodproductiondaily.com on 24 June 2009:

New research from the United States suggests that consumer confidence in food companies has plummeted after less than one in five said they trusted firms to develop and sell healthy products ....

Consumer appetite for information about food products has increased over the last two years - with 77 per cent eager for more information on ingredients and 76 per cent interested in it origin. Almost three quarters are prepared to do more research into how the food products are grown, processed and manufactured, said the study.

However, the authors warned: “Despite industry efforts to keep consumers informed with more detailed product information, there's still a significant gap between consumer expectations and what retailers/manufacturers are providing.

For the complete article go to Consumer confidence in food manufacturers plunges.