Closed woodbe closed 3 years ago
I just categorized resources into three based on requirement on data (e.g. CIA (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability)) so that additional or specific security requirements for each category can be defined.
But I assume in the end that the same security requirements can be defined for all three type of resources like "all data should be retained within secure execution environment"
Confidentiality of the CMFA score is a good idea. We do not want to provide feedback to an attacker that he is getting close to a device lock if he keeps going South, for example.
@gregott you are right. I should have said that the confidentiality of CMFA score is necessary and should only be disclosed to the trusted external party (e.g. Banking service) after a mutual authentication
I am not certain about the resources to be protected list. This is based on #28.
I am not sure about this one. I don't know that the final score itself needs to be protected. I agree that how it is passed to the computer needs to be protected (since you wouldn't want to be able to intercept/spoof the score itself), but I am not sure about the score itself. I expect that the computer has something that says "unlock if the score is at least 75" whatever that means, and the computer would just get that score. I don't know if this needs to be protected. I think the focus should be on a trusted path (I know that is a loaded term, probably more like a protected path) to the computer authentication mechanism. Maybe something like this:
The CMFA product must have a protected channel to present the trust score to its operating environment
I have several potential issues with this one. The first is whether we need to specify privacy law into a CC SFR. I'm not disputing the privacy concerns, I'm just not sure if they are anything additional to the last bullet.
This one I see as fine (not sure about the phrasing, but this is fine)