Local Area Networks (LANs) in Aircraft - FTP Directory Listing - FAA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This study also recommends that the existing DO-178B assurance processes be applied very rigorously for higher assurance software (i.e., Level A and Level B software) in networked environments. The approval process should include the following three specific tests: • A series of penetration tests should be performed upon the completed software item. Specifically, the software (including its OS, if any) needs to be subjected to a range of network attacks described in appendix A. Any problems identified from these attacks need to be fixed. • The software should be examined under evaluation to verify that its internal construction complies with formal models of software construction, such as being modular and layered in terms of a structured presentation within the implementation itself. • A rigorous line-by-line code inspection of the software should be conducted to demonstrate a lack of bugs that can be hostilely attacked. This implies that the approver has an excellent understanding of how software bugs can be exploited by network attacks and that the approver stringently examines that code base to identify and fix those problems. Software items that do not undergo, or cannot pass, these three additional tests cannot be stated to be high assurance when deployed in network environments. Therefore, like any other nonhigh-assurance entity, they can only be deployed within high-assurance environments by means of an intervening HAG. This study recommends very stringent application of existing software certification processes for high-assurance software in networked environments. The line-by-line code inspection requirement for high-assurance software certification should ensure that high-assurance software code bases explicitly use formal software techniques and are comparatively small in size (in terms of number of lines of code). The indeterminate number of bugs that are latently present in large code bases represent unaddressed attack vulnerabilities in networked environments. Current software development methods cannot be trusted to produce high-assurance results unless those results are supplemented with extensive scrutiny. The larger the code base, the more questionable the quality of the scrutiny. This means that software developers need to actively consider how to create high-assurance software for network environments so that the resulting software can be assured to be as bug-free as possible. Until a theoretical solution is devised that produces guaranteed, high-assurance, bug-free results, high-assurance software needs to undergo a very thorough (formal) line-by-line code inspection. A possible alternative is for the software developer to assemble high-assurance software into modules. The integration of these modules face the same types of integration issues that are addressed in ARP 4754, but this may potentially result in an approval approach in which only a select subset of the total software corpus will require a formal line-by-line code inspection. 8. CANDIDATE SAFETY AND SECURITY NETWORK SOLUTION. The candidate safety and security network solution, which is presented in section 8.3, naturally follows from the material that has been presented to date. The final remaining explanatory 98
concept, which is needed to create the exemplar architecture itself, is to discuss best practice SSE. Section 8.1 presents this remaining explanatory topic. Section 8.2 then applies the SSE to the combination of current FAA safety policies and Biba Integrity Model concepts that were explained in sections 3, 6, and 7 to address the network risks that were presented in section 4 and appendix A. This application defines the rules and relationships that underlie this study’s recommended exemplar airborne network architecture. Section 8.3 presents the resulting airborne network architecture that directly derives from these rules and relationships. Section 8.3 architecture defines an exemplar environment needed by airborne networks to implement FAA policies extended by the Biba Integrity Model. That section includes the recommended configurations of the security controls to achieve a minimal set of defense in depth protections. A given deployment may choose to implement additional controls in addition to those described in section 8.3, because this design is a minimal subset needed to fulfill the criteria. 8.1 SYSTEM SECURITY ENGINEERING METHODOLOGY. SSE defines the process for integrating computer security concepts and technologies into coherent system architectures, as shown in figure 29. To achieve maximum benefit from the SSE process, it should permeate the entire life cycle of a system, from birth to death. The SSE process helps to ensure that all decisions are consistent with the overall system design and purposes. This process also avoids the bolted-on phenomenon that has proven over time to be ineffective. Only by being developed as an integral part of the systems in which they operate can subsystem elements successfully counter serious threats and reduce vulnerabilities. Security is the result of a complex interaction between multiple elements. As a result, one critical component of the SSE process is to understand the operational environment. This is accomplished by examining the actual operational environment to identify high-value assets, determining the threats to those assets, understanding their vulnerabilities, and selecting the proper countermeasures to protect the high-value asset. This process also provides an accrediting officer with the information needed to determine whether the residual risk is acceptable. 99
Page 1 and 2:
DOT/FAA/AR-08/31 Air Traffic Organi
Page 3 and 4:
1. Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-08/31 4. T
Page 5 and 6:
5.4.2 Aircraft as a Node (MIP and M
Page 7 and 8:
11.1 Findings and Recommendations 1
Page 9 and 10:
22 Customer’s L3VPN Protocol Stac
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Page 13 and 14:
PBN PC PE PEP PFS PIB PIM-DM PIM-SM
Page 15 and 16:
This report states that the primary
Page 17 and 18:
1. INTRODUCTION. This is the final
Page 19 and 20:
protocol (IP)-based communications.
Page 21 and 22:
of linking aircraft-resident system
Page 23 and 24:
Industry and governments are extrem
Page 25 and 26:
2.1 NOTIONAL NETWORKED AIRCRAFT ARC
Page 27 and 28:
Other Control Sites Controller ATC
Page 29 and 30:
• The security viability of curre
Page 31 and 32:
alternative requires that parallel
Page 33 and 34:
Aircraft network security is a syst
Page 35 and 36:
4. NETWORK RISKS. This section spec
Page 37 and 38:
General Threat Identifiers FAILURE
Page 39 and 40:
esources so that the required real-
Page 41 and 42:
“With the rise of client-side att
Page 43 and 44:
• During an 11-month period (Apri
Page 45 and 46:
attempt the theft of passwords. Non
Page 47 and 48:
IP networks are organized in terms
Page 49 and 50:
either the user or the trusted soft
Page 51 and 52:
However, the previous paragraph beg
Page 53 and 54:
Table 1. Internet Engineering Task
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
• Lightweight directory access pr
Page 61 and 62:
mechanism to overcome the key distr
Page 63 and 64: Deployments that need to support mu
Page 65 and 66: Today’s Reality: Islands of Commu
Page 67 and 68: Simultaneously, IP addresses are al
Page 69 and 70: in-depth manner. Defense-in-depth m
Page 71 and 72: Protection Detection Reaction / Neu
Page 73 and 74: encrypted and then encapsulated wit
Page 75 and 76: Internet (grouping of autonomous sy
Page 77 and 78: via that same IP address. Specifica
Page 79 and 80: deployments. Regional flights that
Page 81 and 82: neighbor as a next hop after “Hol
Page 83 and 84: Interface Interface Customer Site S
Page 85 and 86: Interface Customer’s Application
Page 87 and 88: Although the vast majority of PBN s
Page 89 and 90: 6. RELATING SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR
Page 91 and 92: 6.1.1 Integrity. As section 4.3 ind
Page 93 and 94: As mentioned in section 4.4, the hi
Page 95 and 96: 6.1.4 Confidentiality. Confidential
Page 97 and 98: their own classification level nor
Page 99 and 100: integrity is not permitted to obser
Page 101 and 102: software has been confirmed as leve
Page 103 and 104: • Both safety and security are co
Page 105 and 106: Device at Safety level X Device at
Page 107 and 108: in a Biba Integrity Model environme
Page 109 and 110: Common Criteria Classes ACM—Confi
Page 111 and 112: (see section 9.10). A secure mechan
Page 113: employed in security-critical appli
Page 117 and 118: 4. Learn from past mistakes. Poor d
Page 119 and 120: exemplar airborne network architect
Page 121 and 122: • Requirement 8: Biba Integrity M
Page 123 and 124: Figure 31 shows how the recommended
Page 125 and 126: to-live (TTL) field in the IP heade
Page 127 and 128: using the traditional dual router i
Page 129 and 130: mechanism relies upon the controlle
Page 131 and 132: HAGs are high-assurance devices tha
Page 133 and 134: 8.3.5 Firewall. The firewall needs
Page 135 and 136: (AJ) or low probability of intercep
Page 137 and 138: design decisions that need to be de
Page 139 and 140: 9.2 INTEGRATED MODULAR AVIONICS IMP
Page 141 and 142: 9.3 USING PUBLIC IPs. The model and
Page 143 and 144: alerted the pilots because the fail
Page 145 and 146: environments. If the certification
Page 147 and 148: DSS (FIPS 186 [81]). Code signing i
Page 149 and 150: elationship with other equipment in
Page 151 and 152: approach is to keep the log informa
Page 153 and 154: 11. SUMMARY. Current civilian aircr
Page 155 and 156: environments should be extended to
Page 157 and 158: 12. COTS computer systems cannot be
Page 159 and 160: 14. NAS and airborne network archit
Page 161 and 162: 22. If SWAP considerations permit,
Page 163 and 164: 11.2 TOPICS NEEDING FURTHER STUDY.
Page 165 and 166:
9. Lee, Y., Rachlin, E., and Scandu
Page 167 and 168:
32. Loscocco, P., Smalley, S., Muck
Page 169 and 170:
59. Raisinghani, V. and Sridhar, I.
Page 171 and 172:
the following is a pointer to a rel
Page 173 and 174:
Department of Defense Instruction N
Page 175 and 176:
Information Assurance—The Departm
Page 177 and 178:
Threat source—Either (1) intent a
Page 179 and 180:
information found within these data
Page 181 and 182:
(HTTP) traffic (port 80), port scan
Page 183 and 184:
The simple network management proto
Page 185 and 186:
opportunities to crack the hosting
Page 187 and 188:
authorized to perform. 13 However,
Page 189 and 190:
sniffers, log-cleaning scripts, and
Page 191 and 192:
A.3.1 DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. Th
Page 193 and 194:
• Disclosure: Disclosure of routi
Page 195 and 196:
affected by the signal intermittenc
Page 197 and 198:
A-15. Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y
Page 199 and 200:
Survey Question What is the primary
Page 201 and 202:
Survey Question What is the primary
Page 203 and 204:
should be emphasized that there is
show all

Local Area Networks (LANs) in Aircraft - FTP Directory Listing - FAA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?