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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

security issues that potentially impact safety. Figure 26 displays and compares how the Bell- LaPadula Confidentiality and Biba Integrity Models operate. Bell-LaPadula Confidentiality Model Biba Integrity Model High-Sensitivity Level High-Integrity Level Write OK (* property) Read OK (ss property) Medium-Sensitivity Level Medium-Integrity Level Read OK (ss property) Write OK (* property) Low-Sensitivity Level Low-Integrity Level Figure 26. Bell-LaPadula Confidentiality and Biba Integrity Models Compared The Biba Integrity Model was created as a direct analog to the Bell-LaPadula Confidentiality Model to address integrity issues. Specifically, integrity is usually characterized as comprising the following three goals (taken from page 204 of reference 85): • The data or system is protected from modification by unauthorized users or processes. • The data or system is protected from unauthorized modification by authorized users or processes. • The data or system is internally and externally consistent. For example, the data held in a database must balance internally and must accurately correspond to the external, realworld situation that it represents. These integrity issues directly correspond to the safety policy concerns that DO-178B and ARP 4754 address. The Biba Integrity Model shares the same concepts as the Bell-LaPadula Confidentiality Model, except that its mandatory policies are the inverse of each other (see figure 26). The Biba Integrity Model is Lattice-based and uses a lattice structure that represents a set of integrity classes and an ordered relationship among those classes such as the DO-178B levels of safety (see section 6.3). The Biba simple integrity axiom (ss) requires that a subject at one level of 82
integrity is not permitted to observe (read) an object at a lower level of integrity (no read down). The Biba * (star) Integrity axiom requires that an object at one level of integrity is not permitted to modify (write to) an object of a higher level of integrity (no write up), thereby preserving the higher level of integrity. As with the Bell-LaPadula Confidentiality Model, a subject at one level of integrity cannot invoke a subject at a higher level of integrity. Also similar to the Bell-LaPadula Confidentiality Model, the Biba Integrity Model has provisions for HAGs, which enable highly controlled functions to occur that would have otherwise been prohibited by the model. HAGs are trusted subjects that operate in a highly controlled and highly localized manner. However, in the Biba case, the HAG is concerned with integrity issues that permit a highly trusted integrity environment to safely receive communication from a less trusted one in a highly controlled way. For example, a HAG might be inserted into the network to support a Level C software system that needs to communicate with a Level A software system. 6.3 COMPARING CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT SAFETY AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SECURITY LEVELS. 6.3.1 Civil Aircraft Software Levels. The civilian aircraft industry’s DO-178B software levels are: “based upon the contribution of software to potential failure conditions as determined by the system safety assessment process. The software level implies that the level of effort required to show compliance with certification requirements varies with the failure condition category.” (Quoted from Section 2.2.2 of reference 5.) DO-178B defines the following specific failure condition categories. “The categories are: a. Catastrophic: Failure conditions which would prevent continued safe flight and landing. b. Hazardous/Severe-Major: Failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the aircraft of the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions to the extent that there would be: (1) a large reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities, (2) physical distress or higher workload such that the flight crew could not be relied on to perform their tasks accurately or completely, or (3) adverse effects on occupants including serious or potentially fatal injuries to a small number of those occupants. 83
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 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: their own classification level nor
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 and 114: employed in security-critical appli
Page 115 and 116: concept, which is needed to create
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?