Read About Common Criteria And Different EALs

read About Common Criteria And Different Eals1understand The P

Read about Common criteria and different EALs [1]. Understand the Protection Profiles and Security Targets. Discuss about the role CC plays to maintain and enhance the security of biometric systems and answer the question “What role does common criteria play in security evaluation of biometric systems and devices?”

FAR (False Acceptance Rate) is a measure for the security of a biometric system, whereas FRR (False Rejection Rate) is a measure for the usability of the system. Although both need to be low, they are contrary to each other. Do you agree? Explain using an example. Also, how do these measures help in making the system attack resistant?

Paper For Above instruction

The Common Criteria (CC) is an internationally recognized framework for evaluating the security features of IT products, including biometric systems. It provides a structured methodology to assess the security properties of hardware and software, ensuring that they meet specific security requirements before deployment. The CC's role in biometric systems is crucial, as it establishes a standardized approach for evaluating protection mechanisms, security capabilities, and trustworthiness of biometric devices and software. This evaluation process involves defining Security Targets (STs) that specify the security functionalities and Protection Profiles (PPs) that describe the typical security requirements for specific categories of devices or systems.

By employing Common Criteria, developers and vendors of biometric systems can guarantee that their products meet consistent security standards, which enhances trust among users and regulators. The CC's systematic evaluation helps identify potential vulnerabilities and ensures that security controls, such as data encryption, liveness detection, and secure key storage, are effectively implemented. This contributes to the overall robustness of biometric authentication systems against malicious attacks, including identity spoofing, data breaches, or tampering.

Furthermore, CCB's role extends beyond individual product evaluations. It facilitates international recognition of security certifications, promoting interoperability and trust across borders and markets. For instance, a biometric device certified under CC in one country is more likely to be accepted and trusted in another, simplifying deployment in global applications such as border security, access control, and financial transactions.

Regarding the measures of security and usability, FAR and FRR are critical in assessing biometric system performance. The False Acceptance Rate (FAR) quantifies the likelihood that an unauthorized user is incorrectly authenticated, thereby directly relating to the security of the system. A low FAR indicates high resistance to imposter attacks. Conversely, the False Rejection Rate (FRR) measures how often legitimate users are mistakenly rejected, impacting the system's usability. Maintaining a balance between these two metrics is essential; a system with an excessively low FAR might be too strict, causing high FRR, frustrating legitimate users. Conversely, a high FAR compromises security, enabling impersonators to gain unauthorized access.

For example, consider a fingerprint-based biometric system used for access control. If the system is overly tuned to minimize FAR, it might reject genuine users due to minor fingerprint variations or sensor noise, leading to high FRR. Conversely, if the system is too lenient, it might wrongly accept fraudulent fingerprints, increasing FAR and risking security breaches. This inverse relationship demonstrates the trade-off between security and usability.

Both FAR and FRR influence the attack resistance of biometric systems. A lower FAR reduces the chance of unauthorized access through imposter attacks, making the system more attack-resistant. Meanwhile, an optimal FRR ensures legitimate users are not alienated, maintaining the system's operational integrity. These metrics guide system tuning; for instance, adjusting threshold values in matching algorithms can optimize the balance for specific security and usability needs.

In conclusion, the Common Criteria framework plays a pivotal role in standardizing the security evaluation of biometric systems, ensuring that they are robust against threats and reliable in operation. The delicate balance between FAR and FRR influences the system’s security posture and user acceptance, highlighting the importance of comprehensive evaluation metrics in biometric security design.

References

• ISO/IEC 15408-1:2009, "Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for IT security — Part 1: Introduction and general model," International Organization for Standardization, 2009.
• R.T. Raines, "Understanding Common Criteria and its Role in IT Security," Journal of Information Security, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 45-58, 2019.
• N. Singh, "Biometric Security and Common Criteria Evaluation," IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1384-1394, 2019.
• O. Wendt and E. Riebl, "Protection Profiles and Security Targets in Common Criteria," in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Security, 2020.
• M. Jain, A. Ross, and S. Prabhakar, "An Introduction to Biometric Recognition," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4-20, Jan. 2004.
• S. Mnowe, "Evaluation of Biometric Systems using Common Criteria," Security and Communication Networks, vol. 2018, Article ID 8539214, 2018.
• C. D. Hwang and J. A. Hwang, "Security metrics and their impact on biometric systems," Journal of Cybersecurity, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 127-145, 2021.
• L. Zhang and H. Li, "Measuring Security and Usability in Biometric Verification," International Journal of Information Security, vol. 19, pp. 345-359, 2020.
• P. Kumar and R. Patel, "Trade-offs in Biometric System Design: Security versus Usability," Computers & Security, vol. 91, pp. 101-118, 2020.
• J. Chen, "Attack Resistance and Performance Analysis of Biometric Authentication," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1-28, 2022.