I-0456: Regularization Of The Term "Hierarchical"

TYPE:                 NIAP Interpretation
NUMBER:               I-0456
STATUS:               Pending Assignment

TITLE:                Regularization Of The Term "Hierarchical"

SOURCE REFERENCE:     CC v2.1 Part 1 Subclause 4.4.1.3
                      CC v2.1 Part 2 Subclause 2.1.2.3
                      CC v2.1 Part 3 Subclause 2.2
RELATED TO:           <None>

ISSUE:

For example, Part 1, Subclause 4.4.1.3, Para 144 states:

A component describes a specific set of security requirements and is the smallest selectable set of security requirements for inclusion in the structures defined in the CC. The set of components within a family may be ordered to represent increasing strength or capability of security requirements that share a common purpose. They may also be partially ordered to represent related non-hierarchical sets. In some instances, there is only one component in a family so ordering is not applicable.

For example, Part 2, Section 2.1.2.3, Para. 52 says:

The relationships between components within a functional family may or may not be hierarchical. A component is hierarchical to another if it offers more security.

For example, Part 3, Section 2.2, Para 66 says:

In Figure 2.5, above, the class as shown contains a single family. The family contains three components that are linearly hierarchical (i.e. component 2 requires more than component 1, in terms of specific actions, specific evidence, or rigour of the actions or evidence). The assurance families in this Part 3 are all linearly hierarchical, although linearity is not a mandatory criterion for assurance families that may be added in the future.

STATEMENT

SUPPORT: