text:
Certification Report: 0715a_pdf
BSI-DSZ-CC-0715-2011
PR/SM on IBM System z196 HE GA1, D86E
BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report V1.0
CC-Zert-327 V4.52
Mainframe System
PP Conformance:
Product specific Security Target
Common Criteria Part 2 conformant
Assurance:
EAL 5 augmented by
ALC_FLR.3, ALC_TAT.3, ATE_FUN.2
for components up to
EAL 4
The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility using the
Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 extended by advice of the Certification
Body for components beyond EAL 5 for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC),
Version 3.1.
This certificate applies only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration
and in conjunction with the complete Certification Report.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the certification scheme of the
German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the
evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for Information Security or any
other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by the
Federal Office for Information Security or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
Bonn, 21 July 2011
For the Federal Office for Information Security
Bernd Kowalski
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0 - Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477 - Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
for components up
to EAL 4
Certification Report
This page is intentionally left blank.
Preliminary Remarks
Under the BSIG1 Act, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has the task of
issuing certificates for information technology products.
Certification of a product is carried out on the instigation of the vendor or a distributor,
hereinafter called the sponsor.
A part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product according
to the security criteria published by the BSI or generally recognised security criteria.
The evaluation is normally carried out by an evaluation facility recognised by the BSI or by
BSI itself.
The result of the certification procedure is the present Certification Report. This report
contains among others the certificate (summarised assessment) and the detailed
Certification Results.
The Certification Results contain the technical description of the security functionality of
the certified product, the details of the evaluation (strength and weaknesses) and
instructions for the user.
Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
A Certification........................................................................................................................7
1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure.................................................................7
2 Recognition Agreements................................................................................................7
2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA).........................7
2.2 International Recognition of CC – Certificates (CCRA)...........................................8
3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification..................................................................8
4 Validity of the Certification Result...................................................................................9
5 Publication......................................................................................................................9
B Certification Results.........................................................................................................11
1 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................12
2 Identification of the TOE...............................................................................................14
3 Security Policy..............................................................................................................15
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................................15
5 Architectural Information...............................................................................................15
5.1 Summary of Security Features..............................................................................18
6 Documentation.............................................................................................................21
7 IT Product Testing.........................................................................................................21
7.1 Test Configuration .................................................................................................21
7.2 Developer Testing..................................................................................................21
7.3 Evaluator Testing Effort..........................................................................................22
7.4 Evaluator Penetration Testing................................................................................24
8 Evaluated Configuration...............................................................................................24
9 Results of the Evaluation..............................................................................................25
9.1 CC specific results.................................................................................................25
9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment....................................................................25
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.......................................................25
11 Security Target............................................................................................................26
12 Definitions...................................................................................................................27
12.1 Acronyms.............................................................................................................27
12.2 Glossary...............................................................................................................27
13 Bibliography................................................................................................................29
C Excerpts from the Criteria................................................................................................31
D Annexes...........................................................................................................................41
Specifications of the Certification Procedure
The certification body conducts the procedure according to the criteria laid down in the
BSIG2
BSI Certification Ordinance3
BSI Schedule of Costs4
Special decrees issued by the Bundesministerium des Innern (Federal Ministry of the
Interior)
DIN EN 45011 standard
BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125) [3]
Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1 5 [1]
Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 [2]
BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS) [4]
Recognition Agreements
In order to avoid multiple certification of the same product in different countries a mutual
recognition of IT security certificates - as far as such certificates are based on ITSEC or
CC - under certain conditions was agreed.
European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA)
The SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA) Version 3 became effective in
April 2010. It defines the recognition of certificates for IT-Products at a basic recognition
level and in addition at higher recognition levels for IT-Products related to certain technical
domains only.
The basic recognition level includes Common Criteria (CC) Evaluation Assurance Levels
EAL1 to EAL4 and ITSEC Evaluation Assurance Levels E1 to E3 (basic). For higher
recognition levels the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices has been defined.
It includes assurance levels beyond EAL4 resp. E3 (basic).
The new agreement was initially signed by the national bodies of Finland, France,
Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Ordinance on the Procedure for Issuance of a Certificate by the Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI-Zertifizierungsverordnung, BSIZertV) of 07 July 1992, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 1230
Schedule of Cost for Official Procedures of the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
(BSI-Kostenverordnung, BSI-KostV) of 03 March 2005, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 519
Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern of 12 February 2007 in the Bundesanzeiger dated
23 February 2007, p. 3730
Within the terms of this agreement the German Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI) recognises
for the basic recognition level certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national
certification bodies of France, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom.
for the higher recognition level in the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices
certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national certification bodies of France, The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
In addition, certificates issued for Protection Profiles based on Common Criteria are part of
the recognition agreement.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the
terms of this agreement.
Historically, the first SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement Version 1 (ITSEC only)
became initially effective in March 1998. It was extended in 1999 to include certificates
based on the Common Criteria (MRA Version 2). Recognition of certificates previously
issued under these older versions of the SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement is being
International Recognition of CC – Certificates (CCRA)
An arrangement (Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement) on the mutual recognition of
certificates based on the CC Evaluation Assurance Levels up to and including EAL 4 has
been signed in May 2000 (CCRA). It includes also the recognition of Protection Profiles
based on the CC.
As of January 2009 the arrangement has been signed by the national bodies of: Australia,
Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Pakistan, Republic of Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States of America. The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes
can be seen on the web site: http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org
The Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement logo printed on the certificate indicates
that this certification is recognised under the terms of this agreement.
This evaluation contains the components ADV_FSP.5, ADV_TDS.4, ALC_CMS.5,
ALC_TAT.3, ATE_DPT.3, ATE_FUN.2, and AVA_VAN.4 that are not mutually recognised in
accordance with the provisions of the CCRA. For mutual recognition the EAL4
components of these assurance families are relevant.
Performance of Evaluation and Certification
The certification body monitors each individual evaluation to ensure a uniform procedure, a
uniform interpretation of the criteria and uniform ratings.
The product PR/SM on IBM System z196 HE GA1, D86E has undergone the certification
procedure at BSI.
The evaluation of the product PR/SM on IBM System z196 HE GA1, D86E was conducted
by atsec information security GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 14 July 2011. The
atsec information security GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF) 6 recognised by the
certification body of BSI.
For this certification procedure the sponsor and applicant is: IBM Corporation.
The product was developed by: IBM Corporation.
The certification is concluded with the comparability check and the production of this
Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI.
Validity of the Certification Result
This Certification Report only applies to the version of the product as indicated. The
confirmed assurance package is only valid on the condition that
all stipulations regarding generation, configuration and operation, as given in the
following report, are observed,
the product is operated in the environment described, where specified in the following
report and in the Security Target.
For the meaning of the assurance levels please refer to the excerpts from the criteria at
the end of the Certification Report.
The Certificate issued confirms the assurance of the product claimed in the Security Target
at the date of certification. As attack methods evolve over time, the resistance of the
certified version of the product against new attack methods needs to be re-assessed.
Therefore, the sponsor should apply for the certified product being monitored within the
assurance continuity program of the BSI Certification Scheme (e.g. by a re-certification).
Specifically, if results of the certification are used in subsequent evaluation and certification
procedures, in a system integration process or if a user's risk management needs regularly
updated results, it is recommended to perform a re-assessment on a regular e.g. annual
In case of changes to the certified version of the product, the validity can be extended to
the new versions and releases, provided the sponsor applies for assurance continuity (i.e.
re-certification or maintenance) of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural
requirements, and the evaluation does not reveal any security deficiencies.
The product PR/SM on IBM System z196 HE GA1, D86E has been included in the BSI list
of the certified products, which is published regularly (see also Internet:
https://www.bsi.bund.de and [5]). Further information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline
+49 228 9582-111.
Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the developer 7 of the
product. The Certification Report may also be obtained in electronic form at the internet
address stated above.
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
2455 South Road P329
Poughkeepsie NY 12601
Certification Results
The following results represent a summary of
the Security Target of the sponsor for the Target of Evaluation,
the relevant evaluation results from the evaluation facility, and
complementary notes and stipulations of the certification body.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is PR/SM for IBM z196 Driver Level 86E. PR/SM is a
hardware facility running on IBM System z196 that enables the resources of a single
physical z196 machine to be divided between distinct, predefined logical machines called
"logical partitions". Each logical partition is a domain of execution, and is considered to be
a subject capable of running a conventional system control program (SCP) such as
z/OS™, z/VM™, z/VSE,z/TPF™ or Linux for System z. These operating systems run
unmodified in a PR/SM partition.
The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is not based on a certified
Protection Profile.
The TOE Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) are based entirely on the assurance
components defined in Part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C or [1], Part 3 for details).
The TOE meets the assurance requirements of the Evaluation Assurance Level EAL 5
augmented by ALC_FLR.3, ALC_TAT.3, ATE_FUN.2.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the
Security Target [6], chapter 7.1. Thus the TOE is CC Part 2 conformant.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE
Security Functionalities:
TOE Security Functionality
Addressed issue
Identification and Authentication
The TOE supports identification and authentication of users by means
Access Control and Information
Unique identification via zone numbers assigned to each
logical partition
Unique user IDs assigned to each user of the HMC/SE
The TOE supports access control between users and resources by
means of:
The TOE implements LPAR Security Controls which define a
partition's access to IOCDSs, performance data,
cryptographic hardware, the channel reconfiguration process,
and the authority to reset or shutdown other partitions.
The TOE allows access to specific control units and devices
on non-dedicated channels to be restricted.
The TOE insures that dedicated channels, storage and
physical CPs are never shared.
The TOE will prevent the transfer of any message between a
logical partition and any resource not explicitly allocated to it.
The TOE implements management access controls to define
configurable role based authorized administrator access to the
TOE's management functions.
The TOE supports auditing of relevant events by means of a security
log with the following characteristics:
All security relevant events are recorded in the security log.
This auditing mechanism cannot be bypassed.
Authorized Administration and
The security log is protected from unauthorized deletions or
modifications.
Applications in logical partitions cannot read the security log.
The security log can be offloaded for archival purposes.
The HMC/SE workplace is the window from where users start tasks
for monitoring and operating the CPC (central processor complex). A
user profile determines which tasks and controls users can use on the
workplace. Not all tasks are available for each user.
In addition to a set five predefined user roles supplied with the console
the ability to define customized user roles is also provided. A user role
is a collection of authorizations.
A user role can be created to define the set of tasks allowed for a
given class of user (task roles) or it can be created to define the set of
managed objects that are manageable for a user (managed resource
roles). A customized user role is based on one of the predefined user
roles from which objects or tasks are removed.
Once user roles are defined or customized they can be used to create
new users with their own permissions. A user can be created with one
or more user roles.
Object Reuse
The TOE supports object reuse by means of:
Clearing of all storage prior to allocation or re-allocation.
Resetting all information in physical processors before
dispatching the processor to a new logical partition.
Resetting non-shared channel paths and attached I/O devices
prior to allocation to a logical partition.
The TOE supports the control of the processor running time and wait
completion processor parameters. These parameters provide the
ability to share physical processor resources on either an event-driven
basis or a time-driven basis. Disabling event driven dispatching
causes shared physical processor resources to be distributed on the
basis of time intervals according to the weights specified to effectively
prevent unauthorized denial of service.
TSF Protection
The TOE supports TSF protection by means of:
Self test whenever the TOE is loaded and started and
periodically during the TOE's operation.
The PR/SM kernel is loaded into a protected area of central
storage where it is inaccessible by any users, operating
systems or applications.
An alternate (backup) SE operates to provide real time
mirroring of relevant system data: IOCDSs, audit log, image
profiles.
Table 1: TOE Security Functionalities
For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 1.5.2.
The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6], chapter 3.
Based on these assets the TOE Security Problem is defined in terms of Assumptions,
Threats and Organisational Security Policies. This is outlined in the Security Target [6],
chapter 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE: IBM PR/SM for IBM
System z196 HE at driver level 86E. The TOE is firmware only and is accompanied by
guidance documentation.
The vulnerability assessment results as stated within this certificate do not include a rating
for those cryptographic algorithms and their implementation suitable for encryption and
decryption (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2).
The certification results only apply to the version of the product indicated in the certificate
and on the condition that all the stipulations are kept as detailed in this Certification
Report. This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for
Information Security (BSI) or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by BSI or any other organisation that
recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is either expressed or implied.
Identification of the TOE
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is called:
The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:
No Type Identifier
LPAR Licensed Internal Code (LIC)
D86E
n/a8
HMC/SE Licensed Internal Code (LIC)
DOC Processor Resource/Systems Manager Planning Guide
SB10-7155-00,
DOC Hardware Management Console Operations Guide
SC28-6895-00,
DOC Support Element Operations Guide
DOC Input/Output Configuration Program User's Guide for ICP IOCP
DOC Stand-Alone Input/Output Configuration Program User's Guide
GC28-6892-00, DVD
DOC Installation Manual for Physical Planning
Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE
Note that the customer is not provided with a media that contains the installable LIC. All LIC is installed at
the customer's site by IBM personnel and tested before the system is handed over.
Also the HMC/SE LIC is installed and tested by IBM service personnel prior to actually handing over the
TOE to the customer.
The Security Policy is expressed by the set of Security Functional Requirements and
implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues:
Access Control and Information Flow Control
Authorized Administration and Operation
Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
The Assumptions defined in the Security Target and some aspects of Threats and
organisational Security Policies are not covered by the TOE itself. These aspects lead to
specific security objectives to be fulfilled by the TOE-Environment. The following topics are
of relevance:
Security log data stored off of the TOE must be controlled for confidentiality and
integrity according to the owner's needs.
Personnel working as administrators or other privileged positions must be carefully
selected and trained.
The TOE must be protected during the setup phase.
Physical access and remote access to the HMC and z196 must be restricted only to
authorized and approved users.
The underlying hardware must provide separation mechanism that can be used by
the TOE to protect the TSF and TSF data from unauthorized access and
modification.
The underlying physical I/O LIC must provide separation mechanism that can be
used by the TOE to restrict access of one partition to authorized logical I/O
Details can be found in the Security Target [6], chapter 4.2.
Architectural Information
The TOE is the PR/SM Licensed Internal Code (LIC) kernel running on the z196 and
managing components. The kernel provides the capability to initialize the z196 in LPAR
mode, which is the only mode of operation. The TOE is implemented in LIC. The use of
LIC prevents untrusted code from masquerading as part of the TOE and abusing TOE
privileges. The TOE is composed of:
1. The LPAR LIC running on the Central Processing Complex (CPC) as hypervisor
responsible for maintaining the isolation of logical partitions maintained and
controlled by the TOE.
2. HMC LIC running on the Hardware Management Console (HMC) providing remote
system administration functions to maintain the current configuration. The HMC is
connected over internal network with one or more Support Elements.
3. SE LIC running on the Support Element (SE) physically located in the CPC cabinet
and connected to the CPC. The SE also provides system administration functions to
maintain the current configuration and can be used independently from an HMC
connected to it.
PR/SM LIC provides the security administrator the ability to define a completely secure
system configuration. When the system is defined in such a manner, total separation of the
logical partitions is achieved thereby preventing a partition from gaining any knowledge of
another partition's operation.
Only functions related to logical partition isolation, physical resource allocation, access
control and audit are the subject of this Security Target. Additional functions of PR/SM
related to normal operations and maintenance of the system are not considered as
security enforcing functions because the TOE will be configured to provide a configuration
consistent with secure isolation such that these operations cannot be in conflict with the
security policy of PR/SM.
The other functions are therefore not evaluated for correctness and no vulnerability
analysis for those functions is performed.
The address space of the TSF is isolated from the address space of the partitions by
hardware protection mechanisms (the "start interpretive execution" (SIE) instruction
provided by the underlying processor as described below), and by the provision of
separate hardware for the SE and I/O (SAP) processors. The TSF LIC and data is
therefore protected from modification or tampering.
The security administrator uses an I/O configuration utility (IOCP) to define an IOCDS of
the I/O resources and their allocation to specific logical partitions. The IOCDS should be
verified by the security administrator prior to activating the partitions. PR/SM allows I/O
resources to be dedicated to a single partition, relocatable among a defined set of
partitions, or shared by a defined set of partitions. When a administrator wishes to activate
a partition, the activation request is initiated from the HMC. LPAR will receive an external
interrupt and issue an instruction to obtain the description of the partition the administrator
wishes to activate. LPAR will attempt to construct the partition and will inform the HMC of
the success or failure of the command.
Several IOCDSs, defining different configurations, may be stored but only one is in effect
at anytime. The configuration becomes effective as part of the activation sequence.
Standard hardware resources such as a central processor, including computation and
control registers, timers, clocks and storage; and I/O resources are objects allocated to
logical partitions. These objects are subject to a non-discretionary access control policy
under which each logical partition is only permitted access to resources allocated to it.
Logical partitions are logical objects that are built from existing physical objects. These
logical objects fall into one of three classes:
a) Logical processor facilities, which are supported by similar physical objects. Each
such logical object is represented by an internal control block that contains current
state information each time context is switched to a different logical partition.
b) Logical storage, both central and expanded, is represented by the same amount of
contiguous physical storage. PR/SM does not perform paging or move logical
partitions once they have been placed in real storage. Physical storage can be deallocated from one logical partition and reallocated to another. This feature can be
disabled, and is subject to full object reuse control.
c) Logical I/O resources (channels) are implemented by physical resources of the
same type. Such resources can be configured so that they are not shared by
partitions. A channel can be de-allocated from one logical partition and reallocated
to another, under the control of the security administrator.
The z/Architecture® and ESA/390® architecture support two instruction states: problem
and supervisor. Problem state instructions can be executed in either problem or supervisor
state. Semi-privileged instructions can be executed in supervisor state, or in problem state
subject to one or more additional authorizations. Privileged instructions can be executed
only in supervisor state. PR/SM exports a virtual machine including all architected
instructions, and initiates the execution in supervisor state, so that all three classes of
instruction can be executed within the logical partition. Thus each logical partition has both
execution states available. PR/SM does not interfere with the logical partition's use of
those states. A system control program (SCP) running in a logical partition can support z
and ESA/390 architectural mode. The SCP can define whether it is running in
z/Architecture mode or ESA/390 mode by a use of a SIGP instruction. Typically if the SCP
understands z/Architecture mode it gets into z/Architecture mode immediately and remains
in that mode. But z/OS will switch back to ESA/390 if it needs to load the standalone dump
PR/SM supports and uses the "start interpretive execution" (SIE) instruction to create an
interpretative execution environment in which the logical partitions execute. PR/SM begins
execution in non-SIE mode. When a logical partition is to be activated PR/SM establishes
the parameters for each logical processor allocated to the partition in a control block called
a "state description". PR/SM executes a SIE instruction, which dispatches the logical
processor in SIE mode. The PR/SM hardware executes instructions in the logical
processor in SIE mode until an exception condition occurs, which causes control to return
to PR/SM in non-SIE mode. The exception conditions are events that cannot be handled in
interpretative mode. PR/SM receives control in non-SIE mode. PR/SM maintains a state
description for each logical processor of each logical partition so that each time a logical
processor is dispatched, it is in the same context as when it last had control. Since this
state description is updated by the hardware, it is impossible for one logical partition to
acquire control with the wrong context (i.e. the context of another logical partition).The
non-SIE/SIE distinction is a powerful privilege differentiation between PR/SM and the
logical partitions.
The z196 provides support for several features that are very helpful in many customer
environments. However, these features are not recommended in a secure environment. As
a result, the TOE provides security related controls to disable such features assuring
separation of the logical partition(s). The security related controls are outlined below:
Logical Partition Isolation
This control reserves reconfigurable unshared channel paths for the exclusive use
of a logical partition. Channel paths assigned to an isolated logical partition are not
available to other logical partitions and remain reserved for that LP when they are
configured offline.
I/O Configuration Control Authority
This control can limit the ability of the logical partition to read or write any IOCDS in
the configuration locally or remotely. Logical partitions with control authority for the
I/O configuration data can read and write any non-write protected IOCDS in the
configuration,and can change the I/O configuration dynamically.
Global Performance Data Control Authority
This control limits the ability of a logical partition to view central processor activity
data for other logical partitions. Logical partitions with control authority for global
performance data can view CP utilization data and Input/Output (IOP) busy data for
all of the logical partitions in the configuration. A logical partition without control
authority for the performance data can view only the CP utilization data for itself.
Cross-Partition Authority
This control can limit the capability of the logical partition to issue certain control
program instructions that affect other logical partitions. Logical partitions with
cross-partition authority can issue instructions to perform a system reset of another
logical partition,deactivate any other logical partition, and provide support for the
automatic reconfiguration facility.
In addition to the security controls mentioned above, the TOE also insures that central and
expanded storage for each logical partition is isolated and cannot be shared with other
logical partitions. The TOE rigidly enforces this "no sharing" rule during logical partition
definition, logical partition activation, logical partition reconfiguration and during logical
partition execution.
The TOE also "removes" central processors (CPs) from logical partitions by virtualizing
physical CPs. Virtualized physical CPs are referred to as logical processors. Within the
TOE, each logical CP is represented as a data structure that is associated with its specific
logical partitions preventing the transfer of data between partitions.
Thus, when PR/SM is initialized for secure operation, one partition cannot gain access to
the data within another partition nor modify any aspect of another partition. With
z/Architecture or ESA/390 architecture (which includes the functions of ESA/370
Architecture),these models have problem-program compatibility with S/360TM, S/370TM,
and 4300 processors. They can access virtual storage in multiple address spaces and
data spaces. This extends addressability for system, sub-system, and application functions
that use z/Architecture or ESA/390 architecture.
Summary of Security Features
Identification and
The TOE supports identification and authentication of users by means of:
Unique identification via zone numbers assigned to each logical
For the logical partitions, there is no specific password. The logical partition
is authenticated by its existence in the I/O Configuration Dataset (IOCDS)
definition when activation occurs. The zone number is used to mediate
access between the logical partition and the physical resources of the
processor assigned to that logical partition.
For the HMC/SE user, the required passwords are assigned by the security
administrator. The use of the user ID and password allows the user of the
HMC/SE to invoke the various functions that are defined as being allowed
for that user ID.
Access Control and
Information Flow Control
Authorized Administration
and Operation
partition's access to IOCDSs, performance data, cryptographic
hardware, the channel reconfiguration process, and the authority to
reset or shutdown other partitions.
The TOE allows access to specific control units and devices on
non-dedicated channels to be restricted.
The TOE insures that dedicated channels, storage and physical
CPs are never shared.
The TOE will prevent the transfer of any message between a logical
partition and any resource not explicitly allocated to it.
The TOE supports auditing of relevant events by means of a security log
with the following characteristics:
All security relevant events are recorded in the security log. This
auditing mechanism cannot be bypassed.
PR/SM is a hardware facility that enables the resources of a single physical
machine to be divided between distinct, predefined logical machines, called
"logical partitions". The HMC/SE workplace is the window from where users
start tasks for monitoring and operating the CPC (central processor
complex). A user profile determines which tasks and controls users can use
on the workplace. Not all tasks are available for each user.
The following predefined default user IDs are established as part of base
HMCs/SEs.
Operator - A person with operator authority typically performs basic system
start up and shutdown operations using predefine procedures.
Advanced Operator - A person with advanced operator authority
possesses operator authority plus the ability to perform some additional
recovery and maintenance tasks.
Programmer - A person with programmer authority has the ability to
customize the system in order to determine its operation.
Access Administrator - A person with access administrator authority has
the ability to create,modify, or delete user profiles on the HMC or for service
mode on the support element. A user profile consists of user identification, a
password, managed resource roles and task roles
Service Representative - A person with service representative authority
has access to tasks related to the repair and maintenance of the system.
In addition to the predefined user roles supplied with the console the ability
to define customized user roles is also provided. A user role is a collection of
authorizations. A user role can be created to define the set of tasks allowed
for a given class of user (task roles) or it can be created to define the set of
managed objects that are manageable for a user (managed resource roles).
A customized user role is based on one of the predefined user roles from
which objects or tasks are removed.
Once user roles are defined or customized they can be used to create new
users with their own permissions. A user can be created with one or more
user roles.
The following general definitions can be established:
Security Administrator
Any user(s) of the HMC/SE workplace who is defined with a user
role(s) containing at least all of the following tasks:
Archive Security Logs
Change LPAR Controls
Change LPAR Group Controls
Change LPAR I/O Priority Queuing
Change LPAR Security
Customize/Delete Activation Profiles
Customize User Controls
Input/Output (I/O) Configuration
Logical Processor Add
Manage Users Wizard
Reassign Channel Path
View Security Logs
The Administrator is defined to be any user(s) with access to the
HMC/SE workplace.
A detailed list of the console actions authorized for each predefined role is
contained in the document [8].
Resetting all information in physical processors before dispatching
the processor to a new logical partition.
Resetting non-shared channel paths and attached I/O devices prior
to allocation to a logical partition.
completion processor parameters. These parameters provide the ability to
share physical processor resources on either an event-driven basis or a
time-driven basis. Disabling event driven dispatching causes shared
physical processor resources to be distributed on the basis of time intervals
according to the weights specified to effectively prevent unauthorized denial
of service
Self test whenever the TOE is loaded and started and periodically
during the TOE's operation.
The PR/SM kernel is loaded into a protected area of central storage
where it is inaccessible by any users, operating systems or
An alternate (backup) SE operates to provide real time mirroring of
relevant system data: IOCDSs, audit log, image profiles.
Table 3: Summary of security features
The evaluated documentation as outlined in table 2 is being provided with the product to
the customer. This documentation contains the required information for secure usage of
the TOE in accordance with the Security Target [6].
Additional obligations and notes for secure usage of the TOE as outlined in chapter 10 of
this report have to be followed.
IT Product Testing
Test Configuration
With respect to the underlying hardware used, the test configuration is identical to the
evaluated configuration of the TOE. However, some of the configuration requirements
mandated by [9] do not fully apply to the test configuration as they refer to secure
operation of the TOE at the customer's site. Moreover, in some cases overriding
safeguards mandated for the TOE, like, for instance, security authorities settings for
partitions, was required to actually perform tests related to that safeguard, i.e. to verify that
with an authority enabled, a logical partition in fact may perform actions but cannot do so
with that authority removed.
The evaluator assessed the configuration deviations identified during his analysis of
developer test cases and test approach and concluded that the configuration tested by the
developer was consistent with the evaluated configuration of the TOE. When performing
his independent tests, the evaluator deliberately invalidated the configuration requirements
in order to observe the behaviour of the TOE, which he also considered a valid and
acceptable approach. At any time during his testing, the evaluator considered the TOE to
be in its evaluated configuration.
Developer Testing
For security specific testing the evaluator identified the following developer testing effort:
The security test suite is run for any major driver change.
A random subset of the security test suite must be included in the driver regression
This ensures that changes to the driver do not affect the security functions of the TOE.
There is significant more effort spent by the developer in addition to the security specific
New features that are implemented in the TOE have to follow the strict development
procedures. This includes, that in parallel to the design, test cases need to be
written. This is done by creating test variation lists, i.e. checking what variations of
inputs, configurations etc. need to be tested, and writing test cases. The whole
process is shadowed by review cycles ensuring a broad agreement, and coverage
of all necessary test scenarios. If the design documentation points out that other
parts of the system may be affected by the new feature, test cases are written to
verify that there is no negative impact. Tests must complete successfully before the
new feature is approved.
If errors are reported the TOE gets fixed by the developer. After fixing the bug and
informal testing by the developer, the new built driver is tested to verify that the bug
is fixed. Normal regression tests ensure that the TOE as a whole is still functional.
New drivers are tested using an internal proprietary test program, which is also
included in the test suite. The internal proprietary test program is used for rigorous
and continuous testing of the TOE. It provides a pseudo-random stream of
instructions from a customizable set of instructions that are issued to a logical
partition thus simulating a running application. The tool would reveal unexpected
system behavior during the intense test runs on the TOE, e.g. if some processor
instructions are not properly simulated by the TOE. Running the internal proprietary
test program successfully for a long period without crash and without detecting
unexpected behaviour, gives a rather good confidence that the TOE is working
As pointed out in work unit ATE_FUN.2-3, there are no specific configuration requirements
for the TOE to be tested in its evaluated configuration apart from running the tests on one
of the hardware platforms listed in the ST using the appropriate version of the TOE (i.e. the
driver level D86E) and configuring the separation conditions as required by assumption
A.Sep_Strength and Appendix C of [9].
Additional requirements and assumptions from the ST may be neglected for testing since
they have been considered to have no impact on the testing itself nor do they impact the
security functionality of the TOE.
The evaluator concluded that the configuration chosen for developer testing was in
accordance with the evaluated configuration as defined by the ST.
The tests performed by the developer were at the level of the modules of the TOE design
as demonstrated in the respective work units of ATE_DPT.3.
The actual test results obtained by the developer during the developer testing performed in
September 2010 matched the expected test results laid down in the test documentation.
Also, the internal proprietary test program did not return any deviation from the
z/Architecture definition.
Evaluator Testing Effort
The following testing was performed by the evaluator:
a) TOE test configurations:
The tests were performed on the following system:
System 93775, a zSeries z196 EC server with 29 central processors at
microcode driver level 86E. This configuration is consistent with the platform
configuration given in the ST.
The driver level was identified by the evaluator using the System Information Panel
on the Support Element logged on in SERVICE mode. The System Information
Panel stated driver level D86E, which matches the TOE version stated in the ST.
The general machine configuration was modified on a test-specific basis (e.g. by
defining specific IOCDS) to adapt the machine configuration to the test purpose. No
external connectivity was enabled throughout the tests. As a result of this setup, the
TOE at any time was in its evaluated configuration when performing the evaluator
tests.
b) Subset size chosen; selection criteria for the interfaces that compose the
subset; interfaces tested; developer tests performed:
The evaluator performed a subset of the developer test suite deliberately skipping
the internal proprietary test program, which has already been confirmed to be
effective by multiple evaluations. The sampled subset chosen was considered
appropriate in size, since more than 80% of all tests have been re-performed by the
evaluator.
The following security functions as stated in the ST were subject to testing:
1. Identification and Authentication
2. Access Control and Information Flow Control
3. Audit and Accountability
4. Authorized Administration
5. Authorized Operations
6. Reliability of Service
7. Self Test Self Test
As a result of testing the above mentioned security functions, the following
interfaces (TSFI) have been included in the evaluator testing:
1. GUI as part of testing of all security functions
2. z/Architecture as part of tests related to security function Authorized
3. Proprietary internal interfaces as part of tests related to all tested security
functions except Self Test
4. CHSC as part of tests related to security functions Authorized Operations
and Object Reuse
5. IOCP as part of tests related to security function Access Control and
6. SIE as part of all tests that involve running LPARs
The subset chosen by the evaluator covers all interfaces to the TOE security
In addition to repetition of developer tests, the evaluator applied variations to the
test steps and input data and observed the deviating results of the TOE.
c) Verdict for the activity:
The overall judgement on the results of testing during the evaluation is that all
security tests passed, i.e. the actual results achieved by the evaluator either exactly
matched the expected results, or, in case of test variations, matched the
expectation of the evaluator.
By using developer tests as base for independent testing, the evaluator achieved the same
test depth as the developer when performing the developer tests. Therefore, the tests
performed by the evaluator were at the level of the modules of the TOE design.
There were no failed tests that were caused by TOE behavior different from the expected
behavior or violating requirements stated in ST.
Evaluator Penetration Testing
The evaluator did neither devise nor conduct additional penetration testing apart from his
source code analysis performed with respect to an identified potential vulnerability. That
analysis at level of the LPAR LIC source code was based on an assumed misuse of a
proprietary internal interface in order to gain unauthorized access to storage areas actually
allocated to partitions other than the partition using that proprietary internal interface.
Examination of the implementation revealed that no such penetration is feasible.
Evaluated Configuration
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:
The Target of Evaluation is IBM PR/SM for IBM System z196 HE at driver level 86E. The
TOE is firmware only and is accompanied by guidance documentation. The items listed in
table "Scope of supply" of this report represent the TOE.
The TOE can be run on a number of hardware models all belonging to the IBM System
z196 HE server family. The various machine models are not part of the TOE but provide
the underlying abstract machine for TOE operation. The supported machine models differ
with respect to the number of available central processors. However, those differences
have no impact on the validity of the evaluation activities performed.
A detailed list of supported machine models is given in section 1.5.3 of the ST [6] which is
the base for evaluation.
The evaluated configuration of the TOE is defined by the mandatory configuration
requirements to be met as stated in section "Trusted Configuration" in Appendix C of [9].
The ST [6] directly redirects readers to this document, which is part of the deliverables as
listed in table "Scope of supply".
Results of the Evaluation
CC specific results
The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [7] was provided by the ITSEF according to the
Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all
interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE.
The Evaluation Methodology CEM [2] was used for those components up to EAL5
extended by advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL 5 [4] (AIS 34).
As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance
All components of the EAL 5 package including the class ASE as defined in the CC (see
also part C of this report)
The components ALC_FLR.3, ALC_TAT.3, ATE_FUN.2 augmented for this TOE
evaluation.
The evaluation has confirmed:
for the Functionality:
for the Assurance:
EAL 5 augmented by ALC_FLR.3, ALC_TAT.3, ATE_FUN.2
For specific evaluation results regarding the development and production environment see
annex B in part D of this report.
The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the TOE as defined in chapter 2 and
the configuration as outlined in chapter 8 above.
Results of cryptographic assessment
The TOE does not include cryptographic mechanisms. Thus, no such mechanisms were
part of the assessment.
Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE
The documents as outlined in table 2 contain necessary information about the usage of the
TOE and all security hints therein have to be considered. In addition all aspects of
assumptions, threats and policies as outlined in the Security Target not covered by the
TOE itself need to be fulfilled by the operational environment of the TOE.
The customer or user of the product shall consider the results of the certification within his
system risk management process. In order for the evolution of attack methods and
techniques to be covered, he should define the period of time until a re-assessment for the
TOE is required and thus requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
If available, certified updates of the TOE should be used. If non-certified updates or
patches are available the user of the TOE should request the sponsor to provide a recertification. In the meantime a risk management process of the system using the TOE
should investigate and decide on the usage of not yet certified updates and patches or
take additional measures in order to maintain system security.
Security Target
For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [6] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is
provided within a separate document as Annex A of this report.
12.1 Acronyms
Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for
Information Security, Bonn, Germany
BSIG
BSI-Gesetz / Act on the Federal Office for Information Security
CCRA
Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation
Evaluation Assurance Level
Evaluation Technical Report
ITSEC
Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria
ITSEF
Protection Profile
Security Assurance Requirement
Security Function Policy
Security Functional Requirement
Target of Evaluation
TOE Security Functionalities
Augmentation - The addition of one or more requirement(s) to a package.
Extension - The addition to an ST or PP of functional requirements not contained in part 2
and/or assurance requirements not contained in part 3 of the CC.
Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on wellestablished mathematical concepts.
Informal - Expressed in natural language.
Object - An passive entity in the TOE, that contains or receives information, and upon
which subjects perform operations.
Protection Profile - An implementation-independent statement of security needs for a
TOE type.
Security Target - An implementation-dependent statement of security needs for a specific
identified TOE.
Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics.
Subject - An active entity in the TOE that performs operations on objects.
Target of Evaluation - A set of software, firmware and/or hardware possibly accompanied
by guidance.
TOE Security Functionality - combined functionality of all hardware, software, and
firmware of a TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the SFRs
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
Part 1: Introduction and general model, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 2: Security functional components, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 3: Security assurance components, Revision 3, July 2009
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM),
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009
BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125)
Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE10.
German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148), periodically updated list published also
in the BSI Website
Security Target BSI-DSZ-CC-0715-2011, Version 10.7, 2011-07-08, Public Version
of the Security Target for PR/SM for IBM z196, IBM Corporation
Evaluation Technical Report, Version 1, 2011-07-13, Final Evaluation Technical
Report, atsec information security GmbH, (confidential document)
Hardware Management Console Operations Guide, Version 2.11.0, 2010-10-01
Processor Resource/Systems Manager Planning Guide, Version SB10-7155-00
Level 00a, 2011-04
AIS 32, Version 6, 3 August 2010, CC-Interpretationen im deutschen Zertifizierungsschema
AIS 34, Version 3, 3 September 2009, Evaluation Methodology for CC Assurance Classes for EAL5+
(CCv2.3 & CCv3.1) and EAL6 (CCv3.1)
Excerpts from the Criteria
CC Part1:
Conformance Claim (chapter 10.4)
"The conformance claim indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is met
by a PP or ST that passes its evaluation. This conformance claim contains a CC
conformance claim that:
describes the version of the CC to which the PP or ST claims conformance.
describes the conformance to CC Part 2 (security functional requirements) as either:
– CC Part 2 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 conformant if all SFRs in that
PP or ST are based only upon functional components in CC Part 2, or
– CC Part 2 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 extended if at least one SFR in
that PP or ST is not based upon functional components in CC Part 2.
describes the conformance to CC Part 3 (security assurance requirements) as either:
– CC Part 3 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 conformant if all SARs in that
PP or ST are based only upon assurance components in CC Part 3, or
– CC Part 3 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 extended if at least one SAR in
that PP or ST is not based upon assurance components in CC Part 3.
Additionally, the conformance claim may include a statement made with respect to
packages, in which case it consists of one of the following:
Package name Conformant - A PP or ST is conformant to a pre-defined package
(e.g. EAL) if:
– the SFRs of that PP or ST are identical to the SFRs in the package, or
– the SARs of that PP or ST are identical to the SARs in the package.
Package name Augmented - A PP or ST is an augmentation of a predefined package
– the SFRs of that PP or ST contain all SFRs in the package, but have at least
one additional SFR or one SFR that is hierarchically higher than an SFR in the
– the SARs of that PP or ST contain all SARs in the package, but have at least
one additional SAR or one SAR that is hierarchically higher than an SAR in the
Note that when a TOE is successfully evaluated to a given ST, any conformance claims of
the ST also hold for the TOE. A TOE can therefore also be e.g. CC Part 2 conformant.
Finally, the conformance claim may also include two statements with respect to Protection
PP Conformant - A PP or TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the
conformance result.
Conformance Statement (Only for PPs) - This statement describes the manner in
which PPs or STs must conform to this PP: strict or demonstrable. For more
information on this Conformance Statement, see Annex D."
CC Part 3:
Class APE: Protection Profile evaluation (chapter 10)
"Evaluating a PP is required to demonstrate that the PP is sound and internally consistent,
and, if the PP is based on one or more other PPs or on packages, that the PP is a correct
instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the PP to be
suitable for use as the basis for writing an ST or another PP.
Assurance Class
Assurance Components
APE_INT.1 PP introduction
APE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
Class APE: Protection
APE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
APE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
APE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
APE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
APE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
APE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
APE: Protection Profile evaluation class decomposition"
Class ASE: Security Target evaluation (chapter 11)
"Evaluating an ST is required to demonstrate that the ST is sound and internally
consistent, and, if the ST is based on one or more PPs or packages, that the ST is a
correct instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the
ST to be suitable for use as the basis for a TOE evaluation."
ASE_INT.1 ST introduction
ASE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
Class ASE: Security
ASE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
Target evaluation
ASE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
ASE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
ASE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
ASE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
ASE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
ASE_TSS.1 TOE summary specification
ASE_TSS.2 TOE summary specification with architectural design
ASE: Security Target evaluation class decomposition
Security assurance components (chapter 7)
"The following Sections describe the constructs used in representing the assurance
classes, families, and components."
"Each assurance class contains at least one assurance family."
"Each assurance family contains one or more assurance components."
The following table shows the assurance class decomposition.
ADV: Development
ADV_ARC.1 Security architecture description
ADV_FSP.1 Basic functional specification
ADV_FSP.2 Security-enforcing functional specification
ADV_FSP.3 Functional specification with complete summary
ADV_FSP.4 Complete functional specification
ADV_FSP.5 Complete semi-formal functional specification with
additional error information
additional formal specification
ADV_IMP.1 Implementation representation of the TSF
ADV_IMP.2 Implementation of the TSF
ADV_INT.1 Well-structured subset of TSF internals
ADV_INT.2 Well-structured internals
ADV_INT.3 Minimally complex internals
ADV_SPM.1 Formal TOE security policy model
ADV_TDS.1 Basic design
ADV_TDS.2 Architectural design
ADV_TDS.3 Basic modular design
ADV_TDS.4 Semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.5 Complete semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.6 Complete semiformal modular design with formal highlevel design presentation
AGD:
AGD_OPE.1 Operational user guidance
AGD_PRE.1 Preparative procedures
ALC_CMC.1 Labelling of the TOE
ALC_CMC.2 Use of a CM system
ALC_CMC.3 Authorisation controls
ALC_CMC.4 Production support, acceptance procedures and
ALC_CMC.5 Advanced support
ALC: Life cycle support
ALC_CMS.1 TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.2 Parts of the TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.3 Implementation representation CM coverage
ALC_CMS.4 Problem tracking CM coverage
ALC_CMS.5 Development tools CM coverage
ALC_DEL.1 Delivery procedures
ALC_DVS.1 Identification of security measures
ALC_DVS.2 Sufficiency of security measures
ALC_FLR.1 Basic flaw remediation
ALC_FLR.2 Flaw reporting procedures
ALC_FLR.3 Systematic flaw remediation
ALC_LCD.1 Developer defined life-cycle model
ALC_LCD.2 Measurable life-cycle model
ALC_TAT.1 Well-defined development tools
ALC_TAT.2 Compliance with implementation standards
ALC_TAT.3 Compliance with implementation standards - all parts
ATE_COV.1 Evidence of coverage
ATE_COV.2 Analysis of coverage
ATE_COV.3 Rigorous analysis of coverage
ATE: Tests
ATE_DPT.1 Testing: basic design
ATE_DPT.2 Testing: security enforcing modules
ATE_DPT.3 Testing: modular design
ATE_DPT.4 Testing: implementation representation
ATE_FUN.1 Functional testing
ATE_FUN.2 Ordered functional testing
ATE_IND.1 Independent testing – conformance
ATE_IND.2 Independent testing – sample
ATE_IND.3 Independent testing – complete
AVA: Vulnerability
AVA_VAN.1 Vulnerability survey
AVA_VAN.2 Vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.3 Focused vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.4 Methodical vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.5 Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis
Assurance class decomposition
Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 8)
"The Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs) provide an increasing scale that balances the
level of assurance obtained with the cost and feasibility of acquiring that degree of
assurance. The CC approach identifies the separate concepts of assurance in a TOE at
the end of the evaluation, and of maintenance of that assurance during the operational use
of the TOE.
It is important to note that not all families and components from CC Part 3 are included in
the EALs. This is not to say that these do not provide meaningful and desirable
assurances. Instead, it is expected that these families and components will be considered
for augmentation of an EAL in those PPs and STs for which they provide utility."
Evaluation assurance level (EAL) overview (chapter 8.1)
"Table 1 represents a summary of the EALs. The columns represent a hierarchically
ordered set of EALs, while the rows represent assurance families. Each number in the
resulting matrix identifies a specific assurance component where applicable.
As outlined in the next Section, seven hierarchically ordered evaluation assurance levels
are defined in the CC for the rating of a TOE's assurance. They are hierarchically ordered
inasmuch as each EAL represents more assurance than all lower EALs. The increase in
assurance from EAL to EAL is accomplished by substitution of a hierarchically higher
assurance component from the same assurance family (i.e. increasing rigour, scope,
and/or depth) and from the addition of assurance components from other assurance
families (i.e. adding new requirements).
These EALs consist of an appropriate combination of assurance components as described
in Chapter 7 of this CC Part 3. More precisely, each EAL includes no more than one
component of each assurance family and all assurance dependencies of every component
are addressed.
While the EALs are defined in the CC, it is possible to represent other combinations of
assurance. Specifically, the notion of "augmentation" allows the addition of assurance
components (from assurance families not already included in the EAL) or the substitution
of assurance components (with another hierarchically higher assurance component in the
same assurance family) to an EAL. Of the assurance constructs defined in the CC, only
EALs may be augmented. The notion of an "EAL minus a constituent assurance
component" is not recognised by the standard as a valid claim. Augmentation carries with
it the obligation on the part of the claimant to justify the utility and added value of the
added assurance component to the EAL. An EAL may also be augmented with extended
assurance requirements.
Assurance Components by
EAL1
ADV_ARC
ADV_FSP
ADV_IMP
ADV_INT
ADV_SPM
ADV_TDS
AGD_OPE
AGD_PRE
ALC_CMC
ALC_CMS
ALC_DEL
ALC_DVS
ALC_FLR
ALC_LCD
ALC_TAT
ASE_CCL
ASE_ECD
ASE_INT
ASE_OBJ
ASR_REQ
ASE_SPD
ASE_TSS
ATE_COV
ATE_DPT
ATE_FUN
ATE_IND
AVA_VAN
Table 1: Evaluation assurance level summary"
Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 8.3)
EAL1 is applicable where some confidence in correct operation is required, but the threats
to security are not viewed as serious. It will be of value where independent assurance is
required to support the contention that due care has been exercised with respect to the
protection of personal or similar information.
EAL1 requires only a limited security target. It is sufficient to simply state the SFRs that the
TOE must meet, rather than deriving them from threats, OSPs and assumptions through
security objectives.
EAL1 provides an evaluation of the TOE as made available to the customer, including
independent testing against a specification, and an examination of the guidance
documentation provided. It is intended that an EAL1 evaluation could be successfully
conducted without assistance from the developer of the TOE, and for minimal outlay.
An evaluation at this level should provide evidence that the TOE functions in a manner
consistent with its documentation."
Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 8.4)
EAL2 requires the co-operation of the developer in terms of the delivery of design
information and test results, but should not demand more effort on the part of the
developer than is consistent with good commercial practise. As such it should not require a
substantially increased investment of cost or time.
EAL2 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
low to moderate level of independently assured security in the absence of ready
availability of the complete development record. Such a situation may arise when securing
legacy systems, or where access to the developer may be limited."
Evaluation assurance level 3 (EAL3) - methodically tested and checked (chapter 8.5)
EAL3 permits a conscientious developer to gain maximum assurance from positive
security engineering at the design stage without substantial alteration of existing sound
development practises.
EAL3 is applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a moderate
level of independently assured security, and require a thorough investigation of the TOE
and its development without substantial re-engineering."
Evaluation assurance level 4 (EAL4) - methodically designed, tested, and reviewed
EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering
based on good commercial development practises which, though rigorous, do not require
substantial specialist knowledge, skills, and other resources. EAL4 is the highest level at
which it is likely to be economically feasible to retrofit to an existing product line.
moderate to high level of independently assured security in conventional commodity TOEs
and are prepared to incur additional security-specific engineering costs."
Evaluation assurance level 5 (EAL5) - semiformally designed and tested (chapter 8.7)
EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering based
upon rigorous commercial development practises supported by moderate application of
specialist security engineering techniques. Such a TOE will probably be designed and
developed with the intent of achieving EAL5 assurance. It is likely that the additional costs
attributable to the EAL5 requirements, relative to rigorous development without the
application of specialised techniques, will not be large.
high level of independently assured security in a planned development and require a
rigorous development approach without incurring unreasonable costs attributable to
specialist security engineering techniques."
Evaluation assurance level 6 (EAL6) - semiformally verified design and tested
EAL6 permits developers to gain high assurance from application of security engineering
techniques to a rigorous development environment in order to produce a premium TOE for
protecting high value assets against significant risks.
EAL6 is therefore applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in high
risk situations where the value of the protected assets justifies the additional costs."
Evaluation assurance level 7 (EAL7) - formally verified design and tested
EAL7 is applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in extremely high
risk situations and/or where the high value of the assets justifies the higher costs. Practical
application of EAL7 is currently limited to TOEs with tightly focused security functionality
that is amenable to extensive formal analysis."
Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment (chapter 16)
"The AVA: Vulnerability assessment class addresses the possibility of exploitable
vulnerabilities introduced in the development or the operation of the TOE."
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VAN) (chapter 16.1)
"Objectives
Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether potential vulnerabilities
identified, during the evaluation of the development and anticipated operation of the TOE
or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses or quantitative or statistical analysis of the
security behaviour of the underlying security mechanisms), could allow attackers to violate
the SFRs.
Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that an attacker will be able to discover flaws
that will allow unauthorised access to data and functionality, allow the ability to interfere
with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users."
This page is intentionally left blank
List of annexes of this certification report
Annex A:
Security Target provided within a separate document.
Annex B:
Evaluation results regarding development and production environment
Annex B of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0715-2011
Evaluation results regarding
The IT product PR/SM on IBM System z196 HE GA1, D86E (Target of Evaluation, TOE)
has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for
IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 extended by advice of the Certification Body for
components beyond EAL 5 for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security
Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1.
As a result of the TOE certification, dated 21 July 2011, the following results regarding the
development and production environment apply. The Common Criteria assurance
requirements ALC – Life cycle support (ALC_CMC.4, ALC_CMS.5, ALC_DEL.1,
ALC_DVS.1, ALC_FLR.3, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.3).
are fulfilled for the development and production sites of the TOE listed below:
Poughkeepsie (POK); 2455 South Rd, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, USA
(development site)
Endicott (END); 1701 North Street Endicott, NY, USA
For the sites listed above, the requirements have been specifically applied in accordance
with the Security Target [6]. The evaluators verified, that the threats, security objectives
and requirements for the TOE life cycle phases up to delivery (as stated in the Security
Target [6]) are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites.
Certification Report: 0427a
CEMV3.1R3 - marked changes
Evaluation methodology (Draft v3.0, Rev 2)
CEMV3.1R4_marked_changes
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation Evaluation methodology
Security Target: 0324b


Welcome to Morehead Manor, a one-of-a-kind Durham bed and breakfast where elegance, excitement, and hospitality meet.
Originally built for the CEO of Liggett and Meyers, the Manor is a splendidly redecorated 8,000 square-foot, Colonial Revival-style home. Morehead Manor is located within walking distance to the Downtown area, the Durham Bulls Athletic Park, the Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC), and the historic Brightleaf Square; it is also just moments away from Duke University, North Carolina Central University, Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, RDU International Airport, and is easily accessible to both Interstates 85 and 40.
The Manor has four spacious guest rooms, each with a private bath. The Magnolia Suite and The Tiger Room each offer a king-size bed. The Jasmine Room features a queen-size bed, while The Eagle's Inn room has two full-size beds and a seven-head shower.
"A place where elegance, excitement, and hospitality meet." Guests can spend their afternoons listening to music, having tea, or enjoying a good book in any of the Manor's common areas. We serve complimentary beverages, scrumptious homemade desserts, and a full breakfast each morning.
Morehead Manor is also available for special events, conferences, weddings, and private luncheons and dinners. We also offer special weekend packages such as our Murder Mystery Weekends.
Thanks for visiting Morehead Manor, one of Durham's premier Bed & Breakfasts. Durham is home of great food & entertainment, fun & relaxation…Stay with us and enjoy it all!
Shop the local stores at Brightleaf Square, Downtown, and on Ninth Street. If you are looking for a special gift for that certain someone, visit the unique shops of Durham, where you will find everything from toys to art and sparkling jewels.
Take a spring stroll or hike! Visit the Sarah P. Duke Gardens to see the native plants in bloom, then pop over to Duke Chapel or Cameron Indoor Stadium to catch a glimpse of the place where the Duke Blue Devils play. Or venture to the Eno State Park for an outdoor adventure.
Enjoy local music and performing arts. Check out the upcoming local performers, Broadway plays, and Superstars coming to Manbites Dog Theater, the Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC), or the newly renovated Historic Carolina Theater.
No matter the season, there are great things to do in Durham and the surrounding areas. Guaranteed great fun and food.
Need a vacation or just a quick getaway? We have the perfect solution for you. Whether you are planning to visit for business or pleasure, give us a call or check our availability to reserve your room today.
Check out our blog and "Like" our Facebook page for updates on local activities and events. Follow us on Twitter @moreheadmanor and check out our pins on Pinterest.


text:
Virginia Eubanks
Writing about technology and social justice.
Automating Inequality
"This book is downright scary — but with its striking research and moving, indelible portraits of life in the 'digital poorhouse,' you will emerge smarter and more empowered to demand justice." ―Naomi Klein, author of No Is Not Enough and This Changes Everything
Today, automated systems control which neighborhoods get policed, which families attain needed resources, and who is investigated for fraud. While we all live under this new regime of data analytics, the most invasive and punitive systems are aimed at the poor.
In Automating Inequality, Virginia Eubanks systematically investigates the impacts of data mining, policy algorithms, and predictive risk models on poor and working-class people in America. The book is full of heart-wrenching and eye-opening stories, from a woman in Indiana whose benefits are literally cut off as she lays dying to a family in Pennsylvania in daily fear of losing their daughter because they fit a certain statistical profile. Deeply researched and passionately written, Automating Inequality could not be more timely.
WINNER: The McGannon Center Book Prize for 2018
"Riveting… . Its argument should be widely circulated, to poor people, social service workers and policymakers, but also throughout the professional classes. Everyone needs to understand that technology is no substitute for justice." ― The New York Times Book Review
Blog updates via email!
Enter your email and click the "Follow" button to receive notifications of new posts.
Via @HannahLebovits' review in July/Aug Public Integrity: "Perhaps, #AutomatingInequality can serve as a call to ac… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 6 days ago
RT @phat_controller: "Algorithms needs to reflect not just values of efficiency and cost-reduction but values of social justice and account… 1 week ago
My talking about diversion in my kitchen. twitter.com/AJEnglish/stat… 1 week ago
"The internet is making bricks-and-mortar welfare offices obsolete, de Blasio says" @NYDailyNews @SafetyNetUJC -- T… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
RT @jennyaction: thecity.nyc/2019/07/punch-… This is the most angering ridiculous thing and has gone on for far too long with virtually no att… 2 weeks ago
Follow @PopTechWorks

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
History of Science and Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in the history and origins of science and mathematics. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Did the ancient Chinese know the earth is a sphere?
The ancient Greeks knew this fact. How about the chinese? If not, when did they realize that the earth is a sphere? By themselves or from other people?
S. KohnS. Kohn
$\begingroup$ You can search : Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 3, Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth (1959) for "spherical earth": there are references. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 9 '17 at 14:42
$\begingroup$ You should specify what you mean by "ancient" in the expression "ancient Chinese". For example in European history, this word usually means "before the fall of the Western Roman Empire". $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Jan 10 '17 at 7:56
There appear to be conflicting accounts of when the Chinese came to view the earth as spherical. Chinese sources might suggest the 11th century, while western sources suggest the 17th century.
According to the sinologist Christopher Cullen, the Chinese believed the earth to be flat and square while the heavens were round until the introduction of European astronomy in the 17th century. Quoting Cullen's 1976 text "A Chinese Eratosthenes of the Flat Earth: A Study of a Fragment of Cosmology in Huai Nan tzu 淮 南 子" :
Chinese thought on the form of the earth remained almost unchanged from early times until the first contacts with modern science through the medium of Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century. While the heavens were variously described as being like an umbrella covering the earth (the Kai Tian theory), or like a sphere surrounding it (the Hun Tian theory), or as being without substance while the heavenly bodies float freely (the Hsüan yeh theory), the earth was at all times flat, although perhaps bulging up slightly.
The model of the egg was used by Chinese astronomers to describe the heavens :
The heavens are like a hen's egg and as round as a crossbow bullet; the earth is like the yolk of the egg, and lies in the centre.
Further details are provided at wikipedia article on Flat Earth.
However, Joseph Needham, in his more recent 1993 text Chinese Cosmology reports that Shen Kuo (1031-1095) used models of lunar eclipse and solar eclipse to conclude that "celestial bodies" are round, not flat.
If they were like balls they would surely obstruct each other when they met. I replied that these celestial bodies were certainly like balls. How do we know this? By the waxing and waning of the moon. The moon itself gives forth no light, but is like a ball of silver; the light is the light of the sun (reflected). When the brightness is first seen, the sun (-light passes almost) alongside, so the side only is illuminated and looks like a crescent. When the sun gradually gets further away, the light shines slanting, and the moon is full, round like a bullet. If half of a sphere is covered with (white) powder and looked at from the side, the covered part will look like a crescent; if looked at from the front, it will appear round. Thus we know that the celestial bodies are spherical.
What is not clear here is whether or not Shen Kuo considered earth to be a "celestial body". If not, then perhaps Cullen's claim is the current view.
NickNick
$\begingroup$ Do 17th century Chinese qualify as "ancient"? $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Jan 10 '17 at 7:59
$\begingroup$ @AlexandreEremenko For that matter, nor does 11th century China. The OP ultimately is asking "when". $\endgroup$ – Nick Jan 10 '17 at 16:08
$\begingroup$ The earth is not a "celestial" (=heavenly) body. There is no contradiction between Needham and Cullen. $\endgroup$ – fdb Jan 14 '17 at 17:29
$\begingroup$ @fdb Yes, that was my reading of it, but I wasn't sure if there was something lost in translation. $\endgroup$ – Nick Jan 14 '17 at 18:12
As a Chinese, I gotta say that our ancestors believed that the earth was flat while the heavens were round, just like a dome. But I am not sure whether the fact that the earth is spherical was found by themselves or introduced to them.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged astronomy or ask your own question.
Why was China slow to recognise the sphericity of Earth?
When was the mechanism behind seasons on Earth discovered
When did it become possible to predict the time and place of solar eclipses?
How long did it take to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
How did ancient Greeks explain moon phases without reflection of sunlight?
What role did meteors and comets play in early astronomy?
When was it discovered that the Earth wasn't round?
Historical knowledge of Distance of Earth from Sun
Did Indian astronomers realize the sphericity of the earth independently of the Greeks?
Who was the first to understand the concept of outer-space?
What did the ancient Greeks know about the solar system, and how?


text:
Turtles in Kansas
There are 14 species of turtles in Kansas. The state's varied climate – from semi-arid climate to the west to the humid continental climate to the east and humid subtropical climate to the south – creates just the right conditions for a number of several snapping, box, mud, sliders, musk, and softshell turtles to call it home.
Let's take a closer look at each one of them!
1. Common Snapping Turtle
Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) sitting on asphalt road with tail extended
Family: Chelydridae
Scientific Name: Chelydra serpentina
Adult Size: 8-18 inches
Average Price Range: $25-$60
Recommended Books: Snapping Turtle Pet Owner's Guide by Ben Team
The common snapping turtle lives all across Kansas, although it more densely populates the eastern half of the state. They prefer water and doent enjoy basking as much as some other species.
Although common snapping turtles are pretty good swimmers, they also enjoy walking along the bottom.
Females usually lay around 20-35 eggs during the summer. The eggs hatch between 2 and 4 months later, depending on the conditions. Hatchlings that survive into adulthood will have few predators in the wild.
Common snapping turtles have a short fuse. You could even say they're – snappy (no pun intended). They will even fight other turtles and may lunge towards them.
Their temperament can easily make them a difficult pet to have if they're not cared for correctly. If you're thinking of buying a snapping turtle, make sure you have all the right equipment and information.
2. Alligator Snapping Turtle
Light brown spikey Alligator snapping turtle
Experience Level: Intermediate to Expert
Scientific Name: Macrochelys temminckii
Adult Size: 15-27 inches
The alligator snapping turtle is the common snapping turtle's bigger, meaner cousin. Although they seem to be pretty shy underwater, they can get pretty aggressive when they are on land (which, luckily, isn't often – normally only nesting females spend a considerable amount of time outside of water).
They have shells with spikes and beak-like mouths. Even the skin on their head is somewhat thorny.
Because of their status as a threatened species, their tendencies to get pretty big pretty fast, and laws prohibiting their trade, alligator snapping turtles are hard to come by in pet stores.
If you are looking for a pet turtle, this is not one we recommend.
3. Common Musk Turtle
Common Musk Turtle
Scientific Name: Sternotherus odoratus
Adult Size: 2-4.5 inches
Average Price Range: $60-$100
The common musk turtle, also known as the eastern musk turtle or stinkpot (the name is justified, trust us!) inhabits the Eastern areas of Kansas.
They spend most of their lives in water and feed on pretty much anything, including garbage (go paper straws!).
There are two things that make the common musk turtle unusual. First of all, they are excellent climbers. When basking, they will sometimes climb trees around the body of water where they live.
The second thing that makes the common musk turtle stand out is its defense mechanism.
Although they don't hold back from biting when feeling threatened, their favorite weapon is their smelly musk. They are basically the skunks of the turtle-world.
4. Yellow Mud Turtle
Yellow Mud Turtle
Scientific Name: Kinosternon flavescens
Adult Size: 4-5 inches
Yellow mud turtles can primarily be found in the western half of Kansas. They enjoy still and slow-moving bodies of water, such as lakes, ponds, and ditches, as those usually have more mud.
Although it's called a yellow mud turtle, only its chin and cheeks are yellow. For the most part, the rest of its body ranges from olive green to brown and tan. Sometimes, the edge of its shell is yellow, too.
The first mating season of the year occurs in spring, and the second one in fall. The average clutch usually has 4 or 5 eggs. The eggs are easy prey for raccoons, snakes, and other animals, as are young hatchlings. Adults have few predators.
5. Painted Turtle
Southern Painted Turtle
Scientific Name: Chrysemys picta
Recommended Books: Painted Turtle Care. Painted Turtle Pet Owners Guide by Ben Team
Painted turtles (4 subspecies) truly look like pieces of art, with yellow, red, green, and brown stripes and spots all over their bodies.
This makes them a very popular choice as a pet, although they're definitely not the easiest animal to take care of.
Painted turtles usually mate in spring and early summer, and a clutch can have anywhere from 2 to 20 eggs.
These eggs will hatch in late summer, but it is not uncommon for hatchlings to stay underground after that until the next spring. We get it, we don't like going out in cold weather either.
Painted turtles aren't picky eaters – young specimens are mainly carnivores, while older turtles prefer a herbivorous diet.
They do have one peculiar eating habit – they eat exclusively in water, as their tongues are not the best at holding and moving food around.
6. Common Map Turtle
Northern Map Turtle on roadside
Scientific Name: Graptemys geographica
Adult Size: 7-10.5 inches for females, 3.5-6.5 inches for males
Recommended Books: The Map Turtle and Sawback Atlas: Ecology, Evolution, Distribution, and Conservation by Peter V. Lindeman
The common map turtle (a.k.a. northern map turtle) got its name because its carapace has patterns that resemble a map. Its head and limbs are usually brownish with yellow or green patterns.
Much like painted turtles, common map turtles have to eat in water. Females eat snails, clams, and some fish.
Males, since they are much smaller, have to resort to insects and smaller crustaceans. They both occasionally eat vegetation, too.
Northern map turtles are generally less tolerant of poor living conditions than other species. Water pollution poses a major threat to their survival, although they are still not considered endangered.
7. Ouachita Map Turtle
Ouachita Map Turtle
Scientific Name: Graptemys ouachitensis
Adult Size: 5-10 inches for females, 3.5-5 inches for males
Where to Buy: FreshMarine
The Ouachita map turtle looks very similar to its northern cousin. The best way to differentiate between the two is by looking at the yellow spots behind their eyes – they are larger and brighter in Ouachita map turtles.
Much like other map turtles, the Ouachita map turtle is an omnivorous species. However, females tend to generally eat more plants, while males prefer eating smaller animals, even including dead fish.
The Ouachita map turtle loves basking. However, even when relaxing in the sun, they are quite aware of their surroundings and are quick to dive back into their pond if they sense danger. Usually, if even just one turtle in a group runs away, they will all follow.
8. False Map Turtle
False map turtle swimming in tank
Scientific Name: Graptemys pseudogeographica
Adult Size: 3.5-6 inches for males, 9-10 inches for females
Average Price Range: $10 – $50
Where to Buy: UndergroundReptiles
As you may have guessed from the name, the false map turtle looks very similar to other map turtles.
However, if you ask us, the name is a little misleading – the false map turtle isn't a different species that just looks like map turtles – it actually belongs to the map turtle genus, and as such isn't exactly "false".
When they're young, false map turtles live in slower-moving bodies of water and are mostly carnivores. As they grow older, they develop a taste for plants and tend to move to swifter currents.
False map turtles are not aggressive, but they are very easily scared. They run at the first sign of danger, and sometimes they even lose control of their bladder (yes, they pee their pants when scared).
9. River Cooter
River Cooter (Pseudemys concinna)
Scientific Name: Pseudemys concinna
Adult Size: 7.5-12 inches
Recommended Books: Aquatic Turtles: Sliders, Cooters, Painted, and Map Turtles (Reptile Keeper's Guide) by R.D. Bartlett (Author), Patricia Bartlett (Author)
Cooters likely got their unusual name from the word "kuta" in a number of African languages, which means – you guessed it – "turtle". The river cooter's shell is usually dark green or brown, while its head has yellowish stripes.
River cooters spend a lot of time underwater, with the exception of basking and laying eggs. Due to this, they have developed a unique skill of breathing through the so-called cloaca bursae. Basically, they can breathe through their butts.
Aside from their unique butt-breathing ability, the river cooter is your typical semiaquatic turtle. It feeds mostly on vegetation, but occasionally eats smaller animals, lays eggs on land, and enjoys basking in the sun.
10. Ornate Box Turtle
Ornate Box Turtle
Scientific Name: Terrapene ornata ornata
Average Price Range: $200-$350
Recommended Books: Box Turtles (Complete Herp Care) by Tess Cook
Also known as the western box turtle, this species lives pretty much all over Kansas. They prefer prairie lands, scattered bushes, and open plains, but can sometimes be found in forests, too.
Although they do need to drink water, they don't particularly enjoy spending time in it. There is only one box turtle that is aquatic which is the coahuilan box turtle.
If there was such a thing as a turtle beauty pageant, the ornate box turtle would be a feared contestant. Although not as colorful as painted turtles, ornate box turtles have beautiful black-yellow patterns on their shells.
But the shell is more than just beautiful – they are a shield from predators, as well. Box turtles can retract their heads and feet and close the shell using a special hinge, creating a "box". Hence the name.
11. Eastern Box Turtle
Eastern Box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina)
Scientific Name: Terrapene carolina carolina
Adult Size: 4.5-6 inches
Lifespan: 25-100 years
Average Price Range: $120-400
Recommended Books: The Box Turtle Manual (Herpetocultual Library) by Philippe De Vosjoli (Author), Roger J. Klingenberg (Author)
The shell of an eastern box turtle is usually brown with irregular yellow to orange patterns. Its skin has spots of a similar color. This unique appearance makes it easy for them to camouflage among fallen leaves.
Although they are a mostly woodland species, eastern box turtles do enjoy swimming, especially on a hot summer day. In fact, even when on land, they are most active right after rainfall.
Eastern box turtles are very homely creatures. They often burrow in the same spot year after year and seem to have an innate ability to find their way back home even when placed in an unfamiliar environment.
12. Pond Sliders
Yellow bellied slider in water (Trachemys scripta scripta)
Scientific Name: Trachemys scripta
Average Price Range: $25 to $60
The pond slider can be categorized into three subspecies – the red-eared slider, the yellow-bellied slider, and the Cumberland slider.
The red-eared slider is native to Kansas. There is also an artificially-introduced population of yellow-bellied sliders in Wyandotte County.
Pond sliders, and red-eared sliders in particular, are very popular pets when they're young.
Unfortunately, inexperienced pet owners often don't realize that they require more care than expected, and end up releasing adult turtles into the wild.
This might seem like a good idea at first. However, red-eared sliders can get pretty aggressive with other species.
What's more, an adult turtle that was born and raised in captivity has a lower chance of survival upon release.
13. Spiny Softshell Turtle
spiny softshell turtle (apalone spinifera)
Family: Trionychidae
Scientific Name: Apalone spinifera
Lifespan: up to 50 years
Recommended Books: Softshell Turtle Pet Owners Guide by Ben Team
Remember that turtle beauty pageant we mentioned? Yeah, the spiny softshell probably wouldn't even compete, or maybe it would depending on your taste.
With a flat, brown-ish shell and long, thin noses, they basically look like anteaters in turtle disguise.
They live and mate in water, but they do enjoy basking on land. In Kansas, the spiny softshell turtle lives primarily in and around the Arkansas River.
Although they look somewhat lazy and disinterested, spiny softshells can get aggressive if they feel threatened. They daren't afraid to bite larger animals or humans for that matter.
14. Smooth Softshell Turtle
Smooth Softshell Turtle
Scientific Name: Apalone mutica
Adult Size: 5-7 inches for males, 7-14 inches for females
Smooth softshell turtles look very similar to their spiny cousins, although they don't have spiny ridges on the front edge of the shell. Females are usually tan to brown, while males tend to be brown to grey.
Smooth softshells hunt in several ways, both on land and in water. They usually hide and ambush their prey, but they can also suck in smaller prey while swimming by. This process is called pharyngeal gulping.
An adult smooth softshell's biggest predators are alligators, raccoons, and skunks. Hatchlings and yearlings are also at risk of being eaten by other turtles, fish, snakes, birds, and various mammals.
The varied climate and numerous bodies of water throughout the State of Kansas create perfect conditions for a number of both terrestrial and semiaquatic turtle species to thrive.
While few of them are currently threatened, the impact of humans on their habitats will most certainly lead to a reduction in turtle numbers in the near future.
Responsible pet ownership and environmental consciousness are the only way to preserve these breathtaking creatures.
Other nearby states
Turtles in Colorado
Turtles in Missouri
Turtles in Nebraska
Turtles in Oklahoma
Turtles in Wisconsin
Categories Turtle by state
Turtles in Utah
Turtle Poop