Certification Report Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 for SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification-sles-eal3 package from SUSE LINUX AG sponsored by IBM Corporation - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn Telefon +49 228 9582-0, Infoline +49 228 9582-111, Telefax +49 228 9582-455 Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn Telefon (0228) 9582-0 - Telefax (0228) 9582-455 - Infoline (0228) 9582-111 SOGIS-MRA BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification-sles-eal3 package from SUSE LINUX AG sponsored by IBM Corporation Common Criteria Arrangement The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an accredited and licensed/ approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Part 1 Version 0.6, Part 2 Version 1.0 extended by CEM supplementation “ALC_FLR – Flaw remediation”, Version 1.1, February 2002 for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 2.1 (ISO/IEC 15408:1999). Evaluation Results: PP Conformance: Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP), Issue 1.d, 08.10.1999 Functionality: CAPP conformant plus product specific extensions Common Criteria Part 2 extended Assurance Package: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant EAL3 augmented by ALC_FLR.2 (Flaw reporting procedures) 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. The notes mentioned on the reverse side are part of this certificate. Bonn, 14 January 2004 The President of the Federal Office for Information Security Dr. Helmbrecht L.S. The rating of the strength of functions does not include the cryptoalgorithms suitable for encryption and decryption (see BSIG Section 4, Para. 3, Clause 2) 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. BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report V 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. 1 Act setting up the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Errichtungsgesetz, BSIG) of 17 December 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2834 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 VI Contents Part A: Certification Part B: Certification Results Part C: Excerpts from the Criteria BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report A-1 A Certification 1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure The certification body conducts the procedure according to the criteria laid down in the following: · 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) · Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 2.15 · Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM) - Part 1, Version 0.6 - Part 2, Version 1.0 · BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS) · CEM supplementation on “ALC_FLR – Flaw remediation”, Version 1.1, February 2002 2 Act setting up the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Errichtungsgesetz, BSIG) of 17 December 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2834 3 Ordinance on the Procedure for Issuance of a Certificate by the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Zertifizierungsverordnung, BSIZertV) of 7 July 1992, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 1230 4 Schedule of Cost for Official Procedures of the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI- Kostenverordnung, BSI-KostV) of 29th October 1992, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 1838 5 Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern of 22nd September 2000 in the Bundesanzeiger p. 19445 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 A-2 2 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. 2.1 ITSEC/CC - Certificates The SOGIS-Agreement on the mutual recognition of certificates based on ITSEC became effective on 3 March 1998. This agreement was signed by the national bodies of Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. This agreement on the mutual recognition of IT security certificates was extended to include certificates based on the CC for all evaluation levels (EAL 1 – EAL 7). 2.2 CC - Certificates An arrangement (Common Criteria Arrangement) on the mutual recognition of certificates based on the CC evaluation assurance levels up to and including EAL 4 was signed in May 2000. It includes also the recognition of Protection Profiles based on the CC. The arrangement was signed by the national bodies of Australia, Canada, Finland France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States. Israel joined the arrangement in November 2000, Sweden in February 2002, Austria in November 2002, Hungary and Turkey in September 2003, Japan in November 2003. BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report A-3 3 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 “SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification- sles-eal3 package“ (also called SLES8 in short) has undergone the certification procedure at BSI. The evaluation of the product SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification-sles-eal3 package was conducted by atsec Information Security GmbH. The atsec is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)6 recognised by BSI. The sponsor is: IBM Corporation Linux Technology Center 2455 South Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 USA The developer/distributor is: SUSE LINUX AG Maxfeldstr. 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany The certification is concluded with · the comparability check and · the production of this Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI on 14 January 2004. 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. This Certification Report only applies to the version of the product indicated here. The validity can be extended to new versions and releases of the product, provided the sponsor applies for re-certification of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural requirements, and the evaluation does not reveal any security deficiencies. For the meaning of the assurance levels and the confirmed strength of functions, please refer to the excerpts from the criteria at the end of the Certification Report. 6 Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 A-4 4 Publication The following Certification Results contain pages B-1 to B-32. The product SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification- sles-eal3 package has been included in the BSI list of the certified products, which is published regularly (see also Internet: http:// www.bsi.bund.de). Further information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline 0228/9582-111. Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the vendor7 of the product. The Certification Report can also be downloaded from the above-mentioned website. 7 SUSE LINUX AG Maxfeldstr. 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-1 B 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. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-2 Contents of the certification results 1 Executive Summary 3 2 Identification of the TOE 11 3 Security Policy 14 4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 15 5 Architectural Information 16 6 Documentation 21 7 IT Product Testing 21 8 Evaluated Configuration 24 9 Results of the Evaluation 26 10 Comments/Recommendations 27 11 Annexes 28 12 Security Target 28 13 Definitions 28 14 Bibliography 30 BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-3 1 Executive Summary The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification-sles-eal3 package (also named SLES in short). It is a general purpose, multi-user, multitasking Linux based operating system. It provides a platform for a variety of applications in the governmental and commercial environment. SLES is available on a broad range of computer systems, ranging from departmental servers to multi-processor enterprise servers. The SLES evaluation covers a potentially distributed, but closed network of IBM xSeries, pSeries, zSeries, iSeries and eServer servers running the evaluated version of SLES. SLES is based on United Linux, which is a common effort of several organisations to develop a common Linux platform designed as an enterprise platform for server applications. The TOE includes Software components only and provides CAPP compliant security functionality plus product specific extentions. Among these functions are: - Identification and Authentication - Discretionary Access Control - Secure Communication - Audit - Object reuse functionality - Security Management - TSF Protection The evaluated version of the TOE can be run on the following IBM hardware plattforms: IBM xSeries, pSeries, zSeries, iSeries and eServer. For a detailed description of the systems the tests were performed on, please refer to chapter 7 of this report. The product SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 is delivered by SUSE LINUX AG on a CD-ROM or DVD. In addition to the software delivered on CD-ROM/DVD the Service Pack 3, Release Candidate 4 (RC4) and the certification-sles-eal3 package (rpm) has to be installed. The ISO images (refer to chapter 2) and the additional package can be downloaded from the SuSE ftp-server. During the installation process the user has to verify the integrity and authenticity of the downloaded software as described in the Security Guide [10]. The base software installed from the CD/DVD allow the user to perform this verification by checking the digital signature of the ISO images and the package. For a detailed listing of the software packages please refer to chapter 2 of this report. For a detailed listing of guidance documents to be followed by a user of the TOE refer to chapter 6 of this report. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-4 The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) used in the Security Target are Common Criteria Part 2 extended as shown in the following table: Security Functional Requirement Identifier SFRs from CC Part 2, contained in CAPP FAU_GEN.1 Audit Data Generation FAU_GEN.2 User Identity Association FAU_SAR.1 Audit Review FAU_SAR.2 Restricted Audit Review FAU_SAR.3 Selectable Audit Review FAU_SEL.1 Selective Audit FAU_STG.1 Protected Audit Trail Storage FAU_STG.3 Action in Case of Possible Audit Data Loss FAU_STG.4 Prevention of Audit Data Loss FDP_ACC.1 Discretionary Access Control Policy FDP_ACF.1 Discretionary Access Control Functions FDP_RIP.2 Full Residual Information Protection FIA_ATD.1 User Attribute Definition FIA_SOS.1 Verification of Secrets FIA_UAU.7 Protected Authentication Feedback FIA_USB.1 User-Subject Binding FMT_MSA.1 Management of Security Attributes FMT_MSA.3 Static Attribute Initialisation FMT_MTD.1 Management of TSF Data FMT_REV.1 Revocation FMT_SMR.1 Security Roles FPT_AMT.1 Abstract Machine Testing FPT_RVM.1 Reference Mediation FPT_SEP.1 Domain Separation FPT_STM.1 Reliable Time Stamps SFRs from CC Part 2, contained in CAPP, substituted by hierarchical higher ones in the ST FIA_UAU.2 User Authentication before any Action FIA_UID.2 User Identification before any Action BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-5 Security Functional Requirement Identifier SFRs not in CC Part 2 (Part 2 extended), contained in CAPP „Note1“ (as in [9], chapter 5.2.4) Subject Residual Information Protection SFRs from CC Part 2, not contained in CAPP FMT_SMF.18 Specification of Management Functions FCS_CKM.1 Cryptographic Key Generation FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic Key Distribution FCS_COP.1 Cryptographic Operation FDP_UCT.1 Basic Data Exchange Confidentiality FDP_UIT.1 Data Exchange Integrity FMT_MSA.2 Secure Security Attributes FTP_ITC.1 Inter-TSF Trusted Channel Note that some of the SFRs have been iterated in the Security Target. For details on the iteration and the required security functionality please refer to [7], chapter 5.1. The TOE SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification-sles- eal3 package was evaluated by atsec information security GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 19 December 2004. The atsec information security GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)9 recognised by BSI. The sponsor is: IBM Corporation Linux Technology Center 2455 South Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 USA The developer/distributor is: SUSE LINUX AG Maxfeldstr. 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany 8 Added because of AIS32, Final Interpretation 065 9 Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-6 1.1 Assurance package The TOE security assurance requirements are based entirely on the assurance components defined in part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C of this report, or [1], part 3 for details). The TOE meets the assurance requirements of assurance level EAL3+ (Evaluation Assurance Level 3 augmented). The assurance level is augmented by: ALC_FLR.2 – Flaw reporting procedures. For the evaluation of the CC component ALC_FLR.2 the mutually recognised CEM supplementation “ALC_FLR – Flaw remediation”, Version 1.1, February 2002 ([5]) was used. 1.2 Functionality The TOE SLES 8 provides the following Security Functions: Name Function Identification and Authentication (IA) IA.1 User Identification and Authentication Data Management IA.2 Common Authentication Mechanism IA.3 Interactive Login and Related Mechanisms IA.4 User Identity Changing IA.5 Login Processing Audit (AU) AU.1 Audit Configuration AU.2 Audit Processing AU.3 Audit Record Format AU.4 Audit Post-Processing Discretionary Access Control (DA) DA.1 General DAC Policy DA.2 Permission Bits DA.3 Access Control Lists supported by SLES DA.4 Discretionary Access Control: IPC Objects Object Reuse (OR) OR.1 Object Reuse: File System Objects OR.2 Object Reuse: IPC Objects OR.3 Object Reuse: Memory Objects Security Management (SM) SM.1 Roles BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-7 Name Function SM.2 Access Control Configuration and Management SM.3 Management of User, Group and Authentication Data SM.4 Management of Audit Configuration SM.5 Reliable Time Stamps Secure Communication (SC) SC.1 Secure Protocols TSF Protection (TP) TP.1 TSF Invocation Guarantees TP.2 Kernel TP.3 Kernel Modules TP.4 Trusted Processes TP.5 TSF Databases TP.6 Internal TOE Protection Mechanisms TP.7 Testing the TOE Protection Mechanisms () Note: Only the acronyms and the titles of the SFs are provided here because they are very granular and almost self-explanatory. Please refer for a precise definition of the SF to the Security Target of the TOE ([7], chapter 6.2) 1.3 Strength of Function The TOE’s strength of function is rated ‘SOF-medium’ only for the authentication function (IA) using passwords (refer to [7], chapter 6.5). 1.4 Summary of threats and Organisational Security Policies (OSPs) addressed by the evaluated IT product A summary of the threats defined in [7], chapter 3.2.1 is provided here. For the precise description of the threats please refer to [7]: T.UAUSER An attacker (not necessarily an unauthorised user) may try to impersonate an authorised user of the TOE without knowing the authentication information. T.UAACCESS An authorised user of the TOE tries to access information resources without having appropriate permissions. T.COMPROT An attacker tries to intercept a communcation link between the TOE and another trusted IT product (which may be another instantiation of the TOE) without beeing detected. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-8 The TOE has to comply to the following Organisational Security Policies (OSPs). Note that only a summary of the policies is provided here. For the detailed and precise definition refer to [7], chapter 3.2.3: P.AUTHORISED_USERS Only users who have been authorised to access information within the system may access the system. P.NEED_TO_KNOW The organisation using the TOE must define a discretionary access control policy on a need-to-know basis. The rules of this access control policy should base on the attributes (i) owner of object, (ii) identity of subject attempting access to an object and (iii) access rights (of a subject for the accessed object). P.ACCOUNTABILITY The users of the system shall be held accountable for their actions. 1.5 Special configuration requirements The configuration requirements for the TOE are defined in chapter 2.4 and subsequent chapters of the Security Target [7] and are summarised here (please refer to the Security Target for the precise and more detailed description): - The CC evaluated package set must be selected at install time in accordance with the description provided in the Security Guide and installed accordingly; - The following file systems are supported: the Ext3 journaling filesystem, the ISO 9660 file system for CD-ROM drives and the process file system, procfs. - SLES supports the use of IPv4 and IPv6, only IPv4 is included; - Both installation from CD and installation from a defined disk partition are supported; - The default configuration for identification and authentication are the defined password based PAM modules. Support for other authentication options e.g. smartcard authentication, is not included in the evaluation configuration; - If the system console is used, it must be connected directly to the workstation and requires the same physical protection as the workstation; - The TOE comprises a single server machine (and optional peripherals) running the allowed system software (refer to package list). A server running the above listed software is referred to as a “TOE server” below. Details on the allowed peripherals can be found in [7], chapter 2.4.2. - Several TOE servers may be interlinked by a LAN, which may be joined by bridges/routers or by TOE workstations which act as routers / gateways. - Each TOE server within this network implements its own security policy. No synchronisation function for those policies exists. - If other systems are connected to the network they need to be configured and managed by the same authority using an appropriate security policy not conflicting with the security policy of the TOE. BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-9 Note: A graphical user interface for system administration or any other operation is not included in the evaluated configuration. The TOE environment also includes applications that are not evaluated, but are used as unprivileged tools to access public system services. For example a HTTP server using a port above 1024 (e. g. on port 8080) may be used as a normal application running without root privileges on top of the TOE. 1.6 Assumptions about the operating environment The following constraints concerning the allowed hardware and peripherals are made in the Security Target (refer to [7], chapter 2.4.2): Hardware Platform: - IBM xSeries - model x335 - IBM zSeries - model z900 (the TOE executes in a VM 4.3 Logical Partition ) - IBM iSeries - model 825 machine type (9406) (OS/400 V5R2 LPAR ) - IBM pSeries - model 630 - IBM eServer - model 325 (based on the AMD64 (Opteron) processor) Peripherals: - All terminals and printers supported by the TOE (except hot pluggable devices connected via USB or IEEE 1394 (Firewire) interfaces) - All storage devices and backup devices supported by the TOE (hard disks, CDROM drives, streamer drives, floppy disk drives) (except hot pluggable devices connected via USB or IEEE 1394 (Firewire) interfaces) - All Ethernet and Token-Ring network adapters supported by the TOE Note: The peripherals are physical peripherals for the xSeries and pSeries models. In the case of zSeries and iSeries the TOE is executing within a logical partition and the peripherals used may be virtualized. Serial devices are not supported on iSeries and zSeries. The following constraints concerning the operating environment are made in the Security Target. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-10 The following constraints are based on the assumptions defined in [7], chapter 3.3. (Please refer to the Security Target for the precise and more detailed definition): Identifier Summary A.LOCATE Location of TOE processing resources in facilities with controlled access. A.PROTECT Protection against physical modification (of TOE and Hardware used by the TOE). A.MANAGE Management of the TOE is done by competent individuals. A.NO_EVIL_ADMIN Administrative personnel are not careless, willfully negligent, or hostile. A.COOP Users are co-operative. A.UTRAIN Users are trained well enough to use the Security functionality of the TOE appropriately. A.UTRUST Users are trusted to accomplish some task or group of tasks within a secure IT environment by exercising complete control over their data. A.NET_COMP Network components (like routers, bridges) used are assumed to pass data without modification. A.PEER Any other system with which the TOE communicates is assumed to be under the same management control and operate under the same security policy constraints. A.CONNECT All connections (to peripherals and network connections) not using the secured protocolls SSH or SSL reside within the controlled access facilities. The following constraints are based on Security Objectives which have to be met by the TOE environment. Theses objectives are defined in [7], chapter 4.2. (Please refer to the Security Target for the precise and more detailed definition): Identifier Summary OE.CREDEN User Authentication Data has to be treated securely. OE.INSTALL The installation, distribution and configuration of hardware, software and firmware components has to be done in a secure manner. OE.INFO_PROTECT Information on security critical files (e.g. configuration files, authentication databases) shall be protected. OE.MAINTENANCE Diagnostic facilities shall be used periodically. OE.RECOVER Recovery Procedures after system failure must be available. OE.SOFTWARE_IN Only administrators shall be able to introduce new BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-11 Identifier Summary trusted software into the system. OE.SERIAL_LOGIN Clear screens before logging off (using serial login devices). OE.HW_SEP The underlying hardware has to provide separation mechanisms. 1.7 Disclaimers 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. 2 Identification of the TOE The Target of Evaluation is called: SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification-sles-eal3 package The following table summarises the TOE components and defines the evaluated configuration of the TOE: Software CD set / DVD containing the SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8. Service Pack 3, Release Candidate 4: - xSeries: UnitedLinux-1.0-SP-3-i386-RC4-CD1.iso and UnitedLinux-1.0-SP-3-i386-RC4-CD2.iso - eServer: UnitedLinux-1.0-SP-3-x86-64-RC4-CD1.iso and UnitedLinux-1.0-SP-3-x86-64-RC4-CD2.iso - pSeries and iSeries: SLES-8-SP3-ppc-RC4-CD1.iso and SLES-8-SP3-ppc-RC4-CD2.iso - zSeries: SLES-8-SP3-s390-RC4-CD1.iso and SLES-8-SP3-s390-RC4-CD2.iso certification-sles-eal3 package Note that the Service Pack and the certification-sles-eal3 package has to be that downloaded from the SuSE ftp-server. During the installation process the integrity and authenticity of this software has to be checked. Please note further that no hardware is delivered as part of the TOE. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-12 The following packages (rpm) as part of the product make up the evaluated TOE: Packages for all hardware platforms: - UnitedLinux-build-key-1.0 - aaa_base-2003.3.27, aaa_skel-2002.10.14, acl-2.0.19, amtu-0.1, ash-0.2, at-3-1-8, attr-2.4.2 - bash-2.05b, bc-1.06, bzip2-1.0.2 - certification-sles-eal3-2-2, cpio-2.5, cracklib-2.7, cron-3.0.1, curl-7.9.8, cyrus-sasl- 1.5.27 - db-4.0.14, devs-2003.3.14 (p, i, e), 2002-10-4 (x), 2003-9-10 (z), dialog-0.62, diffutils-2.8.1, e2fsprogs-1.28, ed-0.2 - file-3.37, filesystem-2002.9.1, fileutils-4.1.11, fillup-1.10, findutils-4.1.7, freetype2- 2.0.9 - gawk-3.1.1, gdbm-1.8.0, glibc-2.2.5, gpg-1.0.7, gpm-1.20.1, grep-2.5.1, groff- 1.17.2, gzip-1.3 - hdparm-5.2, heimdal-lib-0.4e, howtoenh-2002.9.6, hwinfo-5.62 - iproute2-2.4.7, iputils-ss020124, isapnp-1.26 - ksymoops-2.4.5 - l2h-pngicons-99.2beta8, laus-0.1, less-376, libgcc-3.2.2, libstdc++-3.2.2, libxcrypt- 1.1, libxml2-2.4.23, liby2util-2.6.21, logrotate-3.5.9, lprng-3.8.12, lukemftp-1.5 - m4-1.40, mailx-8.1.1, man-2.3.19deb4.0, man-pages-1.53, mktemp-1.5, modutils- 2.4.25 - ncurses-5.2, net-tools-1.60, netcat-1.10, netcfg-2002.10.24 (p, i, z, e), 2002-9-4 (x) - openldap2-client-2.1.4, openssh-3.4p1, openssl-0.9.6g, pam-laus-0.76, pam- modules-2002.8.29 - parted-1.6.6, pciutils-2.1.10, pcre-3.9, perl-5.8.0, permissions-2002.9.9, popt-1.6, postfix-1.1.12, ps-2003.10.7 - readline-4.3, rpm-3.0.6 - sed-3.02.80, sh-utils—2.0, shadow-4.0.2, sitar-0.7.2, sles-release-8, star-1.4.2, stunnel-3.14, suse-build-key-1.0, sysconfig-0.23.22, syslogd-1.4.1, sysvinit-2.82 - tar-1.13.25, telnet-1.0, terminfo-5.2, texinfo-4.2, textutils-2.1, timezone-2.2.5, unitedlinux-release-1.0 (not on p,i and z), utempter-0.5.2, util-linux-2.11u - vim-6.1, vsftpd-1.1. - w3m-0.3.1, wget-1.8.2 - xinetd-2.3.6 - yast2-2.6.40, yast2-bootloader-2.6.75, yast2-core-2.6.56, yast2-country-2.6.35, yast2-installation-2.6.136, yast2-mouse-2.6.21, yast2-ncurses-2.6.24, yast2- network-2.6.39, yast2-online-update-2.6.17, yast2-packagemanager-2.6.49, yast2- packager-2.6.83, yast2-pam-2.6.5, yast2-runlevel-2.6.16, yast2-security-2.6.10, yast2-storage-2.6.69, yast2-sysconfig-2.6.14, yast2-theme-SuSELinux-2.6.8, yast2- theme-UnitedLinux-2.6.8 (not on pSeries, iSeries and zSeries), yast2-trans-en_US- BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-13 2.6.7, yast2-transfer-2.6.1, yast2-update-2.6.33, yast2-users-2.6.37, yast2-xml- 2.6.8 - zlib-1.1.4 Additional on xSeries (x86): - either the "k_deflt-2.4.21" or the "k_smp-2.4.21" kernel - grub-0.93 - kbd-1.0.6 - sles-admin-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.2 - sles-inst-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.2 Additional on x86 64Bit (eServer 325 (opteron)) - either the "k_deflt-2.4.21" or the "k_smp-2.4.21" kernel - grub-0.92 - glibc-32bit-8.1 - kbd-1.06 - sles-admin-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.4, sles-inst-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.4 Additional on pSeries: - addonlibs-64bit-8.1 - baselibs-64bit-8.1 - glibc-64bit-8.1 - hfsutils-3.2.6 - kbd-1.0.6 - kernel-ppc64-2.4.21 - laus-64bit-8.1 - lilo-0.0.8 - pdisk-0.8a - sles-admin-ipseries_en-8.1.0.2, sles-inst-ipseries_en-8.1.0.3 Additional on iSeries: - addonlibs-64bit-8.1 - baselibs-64bit-8.1 - glibc-64bit-8.1 - hfsutils-3.2.6 - kernel-iseries64-2.4.21, kernel-iseries64-tools-2.4.19 - laus-64bit-8.1, lilo-0.0.8 - pdisk-0.8a Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-14 - sles-admin-ipseries_en-8.1.0.2, sles-inst-ipseries_en-8.1.0.3 Additional on zSeries: - k_deflt-2.4.21 - s390-tools-1.2.1, sles-admin-zseries_en-8.1.0.2, sles-inst-zseries_en-8.1.0.9 The following guidance documents are supplied together with the TOE. The Guidance have to be followed to ensure an certification conformant operation of the TOE: - SLES Security Guide, [10] - SuSE Linux EnterpriseServer8. Administration, [11] - SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 – Installation Manuals for the individual platforms, [12] Please refer to chapter 6 for a more detailed and platform specific listing of the guidance documents. 3 Security Policy The TOE is a Linux based multi-user multi-tasking operating system. The TOE may provide services to several users at the same time. After successful login, the users have access to a general computing environment, allowing the start-up of user applications, issuing user commands at shell level, creating and accessing files. The TOE provides adequate mechanisms to separate the users and protect their data. Privileged commands are restricted to administrative users. The TOE uses the standard Unix model of normal (unprivileged) users and administrative users that have the capability to get full root privileges. The TOE is intended to operate in a networked environment with other instantiations of the TOE as well as other well-behaved client systems operating within the same management domain (refer to [7], chapter 6.1.5 for more details). All those systems need to be configured in accordance with a defined common security policy. The TOE permits one or more processors and attached peripheral and storage devices to be used by multiple users to perform a variety of functions requiring controlled shared access to the data stored on the system. Such installations are typical for workgroup or enterprise computing systems accessed by users local to, or with otherwise protected access to, the computer system. It is assumed that responsibility for the safeguarding of the data protected by the TOE can be delegated to the TOE users. All data is under the control of the TOE. The data is stored in named objects, and the TOE can associate with each controlled object a description of the access rights to that object. All individual users are assigned a unique user identifier within the single host system that forms the TOE. This user identifier is used as the basis for access control decisions. The TOE authenticates the claimed identity of the user before allowing the user to perform any further actions. BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-15 The TOE enforces controls such that access to data objects can only take place in accordance with the access restrictions placed on that object by its owner or administrative users. Ownership of named objects may be transferred under the control of the access control policy. Access rights (e.g. read, write, execute) can be assigned to data objects with respect to subjects (users). Once a subject is granted access to an object, the content of that object may be freely used to influence other objects accessible to this subject. 4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 4.1 Usage assumptions Based on the personnel assumptions the following usage conditions exist. Refer to [7], chapter 3.3.2 for more details: - The TOE is managed by competent individuals (A.MANAGE). - Administrative personnel are not careless, wilfully negligent, or hostile (A.NO_EVIL_ADMIN). - Users of the TOE are co-operative (A.COOP). - Users are trained well enough to use the Security functionality of the TOE appropriately (A.UTRAIN). - Users are trusted to accomplish some task or group of tasks within a secure IT environment by exercising complete control over their data (A.UTRUST). 4.2 Environmental assumptions The following assumptions about physical and connectivity aspects defined by the Security Target have to be met (refer to Security Target [7], chapter 3.3.1 and 3.3.3): - The TOE is located in an access controlled facility (A.LOCATE). - The TOE (Hardware used by the TOE) is protected against physical modification (A.PROTECT). - Network components (like routers, bridges) used are assumed to pass data without modification (A.NET_COMP). - Any other system with which the TOE communicates is assumed to be under the same management control and operate under the same security policy constraints. (A.PEER) - All connections (to peripherals and network connections) not using SSH or SSL reside within the controlled access facilities (A.CONNECT). Please consider also the requirements for the evaluated configuration specified in chapter 8 of this report. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-16 4.3 Clarification of scope The threats listed below have to be averted in order to support the TOE security capabilities but are not addressed by the TOE itself. They have to be addressed by the operating environment of the TOE (for detailed information about the threats and how the environment may cover them refer to the Security Target [7]). TE.HWMF Loss of stored data due to hardware malfunction. TE.COR_FILE Accidental corruption or manipulation of files relevant for the security without detection. TE.HW_SEP The underlying hardware functions of the hardware used by the TOE does not provide sufficient capabilities to support the self-protection of the TSF. 5 Architectural Information General Overview SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 is a general purpose, multi-user, multitasking Linux based operating system. It provides a platform for a variety of applications in the governmental and commercial environment. SLES is available on a broad range of computer systems, ranging from departmental servers to multi-processor enterprise servers. SLES is based on United Linux, which is a common effort of several organisations to develop a common Linux platform designed as an enterprise platform for server applications. The SLES evaluation covers a potentially distributed, but closed network of IBM servers (xSeries, pSeries, zSeries, iSeries, and eServer) running the evaluated version of SLES. The TOE Security Functions (TSF) consist of functions of SLES that run in kernel mode plus some trusted processes. These are the functions that enforce the security policy as defined in this Security Target. Tools and commands executed in user mode that are used by an administrative user need also to be trusted to manage the system in a secure way. But they are not considered to be part of this TSF. Also the hardware, the BootProm firmware and the logical partitioning software (zSeries and iSeries) is considered not to be part of the TOE but part of the TOE environment. The TOE includes installation from CDROM and from a local hard disk partition. The TOE includes standard networking applications, such as ftp and ssh. xinetd is used to protect network applications which might otherwise have security exposures. System administration tools include the standard commands. A graphical user interface for system administration or any other operation is not included in the evaluated configuration. BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-17 The TOE environment also includes applications that are not evaluated, but are used as unprivileged tools to access public system services. For example a HTTP server using a port above 1024 (e. g. on port 8080) may be used as a normal application running without root privileges on top of the TOE. Major structural units of the TOE The TOE is structured in much the same way as many other operating systems, especially Unix-type operating systems. It consists of a kernel, which runs in the privileged state of the processor and provides services to applications (which those can use by calling kernel services via the system call interface). Direct access to the underlying abstract machine (hardware or partitioned environment) is restricted to the kernel, so whenever an application wants to access hardware like disk drives, network interfaces or other peripheral devices, it has to call kernel services. The kernel then checks if the application has the required access rights and privileges and either performs the service or rejects the request. The kernel is also responsible to separate the different user processes. This is done by the management of the virtual and real memory of the TOE which ensures that processes executing with different attributes can not directly access memory areas of other processes but have to do so using the inter-process communication mechanism provided by the kernel as part of its system call interface. The TSF of the TOE also includes a set of trusted processes, which when initiated by a user with a system call operate with extended privileges. The programs that represent those trusted processes on the file system are protected by the file system discretionary access control security function enforced by the kernel. In addition the execution of the TOE is controlled by a set of configuration files, which are also called the TSF database. Also those configuration files are protected by the file system discretionary access control security function enforced by the kernel. Normal users – after they have been successfully authenticated by a defined trusted process – can start untrusted applications where the kernel enforces the security policy of the TOE when those applications request services from the kernel via the system call interface. This structure is shown in the following figure: Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-18 The kernel itself is structured into a number of subsystems which are explained in detail in the high level design of the TOE. Those are: File and I/O Subsystem Implements all file system object related functions. Functions include those that allow a process to create, maintain, interact and delete file-system objects, such as regular files, directories, symbolic links, hard links, device special files, named pipes, and sockets. Process Subsystem Implements functions related to process and thread management. Functions include those that allow the creation, scheduling, execution, and deletion of process and thread subjects. Memory Subsystem Implements functions related to the management of a system’s memory resources. Functions include those that create and manage virtual memory, including management of page tables and paging algorithms. Networking Subsystem Implements UNIX and internet domain sockets as well as algorithms for scheduling network packets. IPC Subsystem Implements functions related to inter-process communication mechanisms. Functions include those that facilitate controlled sharing of information between processes, allowing them to share data and synchronise their execution in order to interact with a common resource. Audit Subsystem Implements the kernel functions required to intercept system calls and audit them in accordance with the auditing policy defined by the system administrator. Kernel Modules Subsystem Implements an infrastructure to support loadable modules. Functions include those that load and unload kernel modules. Device Driver Subsystem Implements support for various hardware devices through common, device independent interface. The trusted processes include the following subsystems: Identification and Authentication This includes all the processes that require to identify and authenticate users. All those processes share a common set of functions (pluggable authentication modules (PAM)) that ensure the same policy to be enforced with respect to identification and authentication of users. Successful as well as unsuccessful authentication attempts can be audited. Network Applications This includes the trusted processes implementing networking functions. The TOE BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-19 supports FTP and SSH v2 as well as setting up a secure channel to another trusted system via the Stunnel client and server processes using the SSL v3 protocol. The secure configuration as defined in the Security Target restricts the cipher suites that can be used for secure communication. System Management This includes the trusted commands a system administrator can use to manage users and groups, set the time and date and check the integrity of the underlying abstract machine. Batch Processing This includes the cron and at trusted processed that allow to execute user programs at predefined time schedules. They ensure that the users are restricted to the same security policy restrictions that also apply when they start programs interactively. User Level Audit This includes all the trusted processed and commands outside of the kernel required to collect, store and process audit records. In addition to those functions the TOE includes a secure system initialisation function which brings the TOE into a secure state after it is powered on or after a reset. This function ensures that user interaction with the TOE can only occur after the TOE is securely initialised and in a secure state. Security Functions The security functions of the TOE defined in the Security Target are (refer to Security Target [7], chapter 6.2): - Identification and Authentication - Audit - Discretionary Access Control - Object reuse functionality - Security Management - Secure Communication - TSF Protection A short summary for each function is provided here. A more detailed description can be found in [7], chapter 6.2. Identification and Authentication The TOE provides identification and authentication using pluggable authentication modules (PAM) based upon user passwords. The quality of the passwords used can be enforced through configuration options controlled by SLES. Other authentication methods (e. g. Kerberos authentication, token based authentication) that are supported by SLES as pluggable authentication modules are not part of the evaluated configuration. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-20 Functions to ensure a basic password strength and limit the use of the su command and restrict root login to specific terminals are also included. Audit The TOE provides the capability to audit a large number of events including individual system calls as well as events generated by trusted processes. Audit data is collected in a configurable number of audit bin files. When one of those files is full, the TOE switches to the next bin file and starts an administrator defined program to process the audit records in the bin file that just has been filled. The TOE provides a program for this purpose that converts the audit records into a human readable format and writes them to a sequential file or to a printer. The output could also be redirected to a program that transfers the audit records to another machine via a network connection. The system administrator can define a rule base to restrict auditing to the events he is interested in. This includes the ability to restrict auditing to specific events, specific users, specific objects or a combination of all of this. Discretionary Access Control Discretionary Access Control (DAC) restricts access to file system objects based on Access Control Lists (ACLs) that include the standard UNIX permissions for user, group and others. Access control mechanisms also protect IPC objects from unauthorised access. The TOE includes the ext3 file system, which supports POSIX ACLs. This allows you to define access rights to files within this type of file system down to the granularity of a single user. Object Reuse File system objects as well as memory and IPC objects will be cleared before they can be reused by a process belonging to a different user. Security Management The management of the security critical parameters of SLES is performed by administrative users. A set of commands that require root privileges are used for system management. Security parameters are stored in specific files that are protected by the access control mechanisms of the TOE against unauthorised access by users that are not administrative users. Secure Communication The TOE supports the definition of trusted channels using either the SSH v2 or the SSL v3 protocol. In the case of SSH the TOE includes the SSH server and client functions. Password based authentication is supported. To use the SSL v3 protocol the TOE provides the stunnel client and server functions. Only a restricted number of cipher suites are supported for those protocols in the evaluated configuration. They are listed in the Security Target. TSF Protection While in operation, the kernel software and data are protected by the hardware memory protection mechanisms. The memory and process management components of the kernel ensure a user process cannot access kernel storage or storage belonging to other processes. Non-kernel TSF software and data are protected by DAC and process isolation mechanisms. BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-21 In the evaluated configuration, the reserved user ID root owns the directories and files that define the TSF configuration. In general, files and directories containing internal TSF data (e.g., configuration files, batch job queues) are also protected from reading by DAC permissions. The TOE and the hardware and firmware components are required to be physically protected from unauthorised access. The system kernel mediates all access to the hardware mechanisms themselves, other than program visible CPU instruction functions. 6 Documentation The following documentation is provided with the product by the developer to the customer: [10] SLES Security Guide, Version 2.33, as part of the certification-sles-eal3 package [11] SuSE Linux EnterpriseServer8. Administration. Books delivered in PDF format as part of the following (platform specific) packages: – sles-admin-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.2 (for xSeries) – sles-admin-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.4 (for eServer) – sles-admin-ipseries_en-8.1.0.2 (for iSeries and pSeries) – sles-admin-zseries_en-8.1.0.2 (for zSeries) [12] SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 – Installation Manuals for the individual platforms. Books delivered in PDF format as part of the following (platform specific) packages: – sles-inst-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.2 (for xSeries and eServer) – sles-inst-ipseries_en-8.1.0.3 (for iSeries and pSeries) – sles-inst-zseries_en-8.1.0.9 (for zSeries) A full description of the installation and configuration process to get the evaluated configuration of the TOE can be found in [10]. The user will need [11] and [12] just to obtain information on the use of the YaST user interface. All steps required to install and configure the TOE for the evaluated configuration are contained in [10]. 7 IT Product Testing Test configuration The Security Target defines the following hardware basis for the TOE: - IBM xSeries, model x335 - IBM zSeries, model z900 (the TOE executes in a VM 4.3 Logical Partition) - IBM iSeries, model 825 machine type (9406) ( OS/400 V5R2 LPAR - IBM pSeries, model 630 - IBM eServer, model 325 (based on the AMD64 (Opteron) processor) Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-22 Tests have been performed on the following systems: - xSeries model 335: Quad Intel XEON processors 2.4Ghz, 2GB memory, 2*25GB SCSI disk, IDE DVD, onboard Broadcom 1GB Ethernet adapter, Locally attached console, Ethernet connection - pSeries model 630: 4*Power4 1Ghz processors, 2GB memory, 2*36MB SCSI disk, 2* Intel EEPRO Ethernet, 2*Alteon 1GB Ethernet. - IBM iSeries model 825: 6 CPUs (processor FC 7416, 2473, 1.1Gz Power4), one used for the partition Memory - 1024 megabytes ( 12288 meg for entire 9406), Host operating system = OS/400 version 5.2 - IBM zSeries model z900: zSeries VM, CPU IBM/S390, 514516 KiB RAM, Host Operating system running: VM 4.3, Disks: channel attached disks ( 3390 model 3), Disk space: 2.3 Gig x 2 =4.6 Gig, Memory: this id 512 meg ( shared), the VM LPAR itself has 18Gig memory - IBM eServer model e325: CPU: 2x AMD Opteron 246 2Ghz, RAM total 1048000 kB, 1 SCSI disk 36GB The test systems have been installed and configured following exactly the information provided in the Security Guide [10] with additional software packages required for the test suite. Depth/Coverage of Testing The developer has done substantial functional testing of all externally visible interfaces (TSFI). Internal interfaces of the High-level design have been covered by direct and indirect testing. The evaluators repeated the developer tests (because of the highly automated testing approach of the developer) and conducted additional independent tests and penetrations tests. Summary of Developer Testing Effort Test configuration: The sponsor/developer has performed the tests on the hardware platforms defined above. The software was installed and configured as in the Guidance Documents (refer to chapter 6). Additional software was installed on the system to perform the tests. It was argued by the developer’s Test Plan that this additional software was within the boundary defined by the Security Target and did not constitute a violation of the evaluated configuration. Testing approach: The sponsor/developer used several test suites and manual tests to test the TOE. One of the test suites used was the LTP test suite. It is an adapted version of tests from the Linux Test Project of which the sponsor is a member. The tests have a common framework in which individual test cases adhere to a common structure for setup execution and cleanup of tests. Each test case may contain several tests of the same function, stressing different parts (for example, base functionality, behaviour with illegal parameters and reaction to missing privileges). Each test within a test case reports PASS respectively OK or FAIL and the test case summary in batch mode reports PASS if all the tests within the test case passed, otherwise FAIL. BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-23 Tests can be executed either manually by running the individual test case files or run in batch mode by running an overall script. Testing results: All actual test results were consistent with the expected test results. Summary of Evaluator Testing Effort Test configuration: The evaluator used the same machines (zSeries z900, iSeries 825 and eServer e325) as the developer. In addition a different IBM xSeries 335 and IBM pSeries 630 was used by the evaluators. The machines were conformant to the Security Target requirements and have been set up according to the Security Guide [10]. Testing approach: Since the developer tests are highly automated the evaluation facility decided not to choose a subset of the developer tests but to perform all developer tests again. All manual testing done by the developer were repeated by the evaluation facility as well. Additional tests were defined and executed by the evaluation facility in the following areas: - Identification & Authentication - Audit - Access Control - TSF Protection - Object Reuse Testing results: All actual test results were consistent with the expected test results. Evaluator penetration testing: The evaluators have devised a set of penetration tests based on - common sources for vulnerabilities of the Linux Operating System, - findings of their evaluation work examination. The penetration testing addressed the following security functions: - Audit - Discretionary Access Control - TSF Protection with some emphasis on the TSF Protection. The penetration testing showed the existence of vulnerabilities but none of the vulnerabilities were exploitable in the intended environment of the TOE and/or the attack potential assumed for EAL3 (AVA_VLA.1). Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-24 Expansion of the results on other hardware platforms The Security Target [7] defines the IBM xSeries model 335, IBM pSeries model 630, IBM iSeries model 825, IBM zSeries model z900 and IBM eServer model 325 with a set of supported peripherals as the hardware base for the TOE. The IBM xSeries model 335 is a single- or double processor system using Intel XEON processors. Since the tests have been performed both on a single and a double processor system using the single-processor and the multi-processor version of the kernel, the evaluation includes both a single and a double processor configuration of the IBM xSeries model 335. The IBM pSeries model 630 and the IBM iSeries model 825 are both multi-processor systems based on the IBM POWER4 processor. For the pSeries system the TOE was installed and tested directly on the hardware while in the case of the iSeries system the TOE was installed in a logical partition using the OS/400 V5R2 LPAR software. As a consequence the results of this evaluation apply only for a pSeries model 630 when installed directly on the hardware and for an iSeries model 825 when installed in an OS/400 V5R2 LPAR logical partition. The IBM zSeries z900 is a multi-processor system based on the IBM z processor line. The TOE was installed in a logical partition (virtual machine) using the IBM z/VM 4.3 product as the virtual machine monitor. The results of this evaluation therefore only apply for the TOE installed within a virtual machine under z/VM 4.3. The IBM eServer model 325 is based on the AMD Opteron processor. The TOE was installed and tested directly on the hardware, which was the two processor configuration of this model. The results of this evaluation therefore apply just for the two-processor model of the IBM eServer 325. Neither the evaluator nor the developer did perform the full testing on any other platform and therefore an automatic extension of the results of this evaluation to other platforms or other systems based on one of the processor architectures mentioned above is not given. 8 Evaluated Configuration According to the Security Target the evaluated configuration of the TOE (as specified in chapter 8 of this report) is defined as follows (refer also to the Security Target [7]): The TOE “SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification- sles-eal3 package” is delivered by SUSE LINUX AG on a CD-ROM or DVD. In addition to the packages delivered on CD-ROM/DVD the Release Candidate 4 of Service Pack 3 and one package (certification-sles-eal3, refer to chapter 2 for more details) have to be downloaded from the SuSE ftp-server. The integrity and authenticity of this software has to be verified during the installation process. The packages (rpm) as specified in chapter 2 make up the evaluated TOE. The configuration requirements for the TOE are defined in chapter 2.4 and subsequent chapters of the Security Target [7] and are summarised here (please refer to the Security Target for the precise and more detailed description): - The CC evaluated package set must be selected at install time in accordance with the description provided in the Security Guide and installed accordingly; BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-25 - The following file systems are supported: the Ext3 journaling filesystem, the ISO 9660 file system for CD-ROM drives and the process file system, procfs. - SLES supports the use of IPv4 and IPv6, only IPv4 is included; - Both installation from CD and installation from a defined disk partition are supported; - The default configuration for identification and authentication are the defined password based PAM modules. Support for other authentication options e.g. smartcard authentication, is not included in the evaluation configuration; - If the system console is used, it must be connected directly to the workstation and requires the same physical protection as the workstation; - The TOE comprises a single server machine (and optional peripherals) running the allowed system software (refer to package list). A server running the above listed software is referred to as a “TOE server” below. Details on the allowed peripherals can be found in [7], chapter 2.4.2. - Several TOE servers may be interlinked by a LAN, which may be joined by bridges/routers or by TOE workstations which act as routers / gateways. - Each TOE server within this network implements its own security policy. No synchronisation function for those policies exists. - If other systems are connected to the network they need to be configured and managed by the same authority using an appropriate security policy not conflicting with the security policy of the TOE. Note: A graphical user interface for system administration or any other operation is not included in the evaluated configuration. The TOE environment also includes applications that are not evaluated, but are used as unprivileged tools to access public system services. For example a HTTP server using a port above 1024 (e. g. on port 8080) may be used as a normal application running without root privileges on top of the TOE. For setting up / configuring the TOE all guidance documents (refer to chapter 6) especially document [10] has to be followed. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-26 The following constraints concerning the allowed hardware and peripherals are made in the Security Target (refer to [7], chapter 2.4.2): Hardware Platform: - IBM xSeries - model x335 - IBM zSeries - model z900 (the TOE executes in a VM 4.3 Logical Partition ) - IBM iSeries - model 825 machine type (9406) (OS/400 V5R2 LPAR ) - IBM pSeries - model 630 - IBM eServer - model 325 (based on the AMD64 (Opteron) processor) Peripherals: - All terminals and printers supported by the TOE (except hot pluggable devices connected via USB or IEEE 1394 (Firewire) interfaces) - All storage devices and backup devices supported by the TOE (hard disks, CDROM drives, streamer drives, floppy disk drives) (except hot pluggable devices connected via USB or IEEE 1394 (Firewire) interfaces) - All Ethernet and Token-Ring network adapters supported by the TOE Note: The peripherals are physical peripherals for the xSeries and pSeries models. In the case of zSeries and iSeries the TOE is executing within a logical partition and the peripherals used may be virtualized. Serial devices are not supported on iSeries and zSeries. 9 Results of the Evaluation The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [8] was provided by the ITSEF according to the Common Criteria [1], the Common Evaluation Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE (this includes especially the methodology for flaw remediation, [5]). The verdicts for the CC, Part 3 assurance components (according to EAL3 augmented by ALC_FLR.2 and the Security Target evaluation) are summarised in the following table: Assurance Classes and Components Verdict Security Target CC Class ASE PASS TOE description ASE_DES.1 PASS Security environment ASE_ENV.1 PASS ST introduction ASE_INT.1 PASS Security objectives ASE_OBJ.1 PASS PP claims ASE_PPC.1 PASS IT security requirements ASE_REQ.1 PASS Explicitly stated IT security requirements ASE_SRE.1 PASS TOE summary specification ASE_TSS.1 PASS BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-27 Assurance Classes and Components Verdict Configuration management CC Class ACM PASS Authorisation controls ACM_CAP.3 PASS TOE CM coverage ACM_SCP.1 PASS Delivery and Operation CC Class ADO PASS Delivery Procedures ADO_DEL.1 PASS Installation, generation, and start-up procedures ADO_IGS.1 PASS Development CC class ADV PASS Informal functional specification ADV_FSP.1 PASS Security enforcing high-level design ADV_HLD.2 PASS Informal correspondence demonstration ADV_RCR.1 PASS Guidance documents CC Class AGD PASS Administrator guidance AGD_ADM.1 PASS User guidance AGD_USR.1 PASS Life cycle support CC Class ALC PASS Identification of security measures ALC_DVS.1 PASS Flaw reporting procedures ALC_FLR.2 PASS Tests CC Class ATE PASS Analysis of coverage ATE_COV.2 PASS Testing: high-level design ATE_DPT.1 PASS Functional testing ATE_FUN.1 PASS Independent testing - sample ATE_IND.2 PASS Vulnerability assessment CC Class AVA PASS Examination of guidance AVA_MSU.1 PASS Strength of TOE security function evaluation AVA_SOF.1 PASS Developer vulnerability analysis AVA_VLA.1 PASS The evaluation has shown that the TOE fulfils the claimed strength of function for the authentication function using passwords. The TOE has no obvious vulnerabilities which are exploitable in the intended operating environment. The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the product SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V8 Service Pack 3, RC4 with certification-sles-eal3 package in the configuration as defined in the Security Target and summarised in this report (refer to the Security Target [7] and the chapters 2, 4 and 8 of this report). The validity can be extended to new versions and releases of the product, provided the sponsor applies for re- certification of the modified product, and if the evaluation of the modified product does not reveal any security deficiencies. 10 Comments/Recommendations The User Guidance documentation (refer to chapter 6) contains necessary information about the secure usage of the TOE. Additionally, for secure usage of the TOE the fulfilment of the assumptions about the environment in the Security Target [7] and the Security Target as a whole has to be taken into account. Therefore a user/administrator has to follow the guidance in these documents. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-28 11 Annexes None. 12 Security Target For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [7] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is provided within a separate document. 13 Definitions 13.1 Acronyms ACL Access Control List AMD Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. AU Audit BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement DA/DAC Discretionary Access Control EAL Evaluation Assurance Level HTTP Hyper Text Transfer Protocol IA Identification and Authentication IPC Interprocess Communication ISO International Organisation for Standardisation IEEE Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers IT Information Technology LTP Linux Test Project OSP Organisational Security Policy OR Object Reuse PAM Password authentication module PCMCIA Personal Computer Memory Card International Association PP Protection Profile RPM Red Hat Package Manager SC Secure Communication SF Security Function BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-29 SFP Security Function Policy SFR Security Functional Requirement SOF Strength of Function SM Security Management SLES SuSE Linux Enterprise Server SSH Secure Shell SSL Secure Sockets Layer ST Security Target TOE Target of Evaluation TP TSF Protection TSC TSF Scope of Control TSF TOE Security Functions TSP TOE Security Policy TST TST mode of the DEP/PCI USB Universal Serial Bus YaST Yet Another Setup Tool 13.2 Glossary Augmentation - The addition of one or more assurance component(s) from CC Part 3 to an EAL or assurance 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 well-established mathematical concepts. Informal - Expressed in natural language. Object - An entity within the TSC that contains or receives information and upon which subjects perform operations. Protection Profile - An implementation-independent set of security requirements for a category of TOEs that meet specific consumer needs. Security Function - A part or parts of the TOE that have to be relied upon for enforcing a closely related subset of the rules from the TSP. Security Target - A set of security requirements and specifications to be used as the basis for evaluation of an identified TOE. Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics. Strength of Function - A qualification of a TOE security function expressing the minimum efforts assumed necessary to defeat its expected security behaviour by directly attacking its underlying security mechanisms. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-30 SOF-basic - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that the function provides adequate protection against casual breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a low attack potential. SOF-medium - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that the function provides adequate protection against straightforward or intentional breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a moderate attack potential. SOF-high - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that the function provides adequate protection against deliberately planned or organised breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a high attack potential. Subject - An entity within the TSC that causes operations to be performed. Target of Evaluation - An IT product or system and its associated administrator and user guidance documentation that is the subject of an evaluation. TOE Security Functions - A set consisting of all hardware, software, and firmware of the TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the TSP. TOE Security Policy - A set of rules that regulate how assets are managed, protected and distributed within a TOE. TSF Scope of Control - The set of interactions that can occur with or within a TOE and are subject to the rules of the TSP. 14 Bibliography [1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 2.1, August 1999 [2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM), Part 1, Version 0.6; Part 2: Evaluation Methodology, Version 1.0, August 1999 [3] BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125) [4] Applicaton Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE. [5] Applicaton Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme AIS33, Version 2 – “Methodologie zur Fehlerbehebung – Flaw Remediation”, 26.07.2002 [6] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148, BSI 7149), periodically updated list published also on the BSI Web-site [7] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0234-2004, Version 2.7, 2003-11-26, “SuSE Linux Enterprise Server V 8 with Service Pack 3 Security Target for CAPP Compliance”, IBM Corporation & SuSE Linux AG [8] Evaluation Technical Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234, 1.0, 2003-12-18, atsec Information Security GmbH (confidential document) [9] Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP), Version 1.d National Security Agency, 1999-10-08 BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report B-31 User Guidance Documentation: [10] SLES Security Guide, Version 2.33, as part of the certification-sles-eal3 package [11] SuSE Linux EnterpriseServer8. Administration. Books delivered in PDF format as part of the following (platform specific) packages: – sles-admin-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.2 (for xSeries) – sles-admin-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.4 (for eServer) – sles-admin-ipseries_en-8.1.0.2 (for iSeries and pSeries) – sles-admin-zseries_en-8.1.0.2 (for zSeries) [12] SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 – Installation Manuals for the individual platforms. Books delivered in PDF format as part of the following (platform specific) packages: – sles-inst-x86+x86-64_en-8.1.0.2 (for xSeries and eServer) – sles-inst-ipseries_en-8.1.0.3 (for iSeries and pSeries) – sles-inst-zseries_en-8.1.0.9 (for zSeries) Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 B-32 – This page is intentionally left blank– BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report C-1 C Excerpts from the Criteria CC Part 1: Caveats on evaluation results (chapter 5.4) / Final Interpretation 008 The conformance result indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is met by a TOE or PP that passes its evaluation. This conformance result is presented with respect to Part 2 (functional requirements), Part 3 (assurance requirements) and, if applicable, to a pre-defined set of requirements (e.g., EAL, Protection Profile). The conformance result consists of one of the following: Part 2 conformant - A PP or TOE is Part 2 conformant if the functional requirements are based only upon functional components in Part 2 Part 2 extended - A PP or TOE is Part 2 extended if the functional requirements include functional components not in Part 2 plus one of the following: Part 3 conformant - A PP or TOE is Part 3 conformant if the assurance requirements are based only upon assurance components in Part 3 Part 3 extended - A PP or TOE is Part 3 extended if the assurance requirements include assurance requirements not in Part 3. Additionally, the conformance result may include a statement made with respect to sets of defined requirements, in which case it consists of one of the following: Package name Conformant - A PP or TOE is conformant to a pre-defined named functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements (functions or assurance) include all components in the packages listed as part of the conformance result. Package name Augmented - A PP or TOE is an augmentation of a pre-defined named functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements (functions or assurance) are a proper superset of all components in the packages listed as part of the conformance result. Finally, the conformance result may also include a statement made with respect to Protection Profiles, in which case it includes the following: PP Conformant - A TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the conformance result. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 C-2 CC Part 3: Assurance categorisation (chapter 2.5) „The assurance classes, families, and the abbreviation for each family are shown in Table 2.1. Assurance Class Assurance Family Abbreviated Name Class ACM: Configuration management CM automation ACM_AUT CM capabilities ACM_CAP CM scope ACM_SCP Class ADO: Delivery and operation Delivery ADO_DEL Installation, generation and start-up ADO_IGS Class ADV: Development Functional specification ADV_FSP High-level design ADV_HLD Implementation representation ADV_IMP TSF internals ADV_INT Low-level design ADV_LLD Representation correspondence ADV_RCR Security policy modeling ADV_SPM Class AGD: Guidance documents Administrator guidance AGD_ADM User guidance AGD_USR Class ALC: Life cycle support Development security ALC_DVS Flaw remediation ALC_FLR Life cycle definition ALC_LCD Tools and techniques ALC_TAT Class ATE: Tests Coverage ATE_COV Depth ATE_DPT Functional tests ATE_FUN Independent testing ATE_IND Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment Covert channel analysis AVA_CCA Misuse AVA_MSU Strength of TOE security functions AVA_SOF Vulnerability analysis AVA_VLA Table 2.1 -Assurance family breakdown and mapping“ BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report C-3 Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 6) „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 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 6.1) Table 6.1 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 2 of this 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 CC 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 extended with explicitly stated assurance requirements. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 C-4 Assurance Class Assurance Family Assurance Components by Evaluation Assurance Level EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7 Configuration management ACM_AUT 1 1 2 2 ACM_CAP 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 ACM_SCP 1 2 3 3 3 Delivery and operation ADO_DEL 1 1 2 2 2 3 ADO_IGS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Development ADV_FSP 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 ADV_HLD 1 2 2 3 4 5 ADV_IMP 1 2 3 3 ADV_INT 1 2 3 ADV_LLD 1 1 2 2 ADV_RCR 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 ADV_SPM 1 3 3 3 Guidance documents AGD_ADM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AGD_USR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Life cycle support ALC_DVS 1 1 1 2 2 ALC_FLR ALC_LCD 1 2 2 3 ALC_TAT 1 2 3 3 Tests ATE_COV 1 2 2 2 3 3 ATE_DPT 1 1 2 2 3 ATE_FUN 1 1 1 1 2 2 ATE_IND 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Vulnerability assessment AVA_CCA 1 2 2 AVA_MSU 1 2 2 3 3 AVA_SOF 1 1 1 1 1 1 AVA_VLA 1 1 2 3 4 4 Table 6.1 - Evaluation assurance level summary“ BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report C-5 Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 6.2.1) „Objectives 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 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, and that it provides useful protection against identified threats.“ Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 6.2.2) „Objectives 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 practice. 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 6.2.3) „Objectives EAL3 permits a conscientious developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering at the design stage without substantial alteration of existing sound development practices. 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 (chapter 6.2.4) „Objectives EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering based on good commercial development practices which, though rigorous, do not require substantial specialist knowledge, skills, and other resources. EAL4 is the Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 C-6 highest level at which it is likely to be economically feasible to retrofit to an existing product line. EAL4 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a 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 6.2.5) „Objectives EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering based upon rigorous commercial development practices 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. EAL5 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a 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 (chapter 6.2.6) „Objectives 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 (chapter 6.2.7) „Objectives 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.“ BSI-DSZ-CC-0234-2004 Certification Report C-7 Strength of TOE security functions (AVA_SOF) (chapter 14.3) AVA_SOF Strength of TOE security functions „Objectives Even if a TOE security function cannot be bypassed, deactivated, or corrupted, it may still be possible to defeat it because there is a vulnerability in the concept of its underlying security mechanisms. For those functions a qualification of their security behaviour can be made using the results of a quantitative or statistical analysis of the security behaviour of these mechanisms and the effort required to overcome them. The qualification is made in the form of a strength of TOE security function claim.“ Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) (chapter 14.4) AVA_VLA Vulnerability analysis „Objectives Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether vulnerabilities identified, during the evaluation of the construction and anticipated operation of the TOE or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses), could allow users to violate the TSP. Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that a user will be able to discover flaws that will allow unauthorised access to resources (e.g. data), allow the ability to interfere with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users.“ „Application notes A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer in order to ascertain the presence of security vulnerabilities, and should consider at least the contents of all the TOE deliverables including the ST for the targeted evaluation assurance level. The developer is required to document the disposition of identified vulnerabilities to allow the evaluator to make use of that information if it is found useful as a support for the evaluator's independent vulnerability analysis.“ „Independent vulnerability analysis goes beyond the vulnerabilities identified by the developer. The main intent of the evaluator analysis is to determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by an attacker possessing a low (for AVA_VLA.2), moderate (for AVA_VLA.3) or high (for AVA_VLA.4) attack potential.“