UNCLASSIFIED
© Government of Canada. This document is the property of the Government of Canada. It shall not be altered,
distributed beyond its intended audience, produced, reproduced or published, in whole or in any substantial part
thereof, without the express permission of CSE.
COMMON CRITERIA
CERTIFICATION REPORT
API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8
383-4-428
1 September 2017
v1.0
UNCLASSIFIED
FOREWORD
This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief,
Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Suggestions for amendments should be forwarded through
departmental communications security channels to your Client Services Representative at CSE.
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has
been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility – established under the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme –
using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5, for
conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5.
This certification report, and its associated certificate, applies only to the identified version and release of the
product in its evaluated configuration. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of
the Canadian CC Scheme, and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent
with the evidence adduced. This report, and its associated certificate, are not an endorsement of the IT product
by the Communications Security Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this
report, and its associated certificate, and no warranty for the IT product by the Communications Security
Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report, and its associated
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
If your department has identified a requirement for this certification report based on business needs and would
like more detailed information, please contact:
ITS Client Services
Telephone: (613) 991-7654
E-mail: itsclientservices@cse-cst.gc.ca
UNCLASSIFIED
OVERVIEW
The Canadian Common Criteria Scheme provides a third-party evaluation service for determining the
trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT) security products. Evaluations are performed by a commercial
Common Criteria Evaluation Facility (CCEF) under the oversight of the Certification Body, which is managed by
the Communications Security Establishment.
A CCEF is a commercial facility that has been approved by the Certification Body to perform Common Criteria
evaluations; a significant requirement for such approval is accreditation to the requirements of ISO/IEC
17025:2005, the General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.
Accreditation is performed under the Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories - Canada (PALCAN),
administered by the Standards Council of Canada.
The CCEF that carried out this evaluation is EWA-Canada.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, the Certification Body asserts that the product complies with the
security requirements specified in the associated security target. A security target is a requirements specification
document that defines the scope of the evaluation activities. The consumer of certified IT products should
review the security target, in addition to this certification report, in order to gain an understanding of any
assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT product's intended environment, the evaluated security
functionality, and the testing and analysis conducted by the CCEF.
The certification report, certificate of product evaluation and security target are posted to the Certified Products
list (CPL) for the Canadian CC Scheme and to the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................5
1 Identification of Target of Evaluation......................................................................................................6
1.1 Common Criteria Conformance..................................................................................................................6
1.2 TOE description ..........................................................................................................................................6
1.3 TOE architecture.........................................................................................................................................6
2 Security policy .......................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Cryptographic functionality........................................................................................................................7
3 Assumptions and Clarifications of Scope.................................................................................................8
3.1 Usage and Environmental assumptions .....................................................................................................8
4 Evaluated Configuration.........................................................................................................................9
4.1 Documentation...........................................................................................................................................9
5 Evaluation Analysis Activities ...............................................................................................................10
5.1 Development........................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Guidance Documents .............................................................................................................................. 10
5.3 Life-cycle Support.................................................................................................................................... 10
6 Testing Activities..................................................................................................................................11
6.1 Assessment of Developer Tests............................................................................................................... 11
6.2 Conduct of Testing................................................................................................................................... 11
6.3 Independent Functional Testing.............................................................................................................. 11
6.4 Independent Penetration Testing ........................................................................................................... 12
7 Results of the Evaluation......................................................................................................................13
7.1 Recommendations/Comments................................................................................................................ 13
8 Supporting Content..............................................................................................................................14
8.1 List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ 14
8.2 References............................................................................................................................................... 15
UNCLASSIFIED
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 TOE Architecture ....................................................................................................................................6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 TOE Identification.......................................................................................................................................6
Table 2 Cryptographic Module(s)............................................................................................................................7
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8 (hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE), from API
Technologies™, was the subject of this Common Criteria evaluation. A description of the TOE can be found in
Section 1.2. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that TOE meets the requirements of the conformance
claim listed in Table 1 for the evaluated security functionality.
EWA-Canada is the CCEF that conducted the evaluation. This evaluation was completed on 01 September 2017
and was carried out in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme.
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target, which identifies assumptions made during the
evaluation, the intended environment for TOE, and the security functional/assurance requirements. Consumers
are advised to verify that their operating environment is consistent with that specified in the security target, and
to give due consideration to the comments, observations and recommendations in this certification report.
Communications Security Establishment, as the Certification Body, declares that the TOE evaluation meets all
the conditions of the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will
be listed on the Canadian Certified Products list (CPL) and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 6
1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows:
Table 1 TOE Identification
TOE Name and Version API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8
Developer API Technologies™
Conformance Claim EAL 2+ (ALC_FLR.2)
1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5.
1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION
The TOE is an inline user authentication device for networked, special purpose devices such as multi-function
printer/scanner/copiers. Users of the multi-function device are required to authenticate themselves with a
smartcard (Common Access Card (CAC)/Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card) and personal identification
number (PIN) prior to accessing or distributing privileged materials.
Prior to authentication, users are not permitted to print, scan, or send from the multi-function device to
network resources. The TOE is designed to work with multi-function devices that do not natively support
CAC/PIV access.
1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE
A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows:
Figure 1 TOE Architecture
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 7
2 SECURITY POLICY
The TOE implements policies pertaining to the following security functional classes:
 Security Audit
 Cryptographic Support
 User Data Protection
 Identification and Authentication
 Security Management
 Protection of the TSF
 TOE Access
 Trusted Path/Channel
Complete details of the security functional requirements (SFRs) can be found in the Security Target (ST)
referenced in section 8.2.
2.1 CRYPTOGRAPHIC FUNCTIONALITY
The following cryptographic module was evaluated by the CMVP and implemented in the TOE:
Table 2 Cryptographic Module(s)
Cryptographic Module Certificate Number
Common Crypto Module for PRIISMS, PRIISMS RD,
SA5600-IA and NetGard MFD
(Software Version: 1.0)
#2070
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 8
3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF SCOPE
Consumers of the TOE should consider assumptions about usage and environmental settings as requirements
for the product’s installation and its operating environment. This will ensure the proper and secure operation of
the TOE.
3.1 USAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made regarding the use and deployment of the TOE:
 The TOE is connected to the network in such a way that it is able to access all of the network resources
required to support authentication, access to email and access to the user’s home directory.
 The TOE will be located within controlled access facilities, which will prevent unauthorized physical
access. The TOE must be in close proximity to the MFD.
 There are one or more competent individuals assigned to manage the TOE.
 The authorized administrators are not careless, wilfully negligent, or hostile, are appropriately trained
and will follow the instructions provided by the TOE documentation.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 9
4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION
The evaluated configuration for the TOE comprises:
 API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8.0-1 CL310S;
 API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8.0-1-v CL310S2; and
 API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8.0-1-HP CL310HP for HP Large Format Printers.
The following support from the operating environment is required:
 ACR Card Reader with PIN pad and metal bracket;
 OMNIKEY 3121 Card Reader;
 Domain Controller;
 Active directory;
 SMTP server;
 NTP server;
 Server Message Block server;
 Kerberos Key Distribution Center;
 Certification Authority; and
 Online Certificate Status Protocol Service.
4.1 DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE:
a. Netgard MFD Quick Start Guide, Version 3.1.
b. Netgard MFD Administrator Guide, Version 1.8.0.
c. Netgard MFD Scan to Home and Secure Print Release Deployment Guide, Version 6.
d. Scan to Home for HP T2500 Plotter Deployment Guide, Version 1.6.
e. Netgard MFD Common Criteria Guidance Supplement, Version 1.0.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 10
5 EVALUATION ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES
The evaluation analysis activities involved a structured evaluation of the TOE. Documentation and process
dealing with Development, Guidance Documents, and Life-Cycle Support were evaluated.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT
The evaluators analyzed the documentation provided by the vendor; they determined that the design
completely and accurately describes the TOE security functionality (TSF) interfaces, the TSF subsystems and how
the TSF implements the security functional requirements (SFRs). The evaluators determined that the
initialization process is secure, that the security functions are protected against tamper and bypass, and that
security domains are maintained.
5.2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The evaluators examined the TOE preparative user guidance and operational user guidance and determined that
it sufficiently and unambiguously describes how to securely transform the TOE into its evaluated configuration
and how to use and administer the product. The evaluators examined and tested the preparative and
operational guidance, and determined that they are complete and sufficiently detailed to result in a secure
configuration.
Section 4.1 provides details on the guidance documents.
5.3 LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT
An analysis of the TOE configuration management system and associated documentation was performed. The
evaluators found that the TOE configuration items were clearly marked.
The evaluators examined the delivery documentation and determined that it described all of the procedures
required to maintain the integrity of the TOE during distribution to the consumer.
The evaluators reviewed the flaw remediation procedures used by developer for the TOE. The evaluators
concluded that the procedures are adequate to track and correct security flaws, and distribute the flaw
information and corrections to consumers of the TOE.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 11
6 TESTING ACTIVITIES
Testing consists of the following three steps: assessing developer tests, performing independent functional tests,
and performing penetration tests.
6.1 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPER TESTS
The evaluators verified that the developer has met their testing responsibilities by examining their test evidence,
and reviewing their test results, as documented in the ETR. The correspondence between the tests identified in
the developer’s test documentation and the functional specification was complete.
6.2 CONDUCT OF TESTING
The TOE was subjected to a comprehensive suite of formally documented, independent functional and
penetration tests. The detailed testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected
results and observed results are documented in a separate Test Results document.
6.3 INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL TESTING
During this evaluation, the evaluator developed independent functional tests by examining design and guidance
documentation.
All testing was planned and documented to a sufficient level of detail to allow repeatability of the testing
procedures and results. The following testing activities were performed:
a. Repeat of Developer's Tests: The evaluator repeated a subset of the developers tests;
b. Concurrent logins: The evaluator confirmed that the TOE is able to maintain separation of roles during
concurrent connections to the management interface;
c. Secure Print Release Queue Management: The evaluator confirmed that the secure print release queue
will only release a print job to the correct user; and
d. Secure Print Release on HP PageWide XL 5000: The evaluator confirmed that the Netgard MFD Secure
Release functionality works correctly with the CAC card and an HP PageWide XL 5000 peripheral device.
6.3.1 FUNCTIONAL TEST RESULTS
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests yielded the expected results, providing assurance
that the TOE behaves as specified in its ST and functional specification.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 12
6.4 INDEPENDENT PENETRATION TESTING
Subsequent to the independent review of public domain vulnerability databases and all evaluation deliverables,
limited independent evaluator penetration testing was conducted. The penetration tests focused on:
a. Use of automated vulnerability scanning tools to discover potential network, platform and application
layer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, Shellshock, FREAK, POODLE, and GHOST; and
b. Login Credential Protection: Using Wireshark, the evaluator attempted to capture login credentials.
6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
The independent penetration testing did not uncover any exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating
environment.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 13
7 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
This evaluation has provided the basis for the conformance claim documented in Table 1. The overall verdict for
this evaluation is PASS. These results are supported by evidence in the ETR.
The IT product identified in this report has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility established under
the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 5, for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5. These
evaluation results apply 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 Canadian Common Criteria Scheme
and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
This is not an endorsement of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives effect
to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives
effect to this certificate, is expressed or implied.
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS
It is recommended that all guidance outlined in Section 4.1 be followed to configure the TOE in the evaluated
configuration.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 14
8 SUPPORTING CONTENT
8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
CCEF Common Criteria Evaluation Facility
CM Configuration Management
CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program
CSE Communications Security Establishment
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
GC Government of Canada
IT Information Technology
ITS Information Technology Security
ITSET Information Technology Security Evaluation and Testing
MFD Multi-function Device
PALCAN Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories – Canada
PP Protection Profile
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Function
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 15
8.2 REFERENCES
Reference
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5, September 2012.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 5,
September 2012.
Evaluation Technical Report for API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8, v1.0, 1 Sept 2017.
Security Target for API Technologies™ Netgard™ MFD v1.8, v1.1, 11 July 2017.