Certification Report Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 for Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 from Renesas Technology Corp. BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn Phone +49 228 9582-0, Fax +49 228 9582-455, Infoline +49 228 9582-111 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 from Renesas Technology Corp. Common Criteria Arrangement for components up to EAL4 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 advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL4 and smart card specific guidance for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 2.1 (ISO/IEC 15408:1999) and including final interpretations for compliance with Common Criteria Version 2.2 and Common Methodology Part 2, Version 2.2. Evaluation Results: PP Conformance: Smartcard IC Platform Protection Profile, 1.0 (BSI-PP-0002-2001) Functionality: PP-0002-2001 conformant plus product specific extensions Common Criteria Part 2 extended Assurance Package: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant EAL 4 augmented by: ADV_IMP.2 (Implementation of the TSF), ALC_DVS.2 (Sufficieny of security measures), AVA_MSU.3 (Analysis and testing for insecure states) and AVA_VLA.4 (Highly resistant) 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, March 28th , 2006 The President of the Federal Office for Information Security Dr. Helmbrecht L.S. Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn Phone +49 228 9582-0 - Fax +49 228 9582-455 - Infoline +49 228 9582-111 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. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 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 V Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Contents Part A: Certification Part B: Certification Results Part C: Excerpts from the Criteria Part D: Annexes VI Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 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) • Advice from the Certification Body on methodology for assurance components above EAL4 (AIS 34) The use of Common Criteria Version 2.1, Common Methodology, part 2, Version 1.0 and final interpretations as part of AIS 32 results in compliance of the certification results with Common Criteria Version 2.2 and Common Methodology Part 2, Version 2.2 as endorsed by the Common Criteria recognition arrangement committees. 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 Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI-Kostenverordnung, BSI-KostV) of 03 March 2005, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 519 5 Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern of 22 September 2000 in the Bundes- anzeiger p. 19445 A-1 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 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, the Czech Republic in September 2004, the Republic of Singapore in March 2005, India in April 2005. This evaluation contains the components ADV_IMP.2, ALC_DVS.2, AVA_MSU.3 and AVA_VLA.4 that are not mutually recognised in accordance with the provisions of the CCRA. For mutual recognition the EAL4-components of these assurance families are relevant. 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 Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 has undergone the certification procedure at BSI. The evaluation of the product Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 was conducted by T- Systems GEI GmbH, Solution & Service Center Test Factory & Security. The T- A-2 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Systems GEI GmbH, Solution & Service Center Test Factory & Security is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)6 recognised by BSI. The vendor and distributor is Renesas Technology Corp. The sponsor and point of contact is Renesas Technology Europe Ltd. Dukes Meadow Millboard Road Bourne End Buckinghamshire SL8 5FH UK The certification is concluded with • the comparability check and • the production of this Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI on March 28th , 2006. 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. 4 Publication The following Certification Results contain pages B-1 to B-22 and D-1 to D-4. The product Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 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 +49 228 9582-111. 6 Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility A-3 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 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 Renesas Technology Corp. Secure MCU Dept. MCU Business Unit Standard Product Business Group 20-1 Jousuihon-cho 5-chome Kodaira-shi Tokyo 187-8588, Japan A-4 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 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. B-1 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Contents of the certification results 1 Executive Summary 3 2 Identification of the TOE 11 3 Security Policy 11 4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 12 5 Architectural Information 13 6 Documentation 13 7 IT Product Testing 13 8 Evaluated Configuration 14 9 Results of the Evaluation 14 10 Comments/Recommendations 17 11 Annexes 17 12 Security Target 18 13 Definitions 18 14 Bibliography 20 B-2 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 1 Executive Summary The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit (IC) version 02 with ACL version 1.43, produced in Naka (Japan). The TOE consists of hardware, along with IC Dedicated Test Software, some embedded software and reference and guidance documents. The TOE is a hardware integrated circuit which can be used on a plastic smartcard as hardware computing platform with the Advanced Cryptographic Library (ACL) which provides cryptographic functions to the developer of Smartcard Embedded Software. The TOE is composed of a central processing unit, a system control logic, security logic, volatile and non-volatile memories (240KBytes User ROM + 16KBytes Test ROM, 6 Kbytes RAM + 2 Kbytes Coprocessor RAM, EEPROM 32Kbytes + 8Kbytes), a 16Bit random number generator (RNG), a DES coprocessor, a Modular Multiplication Coprocessor (MMC), two interval timers, a Direct Memory Access Controller (DMAC), a watchdog timer (optional), a Firewall Management Unit (FMU), two I/O lines and an Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter (UART). The IC also provides protection features to resist leakage attacks, these include bus encryption (which is always active), memory data encryption and the ability of Smartcard Embedded Software to select noise generation and timing disturbance. Physical security of the IC is enhanced by the presence of passive and active shielding over critical areas and by the use of design techniques that obscure the function and operation of the physical layout. The TOE includes the IC Dedicated Test Software which is integrated into a TOE hardware. It is used for mode transition and testing during IC production and is not available for users. The ACL, the ROM and the IC Dedicated Test Software, which is implemented on hardware, are part of the TOE. Apart from this the Smartcard Embedded Software (e.g. an operating system) is not part of the TOE. The Security Target [6] is written using the Smartcard IC Platform Protection Profile [7]. With reference to this Protection Profile, the smartcard product lifecycle is described in 7 phases. The development, production and operational user environment are described in reference to these phases. TOE delivery is defined at the end of phase 3 or phase 4. The assumptions, threats and objectives defined in this Protection Profile [7] are used. To address additional security features of the TOE (e.g. cryptographic services), the security environment as outlined in the PP [7] is augmented by an additional policy, threats, assumptions and security objectives accordingly. The IT product Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 was evaluated by T-Systems GEI GmbH, B-3 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Solution & Service Center Test Factory & Security. The evaluation was completed on February 7th, 2006. The T-Systems GEI GmbH, Solution & Service Center Test Factory & Security is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)8 recognised by BSI. The vendor and distributor is Renesas Technology Corp. The sponsor and point of contact is Renesas Technology Europe Ltd. Dukes Meadow Millboard Road Bourne End Buckinghamshire SL8 5FH UK 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 Annex C or [1], part 3 for details). The TOE meets the assurance requirements of assurance level EAL 4+ (Evaluation Assurance Level 4 augmented). The following table shows the augmented assurance components. Requirement Identifier EAL4 TOE evaluation: methodically designed, tested, and reviewed + ADV_IMP.2 Development – Implementation of the TSF + ALC_DVS.2 Life cycle support – Sufficiency of security measures + AVA_MSU.3 Vulnerability assessment - Analysis and testing for insecure states + AVA_VLA.4 Vulnerability assessment - Highly resistant Table 1: Assurance components and EAL-augmentation 1.2 Functionality The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) selected in the Security Target are Common Criteria Part 2 extended as shown in the following tables. The following SFRs are taken from CC part 2. The source of this SFRs is the Protection Profile BSI-PP-0002-2001 [PP, 7], the “Smartcard Integrated Circuit Platform Augmentations” [PA, 17] or they are added in the Security Target [ST, 6]: 8 Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility B-4 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Security Functional Requirement Addressed issue Source from PP, PA or added in ST FCS Cryptographic support FCS_COP.1 [3DES] Cryptographic operation PA FCS_COP.1 [RSA] Cryptographic operation PA FCS_COP.1 [SHA-1] Cryptographic operation PA FCS_COP.1 [RIPEMD-160] Cryptographic operation PA FCS_CKM.1 [RSA] Cryptographic key generation PA FDP User data protection FDP_ITT.1 [HW] Basic internal transfer protection PP FDP_ITT.1 [ACL] Basic internal transfer protection PP FDP_IFC.1 [HW] Subset information flow control PP FDP_IFC.1 [ACL] Subset information flow control PP FDP_ACC.1 [CRP] Subset access control ST FDP_ACC.1 [WPP] Subset access control ST FDP_ACF.1 [CRP] Security attribute based access control ST FDP_ACF.1 [WPP] Security attribute based access control ST FPT Protection of the TOE Security Functions FPT_FLS.1 Failure with preservation of secure state PP FPT_SEP.1 TSF domain seperation PP FPT_PHP.3 Resistance to physical attack PP FPT_ITT.1 [HW] Basic internal TSF data transfer protection PP FPT_ITT.1 [ACL] Basic internal TSF data transfer protection PP FRU Resource utilisation FRU_FLT.2 Limited fault tolerance PP Table 2: SFRs for the TOE taken from CC Part 2 B-5 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 The following CC part 2 extended SFRs are defined: Security Functional Requirement Addressed issue Source from PP, PA or added in ST FAU Security audit FAU_SAS.1 Audit storage PP FCS Cryptographic support FCS_RND.1 [TRNG] Quality metric for random numbers PP FCS_RND.1 [PRNG] Quality metric for random numbers PP FMT FMT_LIM.1 PP FMT_LIM.2 PP Table 3: SFRs for the TOE, CC part 2 extended Note: only the titles of the Security Functional Requirements are provided. For more details and application notes please refer to the ST [6] chapter 5.1. These Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the TOE Security Functions: TOE Security Function Addressed issue SF.HWProtect HW protection The TOE is protected from attacks on the operation of the IC hardware. The protection includes high and low voltage, clock frequency and temperature detection and detection of illegal access and instruction. It also includes RNG failure detection, shielding and memory layout scrambling, memory address encryption and memory data encryption for ROM. SF.LeakProtect Leakage protection The TOE hardware protects against leakage of information from the IC. The protection features include data and address bus encryption, noise generation, time disturbance and DES protection. SF.ACL-LeakProtect ACL leakage protection The ACL provides additional measures to protect against leakage of information from the IC. The protection features include scrambled copy/ compare/ XOR and secure RSA operation and keyset generation, secure modular inversion and secure multiply. SF.RNG Random Number Generator The RNG is designed to produce random numbers for the generation of cryptographic keys and for other critical uses. B-6 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 TOE Security Function Addressed issue This RNG meets the requirements of application class P2 as specified in [1, AIS31]. Moreover the ACL includes a function to access the HW RNG, which automatically runs an online test of the HW RNG to verify that its operation has not been compromised. This function implements „Poker Test“ according to [2]. The TOE also includes the software implementations of a pseudo random number generator (PRNG). This PRNG is implemented according to the standard ANSI X9.31 Appendix A and meets functionality class K3 as specified in the AIS20. SF.DES DES coprocessor The TOE provides a hardware DES coprocessor that carries out DES encryption and decryption in ECB mode and ACL software functions to access this coprocessor for DES and implement Triple-DES, according to the FIPS PUB 46-3 standard [10]. Moreover the ACL provides an interface function for the DES coprocessor and in addition implements a triple DES function. The DES and 3DES algorithm are implemented according to FIPS PUB 46-3. Only 3DES has sufficient SOF to be claimed as a SF and for use in the secure part of any Smartcard Embedded Software. SF.FMU Firewall Management Unit The FMU enables software to control addresses that can be accessed to check that a target address used in any instruction is within specified limits and if not to enter the reset state or FMU interrupt. In addition the FMU may enforce a policy controlled only by software executing in ROM, that the TOE may not execute code either EEPROM or RAM or both. SF.ESFunctions The Smartcard Embedded Software developer can rely on the following TOE functionality that has been specifically evaluated as part of the TOE • Generation of non-maskable interrupt (the EWE interrupt) when writing the EEPROM • CPU halt initiated by user software to stop executation until an external reset is received SF.TestModeControl Test Mode Control If the TOE has been set to user mode, test mode functions are no longer accessible. SF.EEPAccess EEPROM Access The TOE allows any page of EEPROM to have writes (or erase) disallowed by setting the page to have a protect state. If a write (or erase) is attempted to a protected page then it will leave the page content unaltered. This protection is permanent once set. SF.Inject Injection B-7 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 TOE Security Function Addressed issue Each TOE is injected with data that uniquely identifies the individual IC during manufacture. If specified for the Smartcard Embedded Software included, then additional data may also be injected during manufacture. SF.MMCopro The TOE provides coprocessor that carries out modular multiplication. This forms the basis for software implementation of algorithms such as RSA. The ACL provides an implementation of the RSA and RSA CRT algorithm using the hardware MMC. It also provides secure generation of keys for the RSA and RSA CRT algorithm using the hardware RNG and software PRNG. The RSA and RSA CRT encryption, decryption and key generation of the ACL clear all parts of the MMC of intermediate results, keys and key parts immediately before returning control of the calling environment. SF.Hash Hash functions The ACL provides implementations of the hash functions SHA-1 and RipeMD-160 according to the FIPS PUB 180-1 and ISO/IEC 10118-3:2003 respectively. Table 4: TOE Security Functions For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 6.1. 1.3 Strength of Function The TOE’s strength of functions is claimed “high” (SOF-high) for specific functions as indicated in the Security Target [6, chapter 5.1.4]. 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). For details see chapter 9 of this report. 1.4 Summary of threats and Organisational Security Policies (OSPs) addressed by the evaluated IT product The threats which were assumed for the evaluation and averted by the TOE and the organisational security policies defined for the TOE are specified in the Security Target [6] and can be summarized as follows. It is assumed that the attacker is a human being or process acting on behalf of the human being. With reference to the Protection Profile [7], the Security Target [6] defines so- called standard high level security concerns derived from considering the end- usage phase (phase 7 of the lifecycle as described in the Security Target) as follows: B-8 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 • Manipulation of User Data and of the Smartcard Embedded Software (while being executed/processed and while being stored in the TOE´s memories), • Disclosure of User Data and of the Smartcard Embedded Software (while being processed and while being stored in the TOE´s memories) and • Deficiency of random numbers. These high-level security concerns are refined by defining threats on a more technical level for • Inherent information leakage • Physical probing • Physical manipulation • Malfunction due the Environmental Stress • Forced Information leakage • Abuse of Functionality • Deficiency of Random Numbers Phase 1 and the phases from the TOE delivery up to the end of phase 6 are covered by assumptions (see below). The development and production environment starting with phase 2 up to the TOE delivery is covered by an organisational security policy outlining that the IC Developer/Manufacturer must apply the policy “Protection during TOE development and production (P.Process-TOE)” so that no information is unintentionally made available for the operational phase of the TOE. The Policy ensures confidentiality and integrity of the TOE and its related design information and data. Access to samples, tools and material must be restricted. Additionally, the Security Target defines the security concern about specific attacks on the Smartcard Embedded Software the TOE is not able to detect or to respond to. This concern is detailed in terms of the threats. • Inability of the TOE to detect an attack and • Inability of the Smartcard Embedded Software to respond to an attack A specific additional security functionality for DES encryption and decryption must be provided by the TOE according to an additional security policy defined in the Security Target. Objectives are taken from the Protection Profile plus additional ones related to the additional threats and policy. 1.5 Special configuration requirements The TOE has two different operating modes, user mode and test mode. The application software being executed on the TOE cannot use the test mode. The TOE is delivered as a hardware unit at the end of the IC manufacturing process B-9 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 (Phase 3) or at the end of the IC packaging (Phase 4). At this point in time the operating system software is already stored in the non-volatile memories of the chip and the test mode is disabled. Thus there are no special procedures for generation or installation that are important for the secure use of the TOE. The further production and delivery processes, like the Smartcard finishing process, personalization and the delivery of the Smartcard to an enduser, have to be organized in a way that excludes all posibilities of physical manipulation of the TOE. There are no special security measures for the startup of the TOE besides the requirement that the controller has to be used under the well-defined operating conditions and the requirements on the software have to be applied as described in the user documentation. 1.6 Assumptions about the operating environment Since the Security Target claims conformance to the Protection Profile [7], the assumptions defined in section 3.2 of the Protection Profile are valid for the Security Target of this TOE. With respect to the life cycle defined in the Security Target, phase 1 and the phases from TOE delivery up to the end of phase 6 are covered by these assumptions from the PP. The developer of the Smartcard Embedded Software (phase 1) must ensure: • The apropriate „usage of hardware platform (A.Plat-Appl)“ while developing this software in phase 1. Therefore it has to be ensured that the software fulfils the assumptions for a secure use of the TOE. In particular the assumptions imply the developers are trusted to develop software that fulfils the assumptions. • The apropriate „treatment of the user data (A.Resp-Appl)“ while developing this software in phase 1. The smartcard operating system and the smartcard application software have to use security relevant user data (especially keys and plain text data) in a secure way. It is assumed that the Security Policy as defined for the specific application context of the environment does not contradict the Security Objectives of the TOE. Only appropriate secret keys as input for the cryptographic function of the TOE have to be used to ensure the strength of cryptographic operation. Protection during packaging, finishing and personalization (A.Process-Card) is assumed after TOE delivery up to the end of phase 6, as well as during the delivery to phase 7. Following additional assumptions are defined in the Security Target: • Key-dependent functions (if any) shall be implemented in the Smartcard Embedded Software in a way that they are not susceptible to leakage attacks (A.Key-Function). • Date for injection/pre-personalization will be supplied from the various bodies controlling the operations of the system in which the TOE will be used. It is assumed that the generation, distribution, maintenance and destruction of these data is adequately secure (A.InjDatSupp). B-10 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 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 (TOE) is called Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43. The following table outlines the TOE deliverables: No Type Identifier Release Form of Delivery 1 HW AE55C1 (HD65255C1) Smartcard Integrated Circuit 02 Wafer or package module 2 SW IC Dedicated Test Software Test ROM software 1.4 Included in AE55C1 Test ROM 3 SW ACL (Advanced Cryptographic Library) 1.43 Software module (this is implemented in the Embedded Software by the User) 4 DOC Hardware Manual 1.0 Hardcopy 5 DOC User Guidance 4.40 Hardcopy 6 DOC Cryptographic Library Manual 1.70 Hardcopy 7 DOC Option List 1.3 Electronic data/ Hardcopy Table 5: Deliverables of the TOE The TOE is identified by HD65255C1 smartcard integrated circuit (short form AE55C1), Version 02 (stored as a version number in the EEPROM) with ACL version 1.43 produced in Naka (indicated by IC manufacturers ID number 4870 for Naka). The pre-personalization using the option list [11]. To ensure that the customer receives this evaluated version, the delivery procedures described in [9] have to be followed. 3 Security Policy The security policy of the TOE is to provide basic security function to be used by the smartcard operating system and the smartcard application thus providing an overall smartcard system security. Therefore, the TOE will implement a symmetric cryptographic block cipher algorithm to ensure the confidentiality of B-11 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 plain text data by encryption and to support secure authentification, protocols and it will provide a random number generation of appropriate quality. As the TOE is a hardware security platform, the security policy of the TOE is also to provide proctection against leakage of information (e.g. to ensure the confidentiality of cryptographic keys during cryptographic functions performed by the TOE), against physical probing, against malfunctions, against physical manipulations and against abuse of functionality. Hence the TOE shall: • Maintain the integrity and the confidentiality of data stored in the memory of the TOE and • Maintain the integrity, the correct operation and the confidentiality of security functions (security mechanism and associated functions) provided by the TOE. 4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope The smartcard operating system and the application software stored in the user ROM and in the EEPROM are not part of the TOE. The code in the Test ROM of the TOE (IC Dedicated Software) is used by the TOE manufacturer to check the chip function before TOE delivery. This was considered as part of the evaluation under the CC assurance aspects ALC for relevant procedures and under ATE for testing. The TOE is delivered as a hardware unit at the end of the chip manufacturing process (phase 3 of the life cycle defined) or at the end of the IC packaging into modules (phase 4 of the life cycle defined). At these specific points in time the operating systems software is already stored in the non-volatile memories of the chip and the test mode is completely disabled. The smartcard applications need the security functions of the smartcard operating system based on the security features of the TOE. With respect to security the composition of this TOE, the operating system and the smartcard application is important. Within this composition the security functionality is only partly provided by the TOE and causes dependencies between the TOE security functions and the functions provided by the operating system or the smartcard application on top. These dependencies are expressed by environmental and secure usage assumptions as outlined in the user documentation. Within this evaluation of the TOE several aspects were specifically considered to support a composite evaluation of the TOE together with an embedded smartcard application software (i.e. smartcard operating system and application). This was necessary as Renesas Technology Corp. is the TOE developer and manufacturer and responsible for specific aspects of handling the embedded smartcard application software in its development and production environment. For those aspects refer to chapter 9 of this report. B-12 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 5 Architectural Information The Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 providing a hardware platform to a smartcard operating system and smartcard application software. The top level block diagram and the list of subsystems can be found within the TOE description of the Security Target. The complete hardware description and the complete instruction set of the Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 is to be found in the Hardware Manual [12] and in the ACL User Manual (ACLSM) [13]. For the implementation of the TOE security functions basically the components CPU, EEPROM, ROM, RAM, system control registers, DES coprocessor, Firewall Management Unit, a random number generator, the analog block with security sensors, the random logic module for security logic and the ACL are used. Security measures for physical protection are realised within the layout of the whole circuitry. The TOE IC Dedicated Software, stored on the chip, is used for testing purposes during production only and is completely separated from the use of the embedded software by disabling before TOE delivery. 6 Documentation The following documentation is provided with the product by the developer to the customer (see also table 5 of this report) • Hardware Manual, Version 1.00, Hardcopy • User Guidance, Verison 4.40, Hardcopy • Cryptographic Library Manual, Version 1.70, Hardcopy • Option List, Version 1.3, Electronic data/ Hardcopy 7 IT Product Testing The tests performed by the developer were divided into five categories: • (i) tests which are performed in a simulation environment; • (ii) functional production tests, which are done as a last step of the production process (phase 3) and in case TOE delivery is at the end of phase 4, additionally done as a last step of IC Packaging. These tests are done for every chip to check its correct functionality; • (iii) characterization tests, which were used to determine the behaviour of the chip with respect to different operating conditions; • (iv) special verification tests for security functions which were done with samples of the TOE and B-13 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 • (v) layout checks, tests that are executed to verify the correspondence between the logic circuit data and the chip design data. The developer tests cover all security functions and all security mechanisms as identified in the functional specification and the high level design. Chips from the production site in Naka (see Annex A of this report) were used for tests. The evaluators could repeat the tests of the developer either using the library of programs and tools delivered to the evaluator or at the developer site, except (v). The performed independent tests to supplement, augment and to verify the tests performed by the developer by sampling. Besides repeating exactly the developer tests, test parameters were varied and additional analysis was done. Security features of the TOE realised by the specific design and layout measures were checked by the evaluators during layout inspections. The evaluators gave evidence that the actual version of the TOE (Version 02 with IC manufacturer´s ID number 4870 for Naka) provides the security functions as specified. The test results confirm the correct implementation of the TOE security functions. For penetration testing the evaluators took all security functions into consideration. Intensive penetration testing was performed to consider the physical tampering of the TOE using highly sophisticated equipment and expert know-how. 8 Evaluated Configuration The TOE identified by Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43, manufacturer´s ID number 4870 for Naka. There is only one evaluated configuration of the TOE. This configuration (all TSF are active and usable) has to be selected by the customer in the option list at order. All information of how to use the TOE and ist security functions by the software is provided within the user documentation. The TOE has two different operating modes, user mode and test mode. The application software being executed on the TOE can not use the test mode. Thus, the evaluation was mainly performed in the user mode. However, some evalution activities were performed in the test mode. For those cases, a rational was provided why the results are also valid for the user mode. 9 Results of the Evaluation 9.1 Evaluation of the TOE The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [8] was provided by the ITSEF according to the Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE. B-14 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 The evaluation methodology CEM [2] was used for those components identical with EAL4. For components beyond EAL4 the methodology was defined in co- ordination with the Certification Body. For smart card IC specific methodology the CC supporting documents (i) Joint Interpretation Library - The application of CC to integrated circuits (ii) Joint Interpretation Library - Integrated Circuit Hardware Evaluation Methodology, Vulnerability Assessment (iii) Functionality classes and evaluation methodology for physical random number generators (iv) Functionality classes and evaluation methodology for deterministic random number generators (see [4] AIS 20, AIS 25, AIS 26 and AIS 31) were used. The assurance refinements outlined in the Security Target were followed in the course of the evaluation of the TOE. The verdicts for the CC, Part 3 assurance components (according to EAL 4 augmented and the class ASE for the Security Target evaluation) are summarised in the following table. Assurance classes and components Verdict Security Target evaluation 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 Configuration management CC Class ACM PASS Partial CM automation ACM_AUT.1 PASS Generation support and acceptance procedures ACM_CAP.4 PASS Problem tracking CM coverage ACM_SCP.2 PASS Delivery and operation CC Class ADO PASS Detection of modification ADO_DEL.2 PASS Installation, generation, and start-up procedures ADO_IGS.1 PASS Development CC Class ADV PASS Fully defined external interface ADV_FSP.2 PASS Security enforcing high-level design ADV_HLD.2 PASS B-15 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Assurance classes and components Verdict Implementation of the TSF ADV_IMP.2 PASS Descriptive low-level design ADV_LLD.1 PASS Information correspondence demonstration ADV_RCR.1 PASS Informal TOE security policy model ADV_SPM.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 Sufficiency of security measures ALC_DVS.2 PASS Developer defined life-cycle model ALC_LCD.1 PASS Well defined development tools ALC_TAT.1 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 Analysis and testing for insecure states AVA_MSU.3 PASS Strength of TOE security function evaluation AVA_SOF.1 PASS Highly resistant AVA_VLA.4 PASS Table 6: Verdicts for the assurance components The evaluation has shown that: • the TOE is conform to the Protection Profile BSI-PP-0002-2001 • Security Functional Requirements specified for the TOE are Common Criteria Part 2 extended • the assurance of the TOE is Common Criteria Part 3 conformant, EAL4 augmented by ADV_IMP.2, ALC_DVS.2, AVA_MSU.3 and AVA_VLA.4 • The following TOE Security Functions fulfil the claimed Strength of Function: SF.LeakProtect, SF.ACL-LeakProtect, SF.RNG and SF.Hash. 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). B-16 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 This holds for the TOE Security Function SF.DES and for other usage of encryption and decryption within the TOE. For specific evaluation results regarding the development and production environment see annex A in part D of this report. The code in the Test ROM of the TOE (IC dedicated software) is used by the TOE manufacturer to check the chip function before TOE delivery. This was considered as part of the evaluation under the CC assurance aspects ALC for relevant procedures and under ATE for testing. The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 produced in Naka (indicated by IC manufacturer´s ID number 4870 for Naka). The validity can be extended to new versions and releases of the product, provided the sponsor applies for re-certification or assurance continuity of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural requirements, and the evaluation of the modified product does not reveal any security deficiencies. 9.2 Additional evaluation results To support the composite evaluation of the TOE together with a specific smartcard embedded software, additional evaluator actions were performed during the TOE evaluation. The results are documented in the ETR-lite [16]. Therefore, refering to the life-cycle model for the TOE the interaction between phase 1 and phase 2 is of importance and the interface between the smartcard embedded software developer and the developer of the TOE was examined. 10 Comments/Recommendations 1. The operational documentation [9], [12], [13] contains necessary information about the usage of the TOE. For secure usage of the TOE the fulfilment of the assumptions about the environment in the Security Target has to be taken into account. These requirements are stated in the guidance document [9]. 2. For evaluation of products or systems including the TOE as part or using the TOE as a platform (e.g. smartcard operating systems or complete smartcards), specific information resulting from this evalution is of importance and shall be given to the succeeding evaluation. 3. The TOE software for random number postprocessing shall be implemented by the embedded software developer as outlined in the guidance [9]. 11 Annexes Annex A: Evaluation results regarding the development and production environment (see part D of this report). B-17 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 12 Security Target For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [6] of the target of evaluation (TOE) is provided within a separate document. It is a sanitized version of the complete Security Target [15] used for the evaluation performed. 13 Definitions 13.1 Acronyms 3DES see Triple-DES ACL Advanced Cryptographic Library BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for Information Security, Bonn, Germany CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation CPU Central Processing Unit DES Data Encryption Standard DMAC Direct Memory Access Controller EAL Evaluation Assurance Level EEPROM Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory FMU Firewall Management Unit HW Hardware IC Integrated Circuit IT Information Technology ITSEF Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility MMC Modular Multiplication Coprocessor PP Protection Profile PRNG Pseudo Random Number Generator RAM Random Access Memory RNG Random Number Generator ROM Read Only Memory RSA Rivest, Shamir, Adelmann - a public key encryption algorithm SF Security Function SFP Security Function Policy SOF Strength of Function ST Security Target B-18 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 SW Software TOE Target of Evaluation Triple-DES Symmetric block cipher algorithm based on DES TSC TSF Scope of Control TSF TOE Security Functions TSP TOE Security Policy UART Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter 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 require- ments 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. 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. B-19 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 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] Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE. AIS 20, Version 1, 02 Dezember 1999 for: Functionality classes and evaluation methodology of deterministic random number generators AIS 25, Version 2, 29 July 2002 for: CC Supporting Document, The Application of CC to Integrated Circuits, Version 1.2, July 2002 AIS 26, Version 2, 6 August 2002 for: CC Supporting Document, Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards, Version 1.1, July 2002 AIS 31, Version 1, 25 September 2001 for: Functionality classes and evaluation methodology of physical random number generators [5] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148, BSI 7149), periodically updated list published also on the BSI Web-site [6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0329-2006, Version 12.0, 2 March 2006, AE55C1 (HD65255C1) Version 02 with ACL version 1.43 Smartcard Security Target, Renesas Technology Corp. (confidential document) [7] Protection Profile BSI-PP-0002-2001, Version v1.0, Smartcard IC platform Protection Profile, July 2001, Eurosmart B-20 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 [8] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 1.0, March 22, 2006, Evaluation Technical Report BSI-DSC-CC-0329 (confidential document) [9] Renesas 32-bit Smart Card Microcomputer AE-5 Series User Guidance Manual, Rev. 4.40, Renesas Technology, 27 January 2006 (confidential document) [10] FIPS PUB 46-3 Federal Information Processing Standards Publication Data Encryption Standard (DES), Reaffirmed 25 Oct. 1999 [11] Option List for Smart Card Microcomputer (for HD65255C1 [AE55C1]), v.1.3, Renesas Technology Corp., 06 February 2006 [12] AE55C1 Hardware Manual, Renesas Technology, Rev. 1.00, 15 March 2005 [13] AE-5 Series Cryptographic Library, Renesas Technology, User´s Manual, Rev. 1.70, 27 January 2006 [14] FIPS PUB 180-1 Federal Information Processing Standards Publication Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995 [15] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0329-2006, Version 4.0, 30 January 2006, AE55C1 (HD65255C1) Version 02 with ACL version 1.43 Smartcard Security Target, Public Version, Renesas Technology Corp. [16] Evaluation Technical Report lite, Version 1.0, 22 March 2006, ETR-lite for composition according to AIS36 (confidential document) [17] Smartcard Integrated Circuit Platform Augmentations, v1.0, Atmel, Hitachi Europe, Infineon Technologies & Philips Semiconductors, March 2002 B-21 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 This page is intentionally left blank. B-22 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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. C-1 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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 1: Assurance family breakdown and map C-2 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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. C-3 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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 2: Evaluation assurance level summary C-4 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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.“ C-5 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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 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.“ C-6 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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.“ C-7 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report 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.“ C-8 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report D Annexes List of annexes of this certification report Annex A: Evaluation results regarding development and production environment D-3 D-1 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report This page is intentionally left blank. D-2 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report Annex A of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Evaluation results regarding development and production environment The IT product Renesas AE55C1 (HD65255C1) smartcard integrated circuit version 02 with ACL version 1.43 (Target of Evaluation, TOE) 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 advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL4 and smart card specific guidance, for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 2.1 (ISO/IEC15408: 1999) and including final interpretations for compliance with Common Criteria Version 2.2 and Common Methodology Part 2, Version 2.2. As a result of the TOE certification, dated March 28th , 2006, the following results regarding the development and production environment apply. The Common Criteria assurance requirements • ACM – Configuration management (i.e. ACM_AUT.1, ACM_CAP.4, ACM_SCP.2), • ADO – Delivery and operation (i.e. ADO_DEL.2, ADO_IGS.1) and • ALC – Life cycle support (i.e. ALC_DVS.2, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.1), are fulfilled for the development and production sites of the TOE listed below: a) Renesas Technology Corp. - Musashi site, 5-20-1 Jousuihon-cho, Kodaira-shi, Tokyo, Japan (short name: Musashi) b) Renesas Technology Corp. - Naka Site, 751 Horiguchi, Hitachinaka-shi, Ibaraki Pref., Japan (short name: Naka), (wafer fab) c) Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., 2-2-1 Fukuoka, Fujimino-shi, Saitama Pref., Japan (short name: DNP) d) Hitachi ULSI Systems Co., Ltd. - Plaza site, 5-22-1 Jousuihon-cho, Kodaira-shi, Tokyo, Japan e) Renesas Technology Corp. - Kofu site, 4617 Kai-shi, Yamanashi Pref., Japan (short name: Kofu) f) Renesas High Qualities, Inc., 4617 Kai-shi, Yamanashi Pref., Japan (short name: RHQ) g) Toyo Electronics Co., Ltd., 2781-1 Azahanatate, Shimosone, Nakamichi- cho, Higashiyasuhiro-gun, Yamanashi Pref., Japan (short name: Toyo) D-3 BSI-DSZ-CC-0329-2006 Certification Report h) MTEX Matsumura Corp., 2-2-2 Kitamachi, Obanazawa-shi, Yamagata Pref., Japan (short name: MTEX) i) Renesas Technology Europe GmbH - Munich site, Dornbacher Straße 3, 85622 Feldkirchen bei München, Germany (short name: Munich) The hardware part of the TOE produced at site (b) (Naka) is indicated by IC manufacturer´s ID number 4870. For the sites listed above, the requirements have been specifically applied in accordance with the Security Target (Security Target BSI-DSZ-0329-2006, Version 12.0, 2 March 2006, AE55C1 (HD65255C1) Version 02 with ACL version 1.43 Smartcard Security Target, Renesas Technology Corp. (confidential document)). The evaluators verified, that the threats and the security objectives for the life cycle phases 2, 3 and 4 up to delivery at the end of phases 3 or 4 as stated in the Security Target [6] are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites. D-4