National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
SecuGATE Version 4.0
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-VID10977-2019
Dated: December 19, 2019
Version: 0.1
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Security Agency
Information Technology Laboratory Information Assurance Directorate
100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road STE 6940
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6940
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Sheldon Durrant
Randy Heimann
Lisa Mitchell
Linda Morrison
Claire Olin
The MITRE Corporation
Bedford, MA
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Cornelius Haley
Khai Van
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................1
2 Identification.......................................................................................................................2
3 Architectural Information...................................................................................................4
3.1 TOE Description.........................................................................................................4
3.2 TOE Evaluated Configuration....................................................................................4
3.3 Physical Scope of the TOE.........................................................................................5
4 Security Policy....................................................................................................................6
4.1 Security Audit.............................................................................................................6
4.2 Cryptographic support................................................................................................6
4.3 User Data Protection...................................................................................................6
4.4 Identification and authentication ................................................................................6
4.5 Security management .................................................................................................6
4.6 Protection of the TSF..................................................................................................7
4.7 TOE Access................................................................................................................7
4.8 Trusted channels.........................................................................................................7
5 Assumptions .......................................................................................................................8
6 Clarification of Scope.........................................................................................................9
7 Documentation .................................................................................................................10
8 IT Product Testing............................................................................................................11
8.1 Developer Testing ....................................................................................................11
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing.....................................................................11
9 Evaluated Configuration...................................................................................................12
10 Results of the Evaluation..................................................................................................13
10.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)..................................................................13
10.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)....................................................................13
10.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD).......................................................13
10.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)...........................................14
10.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE).......................14
10.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN) ..............................................................14
10.7 Summary of Evaluation Results ...............................................................................15
11 Validator Comments/Recommendations..........................................................................16
12 Annexes ............................................................................................................................17
13 Security Target .................................................................................................................18
14 Glossary............................................................................................................................19
15 Bibliography.....................................................................................................................20
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of BlackBerry, SecuGATE SIP Server version 4.0. It
presents the evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance results. This Validation
Report is not an endorsement of the Target of Evaluation by any agency of the U.S. government,
and no warranty is either expressed or implied.
The evaluation was performed by the Gossamer Security Solutions (Gossamer) Common
Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL) in Catonsville, MD, United States of America, and was
completed in December 2019. The information in this report is largely derived from the
Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test reports, all written by Gossamer
Security Solutions. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria Part
2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant and meets the assurance requirements of the collaborative
Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.1, 24 September 2018 (NDcPP21).
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the SecuGATE SIP Server version 4.0.
The TOE identified in this Validation Report has been evaluated at a NIAP approved Common
Criteria Testing Laboratory using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation
(Version 3.1, Rev 5) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
(Version 3.1, Rev 5). This Validation Report applies only to the specific version of the TOE as
evaluated. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the NIAP
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme and the conclusions of the testing
laboratory in the evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence provided.
The validation team monitored the activities of the evaluation team, provided guidance on
technical issues and evaluation processes, and reviewed the individual work units and
successive versions of the ETR. The validation team found that the evaluation showed that the
product satisfies all of the functional requirements and assurance requirements stated in the
Security Target (ST). Therefore the validation team concludes that the testing laboratory’s
findings are accurate, the conclusions justified, and the conformance results are correct. The
conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation technical report are consistent with the
evidence produced.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the SecuGATE Version
4.0 (NDcPP21) Security Target, Version 0.7, December 19, 2019 and analysis performed by
the Validation Team.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
2
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) effort to establish commercial facilities to perform trusted product
evaluations. Under this program, security evaluations are conducted by commercial testing
laboratories called Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs) using the Common
Evaluation Methodology (CEM) in accordance with National Voluntary Laboratory
Assessment Program (NVLAP) accreditation.
The NIAP Validation Body assigns Validators to monitor the CCTLs to ensure quality and
consistency across evaluations. Developers of information technology products desiring a
security evaluation contract with a CCTL and pay a fee for their product’s evaluation. Upon
successful completion of the evaluation, the product is added to NIAP’s Product Compliant
List.
Table 1 provides information needed to completely identify the product, including:
 The Target of Evaluation (TOE): the fully qualified identifier of the product as evaluated.
 The Security Target (ST), describing the security features, claims, and assurances of the
product.
 The conformance result of the evaluation.
 The Protection Profile to which the product is conformant.
 The organizations and individuals participating in the evaluation.
Table 1: Evaluation Identifiers
Item Identifier
Evaluation Scheme United States NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
TOE BlackBerry, SecuGATE SIP Server version 4.0
Protection Profile collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.1, 24 September
2018
ST SecuGATE Version 4.0 (NDcPP21) Security Target, Version 0.7, December 19,
2019
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report (NDcPP21) for SecuGATE SIP Server, Version 0.4,
December 19, 2019
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 5
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor BlackBerry
Developer BlackBerry
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
3
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
4
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is SecuGATE SIP Server v4.0. The SecuGATE SIP Server
TOE is composed of hardware, a hardened Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS (the TOE does not
offer general purpose computer capabilities), and custom software. The custom software
provides SIP server, RTP Proxy and SCA functionality. It runs on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux
(RHEL 7.6) and utilizes the OpenSSL FIPS object module along with other supporting
software.
Specifically, the TOE utilizes the OpenSSL 1.0.2 FIPS object module v2.0.16 which provides
cryptographic functionality used by the TOE. The TOE’s software executes on the RHEL 7.6
operating system on ESXi on a physical platform that is the SUPERMICRO SuperServer with
an Intel Xeon E3-1240, Xeon E3-1515, or Intel Xeon Gold 5218.
3.1 TOE Description
The TOE is the SecuGATE SIP server version 4.0. The SecuGATE SIP Server enables use of
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to establish secure connections between mobile devices.
The SecuGATE SIP Server is the centerpiece in the SecuSUITE Security Solution. The
SecuSUITE Security Solution includes the SecuGATE SIP server and client software1 for
mobile device platforms. Together these form a system that provides end-to-end secure mobile
voice communication and instant messaging, using IP-based mobile data connections such as
EDGE, UMTS/HSPA, LTE, and Wi-Fi. The SecuGATE SIP Server v4.0 is network appliance
providing SIP server, RTP Proxy and SCA functionality as well as interfaces for management.
3.2 TOE Evaluated Configuration
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is SecuGATE SIP Server v4.0. The SecuGATE SIP Server
v4.0 enables use of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to establish secure connections between
mobile devices. The SecuGATE SIP server runs on RHEL 7.6 OS within an ESXi version 6.5
virtualized environment using a physical platform which includes an Intel Xeon E3-1240, Xeon
E3-1515 or Xeon Gold 5218 processor including:
 the SUPERMICRO system with an Intel Xeon E3-1240,
 the SUPERMICRO system with an Intel Xeon Gold 5218. and
 the PacStar 451 system with an Intel Xeon E3-1515.
1
The client software is the target for another evaluation.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
5
3.3 Physical Scope of the TOE
The TOE operates in a network environment mediating connections between VVoIP endpoints
while utilizing services from other network entities.
SIP Server Functionality
The SIP Server interacts with the SecuSUITE VoIP client and provides registrar and proxy
capabilities required for call-session management (e.g. establishing, processing, and
terminating VoIP calls). As a SIP registrar, the SIP Server accepts REGISTER requests and
places the information received into the location service on the SIP Server. As a SIP proxy
server, the SIP Server is a stateful server that manages transactions to route SIP requests and
responses. The SIP Server also provides a secure connection between mobile devices running
the SecuSUITE app using TLS, providing encryption and mutual authentication.
RTP Proxy Functionality
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Proxy bridges media packets sent between clients.
The TOE creates and deletes RTP and Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) bridging
sessions in the RTP Proxy.
Secure Client Authentication Functionality
The SCA functionality authenticates users, facilitates VoIP client enrollment and pushes client
SIP configuration to the client. Only clients which have been enrolled via the SCA service are
able to connect to the SIP server. During SCA enrollment the SCA authorizes authenticated
clients (via activation code) to use SIP service and provisions them with the SIP credentials and
a TLS client certificate for the required trusted channel.
NON-TOE Components
The TOE is part of a broader system (SecuSUITE security solution) and requires the following
components to be present in the environment:
a) Audit server. The TOE is able to send audit logs to a remote syslog server.
b) NTP Server. The TOE is able to obtain time from an NTP server over a TLS protected
session.
c) Peer SIP server. The TOE can communicate with another SIP server (such as Asterisk
SIP or similar) over TLS.
d) Push Server. The TOE can communicate with a push notification server that allows the
VVoIP endpoint OS to execute deep sleep cycles and wake-up client applications for
incoming events.
e) VVoIP Endpoints. The TOE mediates connections initiated by a VVoIP client enrolled
through the SCA Server to another VVoIP endpoint.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
6
4 Security Policy
This section summaries the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Security Audit
2. Cryptographic Support
3. User Data Protection
4. Identification and Authentication
5. Security Management
6. Protection of the TSF
7. TOE Access
8. Trusted Path/Channels
4.1 Security Audit
The TOE generates audit events for numerous activities including policy enforcement, system
management, authentication and system status (i.e., system log records). The TOE also
generates call detail records providing information about connections that are mediated by the
TOE. A syslog server in the environment is relied on to store audit and system log records
generated by the TOE. The TOE generates a complete audit record including the IP address of
the TOE, the event details, and the time the event occurred. The time stamp is provided by the
TOE appliance hardware.
4.2 Cryptographic support
The TOE contains CAVP-tested cryptographic implementations that provide key management,
random bit generation, encryption/decryption, digital signature and secure hashing and key-
hashing features in support of higher level cryptographic protocols including HTTPS, NTP,
SSH and TLS.
4.3 User Data Protection
The TOE mediates connections between VVoIP endpoints, allowing enrolled endpoints to
establish “calls” with other enrolled endpoints.
4.4 Identification and authentication
The TOE authenticates administrative users. In order for an administrative user to access the
TOE, a user account including a user name and password must be created for the user, and an
administrative role must be assigned. The TOE performs the validation of the login credentials.
The TOE also performs extensive X.509v3 certificate validation checks on certificates it
receives as identification and authentication material.
4.5 Security management
The TOE also provides a Web UI (protected by HTTPS) and Command Line Interface
(protected by SSH) to configure the TOE. Security management commands are limited to
authorized users (i.e., administrators) and available only after they have provided acceptable
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
7
user identification and authentication data to the TOE. The security management functions are
controlled through the use of privileges associated with roles that can be assigned to TOE users.
Among the available privileges, only the Authorized Administrator role can actually manage
the security policies provided by the TOE and the TOE offers a complete set of functions to
facilitate effective management.
4.6 Protection of the TSF
The TOE implements a number of features design to protect itself to ensure the reliability and
integrity of its security features.
It protects particularly sensitive data such as stored passwords and cryptographic keys so that
they are not accessible even by an administrator. It also provides its own timing mechanism to
ensure that reliable time information is available (e.g., for log accountability) and can obtain
time from external time sources using NTP.
The TOE performs self-tests and integrity checks on TOE executables during system start-up
as well as periodically during normal operation. The TOE also includes mechanisms (i.e.,
verification of the digital signature of each new image) so that the TOE itself can be updated
while ensuring that the updates will not introduce malicious or other unexpected changes in the
TOE.
4.7 TOE Access
The TOE can be configured to display a warning banner when an administrator establishes an
interactive session and subsequently will enforce an administrator-defined inactivity timeout
value after which the inactive session (local or remote) will be terminated.
4.8 Trusted channels
The TOE protects interactive communication with administrators using SSHv2 for CLI access,
ensuring both integrity and disclosure protection. The TOE also provides a Web UI API
interface for security management that is protected with HTTPS/TLS. If the negotiation of an
encrypted session (either SSH or TLS) fails or if the user does not have authorization for remote
administration, an attempted connection is not be established.
The TOE protects communication with network peers, such as an NTP server, an audit server,
VVoIP endpoints, ESC devices for trunking, and a VVoIP conferencing system using TLS
connections to prevent unintended disclosure or modification of data.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
8
5 Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
document:
 collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.1, 24 September 2018
(NDcPP21)
That information has not been reproduced here and the NDcPP21 should be consulted if there
is interest in that material.
The scope of this evaluation was limited to the functionality and assurances covered in the
NDcPP21 as described for this TOE in the Security Target. Other functionality included in the
product was not assessed as part of this evaluation. All other functionality provided by the
devices needs to be assessed separately, and no further conclusions can be drawn about their
effectiveness.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
9
6 Clarification of Scope
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that need
clarification. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications of this
evaluation. Note that:
 As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration
meets the security claims made with a certain level of assurance (the assurance activities
specified in the NDcPP21 and performed by the evaluation team).
 This evaluation covers only the specific device models and software as identified in this
document, and not any earlier or later versions released or in process.
 This evaluation did not specifically search for, nor attempt to exploit, vulnerabilities
that were not “obvious” or vulnerabilities to objectives not claimed in the ST. The CEM
defines an “obvious” vulnerability as one that is easily exploited with a minimum of
understanding of the TOE, technical sophistication and resources.
 The functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the security functional
requirements specified in the NDcPP21 and applicable Technical Decisions. Any
additional security related functional capabilities of the TOE were not covered by this
evaluation.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
10
7 Documentation
The following documents were available with the TOE for evaluation:
 SecuGATE Common Criteria Configuration Guide, SecuSUITE for Government 4.0,
doc version 1.3
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
11
8 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the Evaluation Team. It is derived
from information contained in the Assurance Activity Report (NDcPP21) for SecuGATE SIP
Server, Version 0.4, December 19, 2019(AAR).
8.1 Developer Testing
No evidence of developer testing is required in the assurance activities for this product.
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
The evaluation team verified the product according a Common Criteria Certification document
and ran the tests specified in the NDcPP21 including the tests associated with optional
requirements.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
12
9 Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration is SecuGATE SIP Server version 4.0.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
13
10 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are
presented in detail in the proprietary ETR. The reader of this document can assume that all
assurance activities and work units received a passing verdict.
A verdict for an assurance component is determined by the resulting verdicts assigned to the
corresponding evaluator action elements. The evaluation was conducted based upon CC
version 3.1 rev 5 and CEM version 3.1 rev 5. The evaluation determined the SecuGATE SIP
Server version 4.0 TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the SARs contained in the NDcPP21.
10.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)
The evaluation team applied each ASE CEM work unit. The ST evaluation ensured the ST
contains a description of the environment in terms of policies and assumptions, a statement of
security requirements claimed to be met by the SecuGATE SIP Server version 4.0 products that
are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that
support the requirements.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted
in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the
evaluation team was justified.
10.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)
The evaluation team applied each ADV CEM work unit. The evaluation team assessed the
design documentation and found it adequate to aid in understanding how the TSF provides the
security functions. The design documentation consists of a functional specification contained
in the Security target and Guidance documents. Additionally, the evaluator performed the
assurance activities specified in the NDcPP21 related to the examination of the information
contained in the TSS.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted
in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the
evaluation team was justified.
10.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The evaluation team applied each AGD CEM work unit. The evaluation team ensured the
adequacy of the user guidance in describing how to use the operational TOE. Additionally, the
evaluation team ensured the adequacy of the administrator guidance in describing how to
securely administer the TOE. All of the guides were assessed during the design and testing
phases of the evaluation to ensure they were complete.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
14
in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the
evaluation team was justified.
10.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The evaluation team applied each ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found that the
TOE was identified.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted
in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the
evaluation team was justified.
10.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)
The evaluation team applied each ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set of tests
specified by the assurance activities in the NDcPP21 and recorded the results in a Test Report,
summarized in the AAR.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted
in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the
evaluation team was justified.
10.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)
The evaluation team applied each AVA CEM work unit. The vulnerability analysis is in the
Detailed Test Report (DTR) prepared by the evaluator. The vulnerability analysis includes a
public search for vulnerabilities.
The evaluator searched the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) from the NIST website to
ensure no publicly known security flaws are identified for the TOE. The evaluator performed
this search on December 5, 2019. The following search terms were used:
 Secusmart
 Secugate
 RHEL
 TLS
 SSH
 SIP
 VOIP
 OpenSSL
 ntp
 tcp
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
15
The public search for vulnerabilities did not uncover any residual vulnerability. The validator
reviewed the work of the evaluation team and found that sufficient evidence and justification
was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the
evaluation team was justified.
10.7 Summary of Evaluation Results
The evaluation team’s assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims in
the ST are met. Additionally, the evaluation team’s testing also demonstrated the accuracy of
the claims in the ST.
The validation team’s assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it
demonstrates that the evaluation team followed the procedures defined in the CEM, and
correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
16
11 Validator Comments/Recommendations
The validation team notes that the evaluated configuration is dependent upon the TOE being
configured per the evaluated configuration instructions in the SecuGATE Common Criteria
Configuration Guide, SecuSUITE for Government 4.0, doc version 1.3. No versions of the TOE
and software, either earlier or later were evaluated.
Please note that the functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the security functional
requirements specified in the Security Target. Other functionality included in the product was
not assessed as part of this evaluation. Other functionality provided by devices in the
operational environment, such as the audit server, need to be assessed separately and no further
conclusions can be drawn about their effectiveness.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
17
12 Annexes
Not applicable
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
18
13 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: SecuGATE Version 4.0 (NDcPP21) Security Target,
Version 0.7, December 19, 2019.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
19
14 Glossary
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
 Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL). An IT security evaluation facility
accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and
approved by the CCEVS Validation Body to conduct Common Criteria-based evaluations.
 Conformance. The ability to demonstrate in an unambiguous way that a given
implementation is correct with respect to the formal model.
 Evaluation. The assessment of an IT product against the Common Criteria using the
Common Criteria Evaluation Methodology to determine whether or not the claims made
are justified; or the assessment of a protection profile against the Common Criteria using
the Common Evaluation Methodology to determine if the Profile is complete, consistent,
technically sound and hence suitable for use as a statement of requirements for one or more
TOEs that may be evaluated.
 Evaluation Evidence. Any tangible resource (information) required from the sponsor or
developer by the evaluator to perform one or more evaluation activities.
 Feature. Part of a product that is either included with the product or can be ordered
separately.
 Target of Evaluation (TOE). A group of IT products configured as an IT system, or an IT
product, and associated documentation that is the subject of a security evaluation under the
CC.
 Validation. The process carried out by the CCEVS Validation Body leading to the issue of
a Common Criteria certificate.
 Validation Body. A governmental organization responsible for carrying out validation and
for overseeing the day-to-day operation of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and
Validation Scheme.
SecuGATE Version 4.0 Validation Report Version 0.1, December 19, 2019
20
15 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation: Part 1: Introduction
and General Model, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017.
[4] collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.1, 24 September 2018
(NDcPP21).
[5] SecuGATE Version 4.0 (NDcPP21) Security Target, Version 0.7, December 19, 2019
(ST).
[6] Assurance Activity Report (NDcPP21) for SecuGATE SIP Server, Version 0.4,
December 19, 2019 (AAR).
[7] Detailed Test Report (NDcPP21) for SecuGATE SIP Server, Version 0.4, December
19, 2019 (DTR).
[8] Evaluation Technical Report (NDcPP21) for SecuGATE SIP Server, Version 0.4,
December 19, 2019 (ETR)
[9] SecuGATE Common Criteria Configuration Guide, SecuSUITE for Government 4.0,
doc version 1.3 (CC-Guide)