National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
for the
Venafi Trust Protection Platform, Version 1.0
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-VID10800-2017
Dated: September 15, 2017
Version: 1.0
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
®
TM
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Jean Petty
Chris Thorpe
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Pascal Patin, CISSP
Ray Dai
Acumen Security, LLC
3
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 4
2 Identification.......................................................................................................................... 5
3 Architectural Information .................................................................................................... 6
4 Security Policy........................................................................................................................ 7
5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope ................................................................. 8
5.1 Assumptions....................................................................................................................................................8
5.2 Threats.............................................................................................................................................................8
5.3 Clarification of Scope.....................................................................................................................................8
6 Documentation..................................................................................................................... 10
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration ........................................................................................... 11
7.1 Evaluated Configuration..............................................................................................................................11
7.2 Excluded Functionality ................................................................................................................................11
8 IT Product Testing............................................................................................................... 12
8.1 Developer Testing .........................................................................................................................................12
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing.......................................................................................................12
9 Results of the Evaluation .................................................................................................... 13
9.1 Evaluation of Security Target .....................................................................................................................13
9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation...............................................................................................13
9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents............................................................................................................13
9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities...............................................................................................14
9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity .........................................................................14
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity ..............................................................................................................14
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results..................................................................................................................14
10 Validator Comments & Recommendations ...................................................................... 16
11 Annexes................................................................................................................................. 17
12 Security Target .................................................................................................................... 18
13 Glossary................................................................................................................................ 19
14 Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 20
4
1 Executive Summary
This Validation Report (VR) is intended to assist the end user of this product and any security
certification Agent for that end user in determining the suitability of this Information Technology
(IT) product for their environment. End users should review the Security Target (ST), which is
where specific security claims are made, in conjunction with this VR, which describes how those
security claims were tested and evaluated and any restrictions on the evaluated configuration.
Prospective users should carefully read the Assumptions and Clarification of Scope in Section 5
and the Validator Comments in Section 10, where any restrictions on the evaluated configuration
are highlighted.
This report documents the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) assessment of the
evaluation of the Venafi Trust Protection Platform Target of Evaluation (TOE). It presents the
evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance results. This VR is not an
endorsement of the TOE by any agency of the U.S. Government and no warranty of the TOE is
either expressed or implied. This VR applies only to the specific version and configuration of
the product as evaluated and documented in the ST.
The evaluation was completed by Acumen Security in December 2015. The information in this
report is largely derived from the Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test report,
all written by Acumen Security. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common
Criteria Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant, and meets the assurance requirements defined in
the U.S. Government Protection Profile for Security Requirements for Application Software and
the Extended Package for Secure Shell.
The Target of Evaluation (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. 4) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 4), as interpreted by the Assurance Activities contained in
the Protection Profile for Application Software v1.2 and the Extended Package for Secure Shell
v1.0. 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 provided guidance on technical issues and evaluation processes and
reviewed the individual work units documented in the ETR and the Assurance Activities Report
(AAR). 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). Based on
these findings, 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.
5
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of
Standards 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). CCTLs evaluate
products against Protection Profile containing Assurance Activities, which are
interpretation of CEM work units specific to the technology described by the PP.
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 Compliance 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(s) 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 Venafi Trust Protection Platform
Protection Profile Protection Profile for Application Software v1.2
Extended Package for Secure Shell (SSH) v1.0
Security Target Venafi Trust Protection Platform Security Target, Version 1.3
Evaluation Technical
Report
Venafi Trust Protection Platform Test Report, Version 1.0
CC Version Version 3.1, Revision 4
Conformance Result CC Part 2 Extended and CC Part 3 Conformant
Sponsor Venafi
Developer Venafi
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Acumen Security
Montgomery Village, MD
CCEVS Validators Jean Petty, Chris Thorpe
6
3 Architectural Information
Venafi Trust Protection Platform secures and protects keys and certificates in the datacenter, on
desktops, on mobile and IoT devices, and in the cloud. This protection improves security posture
with increased visibility, threat intelligence, policy enforcement, and faster incident response for
certificate-related outages and compromises leveraging misused keys and certificates.
The platform supports all Venafi products and provides native integration with thousands of
applications and common APIs for the extensive security ecosystem. Shared and extensible
services enable enterprises to gain complete visibility into their key and certificate inventory,
identify certificate reputation, and establish a baseline. The entire issuance and renewal process
can be automated with policy enforcement and workflows, enabling new encryption dependent
applications to be scaled quickly. Trust Protection Platform keeps organizations secure, helping
them comply with standards and remediate key and certificate misuse.
7
4 Security Policy
The TOE boundary is the application software which runs on the host platform. For this
evaluation the TOE runs on Windows Server 2012 R2. It should be noted that this operating
system is outside the TOE boundary.
The TOE provides the security functionality required by [SWAPP].
Cryptographic Support
The TOE relies on underlying cryptographic functionality provided by the platform for all of its
cryptographic operations.
Secure Software Update
The TOE is distributed as an .MSI installer package.
Security Management
The TOE does not come with any default credentials. Upon installation it will randomly generate
a self-signed certificate, and AES 256 symmetric key and a GUID for the base configuration of
the system. No data is stored by the application on the platform file system.
User Data Protection
The TOE does not store or transmit anything that could be considered Personally Identifiable
Information (PII).
Protection of the TSF
The TOE employs several mechanisms to ensure that it is secure on the host platform. The TOE
never allocates memory with both write and execute permission. The TOE is designed to operate
in an environment in which the following security techniques are in effect, Data execution
prevention, Mandatory address space layout randomization (no memory map to an explicit
address), Structured exception handler overwrite protection, Export address table access filtering,
and Anti-Return Oriented Programming. This allows the TOE to operate in an environment in
which the Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit is also running. During compilation, the TOE
is built with several flags enabled that check for engineering flaws. The TOE is built with the
/GS flag enabled. This reduces the possibilities of stack-based buffer overflows in the product.
Trusted Path/Channels
TLS and SSH are used to protect all data transmitted to and from the TOE.
8
5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope
5.1 Assumptions
The specific conditions listed in the following subsections are assumed to exist in the TOE’s
environment. These assumptions include both practical realities in the development of the TOE
security requirements and the essential environmental conditions on the use of the TOE.
ID Assumption
A.PLATFORM The TOE relies upon a trustworthy computing platform for its execution. This
includes the underlying platform and whatever runtime environment it provides to
the TOE.
A.PROPER_USER The user of the application software is not willfully negligent or hostile, and uses the
software in compliance with the applied enterprise security policy.
A.PROPER_ADMIN The administrator of the application software is not careless, willfully negligent or
hostile, and administers the software within compliance of the applied enterprise
security policy.
5.2 Threats
The following table lists the threats addressed by the TOE and the IT Environment. The
assumed level of expertise of the attacker for all the threats identified below is Enhanced-Basic.
ID Threat
T.NETWORK_ATTACK An attacker is positioned on a communications channel or elsewhere on the
network infrastructure. Attackers may engage in communications with the
application software or alter communications between the application software
and other endpoints in order to compromise it.
T.NETWORK_EAVESDROP An attacker is positioned on a communications channel or elsewhere on the
network infrastructure. Attackers may monitor and gain access to data
exchanged between the application and other endpoints.
T.LOCAL_ATTACK An attacker can act through unprivileged software on the same computing
platform on which the application executes. Attackers may provide maliciously
formatted input to the application in the form of files or other local
communications.
T.PHYSICAL_ACCESS An attacker may try to access sensitive data at rest.
5.3 Clarification of Scope
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that need
clarifying. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications of this
evaluation. Note that:
9
• As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration meets
the security claims made, with a certain level of assurance. The level of assurance for this
evaluation is defined within the PP_APP_v1.2 and the PP_SSH_EP_v1.0.
• Consistent with the expectations of the Protection Profile and the Extended Package, this
evaluation did not specifically search for, nor seriously attempt to counter, 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 evaluation of security functionality of the product was limited to the functionality
specified in the claimed PPs. Any additional security related functional capabilities
included in the product were not covered by this evaluation.
10
6 Documentation
The following documents were provided by the vendor with the TOE for evaluation:
• Venafi Trust Protection Platform Security Target, Version 1.3
• Venafi Trust Protection Platform Common Criteria Guidance Document, Version 1.0
11
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration
7.1 Evaluated Configuration
The TOE is installed on Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard Edition.
7.2 Excluded Functionality
N/A
12
8 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the evaluation team. It is derived
from information contained in Evaluation Test Report for Venafi Trust Protection Platform,
which is not publically available. The Assurance Activities Report provides an overview of
testing and the prescribed assurance activities.
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 the vendor-provided guidance documentation
and ran the tests specified in the PP_APP_v1.2. The Independent Testing activity is documented
in the Assurance Activities Report, which is publically available, and is not duplicated here.
13
9 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are
presented in detail in the proprietary documents: the Detailed Test Report (DTR) and the
Evaluation Technical Report (ETR). The reader of this document can assume that 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 4 and CEM version 3.1 rev 4. The evaluation determined the Venafi Trust Protection
Platform to be Part 2 extended, and meets the SARs contained in the PP. Additionally the
evaluator performed the Assurance Activities specified in the NDPP.
9.1 Evaluation of Security Target
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 Venafi Trust Protection Platform that are
consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that support the
requirements. Additionally, the evaluator performed an assessment of the Assurance Activities
specified in the PP_APP_v1.2.
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.
9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 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's TOE Summary Specification. Additionally, the evaluator performed the
Assurance Activities specified in the PP_APP_v1.2 related to the examination of the information
contained in the TOE Summary Specification.
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 Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation
team was justified.
9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 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. The guides were assessed during the design and testing phases of
14
the evaluation to ensure they were complete. Additionally, the evaluator performed the
Assurance Activities specified in the PP_APP_v1.2 related to the examination of the information
contained in the operational guidance documents.
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 Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by
the evaluation team was justified.
9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 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.
9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set
of tests specified by the Assurance Activities in the PP_APP_v1.2 and recorded the results in a
Test Report, summarized in the Evaluation Technical Report and Assurance Activities Report.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence was
provided by the evaluation team to show that the evaluation activities addressed the test activities
in the PP_APP_v1.2, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team performed
a public search for vulnerabilities, performed vulnerability testing and did not discover any
issues with the TOE.
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 addressed the
vulnerability analysis Assurance Activities in the PP_APP_v1.2, and that the conclusion reached
by the evaluation team was justified.
9.7 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 test activities 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 performed the Assurance Activities in the PP_APP_v1.2,
15
and correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST.
16
10 Validator Comments & Recommendations
The validation team suggests that the consumer pay particular attention to the installation
guidance, Venafi Trust Protection Platform 17.1 Common Criteria Guidance, to ensure the TOE
is placed into the evaluated configuration.
The evaluated functionality is limited to the security functional requirements specified in the
Security Target. Only the functionality claimed in the SFR’s in the Security Target was evaluated.
All other functionality provided by the TOE needs to be assessed separately and no further
conclusions should be drawn as to their effectiveness, nor can any claims be made relative to their
security based upon this evaluation.
17
11 Annexes
Not applicable.
18
12 Security Target
Venafi Trust Protection Platform Security Target, Version 1.3
19
13 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.
20
14 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 4.
2. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 2: Security
functional requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
3. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 3: Security
assurance requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
4. Common Evaluation Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 4.