BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
for
secunet wall packet filter
Version 3.0.3
from
secunet Security Networks AG
BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report V1.0 CC-Zert-327 V4.35
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
secunet wall packet filter
Version 3.0.3
from secunet Security Networks AG
PP Conformance: None
Functionality: product specific Security Target;
Common Criteria Part 2 conformant
Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.2
Common Criteria
Recognition
Arrangement
The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility using the
Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 for conformance to the Common
Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1.
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.
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.
Bonn, 20. September 2010
For the Federal Office for Information Security
Joachim Weber L.S.
Head of Division
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0 - Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477 - Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
This page is intentionally left blank.
4 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
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 on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
5 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
Contents
A Certification........................................................................................................................9
1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure.................................................................9
2 Recognition Agreements................................................................................................9
2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA).........................9
2.2 International Recognition of CC - Certificates.......................................................10
3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification................................................................10
4 Validity of the Certification Result.................................................................................11
5 Publication....................................................................................................................11
B Certification Results.........................................................................................................13
1 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................14
2 Identification of the TOE...............................................................................................15
3 Security Policy..............................................................................................................16
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................................16
5 Architectural Information...............................................................................................16
6 Documentation.............................................................................................................17
7 IT Product Testing.........................................................................................................17
7.1 Description of the Functional Developer Tests......................................................17
7.1.1 TOE test configuration....................................................................................17
7.1.2 Testing approach.............................................................................................17
7.1.3 Testing results.................................................................................................18
7.2 Description of the Independent Evaluator Tests....................................................18
7.2.1 TOE test configuration / Interfaces.................................................................18
7.2.2 Test cases and results.....................................................................................18
7.3 Description of the Penetration Tests......................................................................18
7.3.1 Overview.........................................................................................................18
7.3.2 Penetration testing approach..........................................................................19
7.3.3 Attack scenarios been tested..........................................................................19
7.3.4 SFRs penetration tested.................................................................................19
7.3.5 Test Result.......................................................................................................19
7.4 TOE test configurations.........................................................................................20
7.4.1 Functional tests configuration.........................................................................20
7.4.2 Penetration tests configuration.......................................................................20
8 Evaluated Configuration...............................................................................................20
9 Results of the Evaluation..............................................................................................21
6 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
9.1 CC specific results.................................................................................................21
9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment....................................................................21
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.......................................................21
11 Security Target............................................................................................................22
12 Definitions...................................................................................................................22
12.1 Acronyms.............................................................................................................22
12.2 Glossary...............................................................................................................22
13 Bibliography................................................................................................................24
C Excerpts from the Criteria................................................................................................25
D Annexes...........................................................................................................................35
7 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
This page is intentionally left blank.
8 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
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) [3]
● Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.15
[1]
● Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 [2]
● BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS) [4]
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 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA)
The SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA) Version 3 became effective in
April 2010. It defines the recognition of certificates for IT-Products at a basic recognition
level and in addition at higher recognition levels for IT-Products related to certain technical
domains only.
The basic recognition level includes Common Criteria (CC) Evaluation Assurance Levels
EAL1 to EAL4 and ITSEC Evaluation Assurance Levels E1 to E3 (basic). For higher
recognition levels the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices has been defined.
It includes assurance levels beyond EAL4 resp.E3 (basic).
The new agreement was initially signed by the national bodies of Finland, France,
Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
2
Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
3
Ordinance on the Procedure for Issuance of a Certificate by the Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI-Zertifizierungsverordnung, BSIZertV) of 07 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 10 May 2006 in the Bundesanzeiger dated 19
May 2006, p. 3730
9 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
Within the terms of this agreement the German Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI) recognises
● for the basic recognition level certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national
certification bodies of France, The Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom.
● for the higher recognition level in the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices
certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national certification bodies of France, The
Netherlands and United Kingdom.
In Addition, certificates issued for Protection Profiles based on Common Criteria are part of
the recognition agreement.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the
terms of this agreement.
Historically, the first SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement Version 1 (ITSEC only)
became initially effective in March 1998. It was extended in 1999 to include certificates
based on the Common Criteria (MRA Version 2). Recognition of certificates previously
issued under these older versions of the SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement is being
continued.
2.2 International Recognition of CC - Certificates
An arrangement (Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement) on the mutual recognition of
certificates based on the CC Evaluation Assurance Levels up to and including EAL 4 has
been signed in May 2000 (CCRA). It includes also the recognition of Protection Profiles
based on the CC.
As of January 2009 the arrangement has been signed by the national bodies of: Australia,
Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Pakistan, Republic of Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States of America. The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes
can be seen on the web site: http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org
The Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement logo printed on the certificate indicates
that this certification is recognised under the terms of this agreement.
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 secunet wall packet filter, Version 3.0.3 has undergone the certification
procedure at BSI.
The evaluation of the product secunet wall packet filter, Version 3.0.3 was conducted by
SRC Security Research & Consulting GmbH. The evaluation was completed on
25 August 2010. The SRC Security Research & Consulting GmbH is an evaluation facility
(ITSEF)6
recognised by the certification body of BSI.
For this certification procedure the sponsor and applicant is:
secunet Security Networks AG.
The product was developed by: secunet Security Networks AG.
6
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
10 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
The certification is concluded with the comparability check and the production of this
Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI.
4 Validity of the Certification Result
This Certification Report only applies to the version of the product as indicated. 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 and in the Security Target.
For the meaning of the assurance levels please refer to the excerpts from the criteria at
the end of the Certification Report.
The Certificate issued confirms the assurance of the product claimed in the Security Target
at the date of certification. As attack methods evolve over time, the resistance of the
certified version of the product against new attack methods needs to be re-assessed.
Therefore, the sponsor should apply for the certified product being monitored within the
assurance continuity program of the BSI Certification Scheme (e.g. by a re-certification).
Specifically, if results of the certification are used in subsequent evaluation and certification
procedures, in a system integration process or if a user's risk management needs regularly
updated results, it is recommended to perform a re-assessment on a regular e.g. annual
basis.
In case of changes to the certified version of the product, the validity can be extended to
the new versions and releases, provided the sponsor applies for assurance continuity (i.e.
re-certification or maintenance) of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural
requirements, and the evaluation does not reveal any security deficiencies.
5 Publication
The product secunet wall packet filter, Version 3.0.3 has been included in the BSI list of
the certified products, which is published regularly (see also Internet:
https://www.bsi.bund.de and [5]). Further information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline
+49 228 9582-111.
Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the developer7
of the
product. The Certification Report may also be obtained in electronic form at the internet
address stated above.
7
secunet Security Networks AG
Kronprinzenstr. 30
45128 Essen
11 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
This page is intentionally left blank.
12 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
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.
13 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
1 Executive Summary
Target of evaluation (TOE) is the secunet wall packet filter, version 3.0.3, provided by
secunet Security Networks AG. The TOE allows the integration of packet filtering capability
into a firewall or VPN components which are parts of other products. The secunet wall
packet filter has to be delivered to an application developer.
The application developer integrates the secunet wall packet filter into an application in
order to build a network component. The administrator of this application is defined as
TOE end-user.
The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is not based on a certified
Protection Profile.
The TOE Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) are based entirely on the assurance
components defined in Part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C or [1], Part 3 for details).
The TOE meets the assurance requirements of the Evaluation Assurance Level EAL 4
augmented by ALC_FLR.2.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the
Security Target [6], chapter 5.1. They are all selected from Common Criteria Part 2. Thus
the TOE is CC Part 2 conformant.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE
Security Functions:
TOE Security Function Addressed issue
SF.1 Information Flow Control • Information flow control (as routers) on the network layer (IP) and
transport layer (TCP/UDP/ICMP) is being provided.
• IP datagrams are reassembled before further processing is
performed, IP datagrams which cannot be reassembled in a
predefined span of time are dropped.
• Packets with spoofed source- or destination-IP addresses and
packets with source routing options are dropped.
SF.2 Security Audit • Audit records are generated for TSF relevant events.
SF.3 Management • The TOE is capable of performing the following management
functions “Modification of network traffic filter rules” and
“Modification of configuration data”
• The TOE maintains the role administrator.
• The TOE is initialized with a strict packet filter rule set.
Table 1: TOE Security Functions
For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 6.1.
The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6], chapter 3.1.
Based on these assets the TOE Security Environment is defined in terms of Assumptions,
Threats and Organisational Security Policies. This is outlined in the Security Target [6],
chapter 3.
This certification covers the configuration of the TOE, as summarised in chapter 8. It is the
packet filtering part of a networking product, which is being built and configured following
the TOE guidances.
14 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
The vulnerability assessment results as stated within this certificate do not include a rating
for those cryptographic algorithms and their implementation suitable for encryption and
decryption (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2).
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:
secunet wall packet filter, Version 3.0.3
The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:
No Type Identifier Release SHA-256 checksum
1 DOC Manual for application developers V. 1.0 5cb2956a87984aeb21ee850e385a19e6
b395c8adf8aa35b048a0454ea54b9ad0
2 DOC Release Notes R. 3.0.3 d7cb066aa10f9cedea2b5b6b2a74decc
0fc379d5a7897cf8237815b56aa53951
3 DOC Flaw remediation V. 1.0 5e4c3a4982b35911043d92d5a70265b9
4b7902ea47aeb492f6703b37c4234a07
4 KEY Public verification key (secuwall-
sign.asc)
- fedcfb383fa28309d55200e3444b48fc
432f98377181878533e7c35fbc86b61d
5 SIG Signed checksum file
(sha256sums.asc)
- (check signature using 4)
6 SW secunet wall packet filter pf-3_0_3 (see following lines)
6a SW Linux kernel with TOE parts
(bzImage)
pf-3_0_3 8db952423d210f5a4b67fb796c9d6a7c
24039fa2f18029fa1ea8e1df1fde90d4
6b SW Module configuration
(ip_tables.ko)
pf-3_0_3 9c09cb88258e8ec325b13ca771d8f413
9e58fe3715765db97b0cbba8b9f0fa88
6c SW Module log
(ipt_LOG.ko)
pf-3_0_3 fce60db1ede4a97f9fcec7a8fbcd3e39
6faa4b268985348f27007433fd606622
6d SW Module filter
(iptable_filter.ko)
pf-3_0_3 681d054cf6b63552b92c2c415e417127
93edecffa107a0a9bb75041a827ca10d
Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE
The software consists of four binary files which can be uniquely identified by their hash
checksums given in the table above. The version number of the TOE is pf-3_0_3. The
operating system used by the TOE, and the TOE is part of, is Linux.
The TOE is personally delivered to the application developer on a CD. The project
manager describes the integrity and authentication checks to the application developer.
The application developer and the end-user can verify that the authenticity and integrity of
the TOE has not been altered. First the signed checksum file must be verified. Therefore
the user uses the public verification RSA key with the SHA-256 fingerprint described
above. After a successful verification of the checksum file the hash values of the binary
15 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
parts of the TOE stated in this file can be compared to the calculated ones. This
calculation can be done with any available SHA-256 program.
3 Security Policy
The Security Policy is expressed by the set of Security Functional Requirements and
implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues:
• Management: The TOE verifies the identification information of an administrator
provided by the environment (application) before any management function can be
performed. The TOE must provide the necessary management functions in order to
modify the configuration data or the traffic filter rules.
• Filtering: The TOE must filter the incoming and the outgoing data traffic of all data
between all connected networks according to the rule sets.
• Auditing: The TOE must provide an audit trail of security-related events.
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
The Assumptions defined in the Security Target and some aspects of Threats and
organisational Security Policies are not covered by the TOE itself. These aspects lead to
specific security objectives to be fulfilled by the TOE-Environment. The following topics are
of relevance:
• The TOE is used in a controlled environment,
• the administrator of the TOE shall be non hostile and well trained,
• the TOE is securely initialised,
• the administrator must assure that the packet filter components provide the only
connection for the different networks,
• the network components (TOE and application) must be configured to accept only
protected data (e.g. SSH) from the management machine and the data flow is only
allowed encrypted,
• the IT environment provides reliable timestamps (NTP server),
• the IT environment provides a Syslog server and a means to resent a readable view
of the audit data, and
• the environment allows the Identification and Authentication of an administrator.
Details can be found in the Security Target [6], chapter 4.2.
5 Architectural Information
The TOE is a packet filter. The secunet wall packet filter consists of software on machines
to implement packet filter functionality for the network components; i.e. the secunet wall
packet filter is part of the network components. The secunet wall packet filter relies on
information available at OSI layer 3 and layer 4 for policy enforcement. The functionality
for packet filtering is part of the operating system (Linux). The secunet wall packet filter
supports IPv4 protocol. This is an overview of the subsystems of the TOE and the
corresponding TSF which were objects of this evaluation.
The security functions of the TOE are:
16 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
• SF.1 Information Flow Control
• SF.2 Security Audit
• SF.3 Management
According to the TOE design specification these security functions are enforced by the
following subsystems:
• IP Kernel Stack (supports the TSF SF.1)
• Netfilter (supports the TSFs SF.1, SF.2 and SF.3)
• /proc file system (supports the TSF SF.3)
• User-Space I/O (supports the TSF SF.3)
6 Documentation
The evaluated documentation as outlined in table 2 is being provided with the product to
the customer. This documentation contains the required information for secure usage of
the TOE in accordance with the Security Target.
Additional obligations and notes for secure usage of the TOE as outlined in chapter 10 of
this report have to be followed.
7 IT Product Testing
7.1 Description of the Functional Developer Tests
7.1.1 TOE test configuration
The TOE was tested on a stand-alone computer with three virtual workstations. The TOE
was running in a virtual machine which was configured according to chapter 1.2.2 of [6].
The evaluator also has started the TOE without a virtual environment. This was done by
directly referring to the file bzImage in the Grub boot loader of a Debian system and
manually executing the modules of the TOE (iptables.ko, ipt_LOG.ko and iptable_filter.ko)
after the start-up. This installed TOE showed the same properties as the TOE in the
virtualized environment.
Besides the requirements described in chapter 1.2.2 of [6] the test environment also needs
to fulfil the security objectives for the environment. These security objectives are fulfilled by
the following services which are installed on the virtual machine. The machine provides a
syslog service (OE.AUDIT), a network time service (OE.TSP) and a SSH daemon
(OE.CONFW and OE.I&A). These components match the needed components described
in the application developer guidance. The TOE environment and the related test
equipment for the tests are consistent with the described ones in [6] and [9]:
The tests of the TOE are carried out by executing the test environment. The virtual
workstations provide two standard workstations and one with the TOE installed. The entire
developer test configuration and the test protocols were provided to the evaluator.
7.1.2 Testing approach
The developer specified and implemented test cases for each defined subsystem. The test
cases divided into those of the IP Kernel Stack, the Netfilter, the User-Space I/O and
17 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
Netfilter and the User-Space I/O and /proc file system. Thus all subsystems are covered
by several test cases and each SFR-enforcing module is covered by at least one test
case.
For the tests of the TOE the developer used the test environment with three virtual
workstations. This test environment consists of a script that starts up the virtual machines
and initializes the complete test network. secunet carried out interactive as well as non-
interactive tests. Altogether there are 45 test cases with more than 480 single tests
covered by the test specification.
7.1.3 Testing results
The results of the TOE tests are documented and prove the correct implementation. All
test cases were executed successfully and ended up with the expected result.
7.2 Description of the Independent Evaluator Tests
7.2.1 TOE test configuration / Interfaces
The TOE can have only one configuration. The TOE separates two networks from another
(see Ch. 1.2.1 of [6]). For testing the TOE the evaluators used three virtual workstations.
Two of these virtual machines simulate the different networks and on the third machine the
TOE is installed. The virtual host is able to start tests and is used as a management
workstation.
The description of the required non-TOE hardware, software and firmware is described in
Ch. 1.2.2 of [6]. The following configuration
PC with Intel® Pentium® II 1.78 GHz, 128 MB RAM, GNU/Linux 2.6.24 and installed
secunet packet filter 3.0.3 with three external Ethernet interfaces
is the configuration of the virtual machine and is consistent with the described one in [6].
For the tests of the TOE which were carried out at the evaluator's site this configuration
was used.
7.2.2 Test cases and results
The evaluator has repeated developer's tests and has implemented new test cases. There
have been no unexpected test results or deviations.
7.3 Description of the Penetration Tests
7.3.1 Overview
All configurations of the TOE being intended to be covered by the current evaluation were
tested.
The overall test result is that no deviations were found between the expected and the
actual test results; moreover, no attack scenario with the attack potential enhanced basic
was actually successful.
7.3.2 Penetration testing approach
For the penetration tests the differential firewall analysis method was used.
18 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
In this method someone needs to be able to compare the traffic on the “outside” to the
traffic on the “inside” in real-time and alert when this contradicts. Therefore two
“monitoring” points must be placed logically in front and behind the packet filter. At the two
monitoring points a sniffer is placed at which the network traffic is analysed.
The sensor is placed on the “inside” to alert if traffic is detected and violating the firewall
rules. In the operational environment of the TOE it is also possible that malicious or
unintended traffic is coming from the inside of the network passing the TOE. It was tested
that the packet filter responds to both network interfaces in the same way. Therefore the
extensive testing of one interface was sufficient to prove if the TOE is resistant to
penetration tests.
After the set-up of the test environment the different attack scenarios were defined. This
at-tack scenario were mapped to test cases and executed in the test environment.
7.3.3 Attack scenarios been tested
The following list gives a short overview about the attack scenarios which have been
tested:
• Port scan with or without different source ports to detect open ports.
• Bypassing the packet filter with fuzzy generated TCP, UDP or ICMP packets.
• Using the public available change log to find vulnerabilities.
• Bypassing the packet filter with packets with an incorrect IP header.
• Bypassing the packet filter with a flood attack with syn or fragmented packets.
• Bypassing the packet filter with packets with a spoofed source address.
• Manipulation of the log output by sending incorrect payload in packets.
• Bypassing the access rule checks.
7.3.4 SFRs penetration tested
Only direct attacks against the implementation of SFRs need to be considered. It can be
assumed that the SFRs are implemented correctly and that they cannot be bypassed,
deactivated or manipulated. The tested SFRs are listed in the following:
• FDP_IFF.1 Simple security attributes
• FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation
• FMT_SMR.1 Security roles
The remaining SFRs were analysed, but not tested through penetration due to non-
exploitability of the related attack scenarios in the TOE's operational environment.
7.3.5 Test Result
The overall test result is that no deviations were found between the expected and the
actual test results. No attack scenario with the attack potential enhanced basic was
actually successful in the TOE's operational environment as defined in [6]. This shows that
all measures required by the developer are applied.
19 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
7.4 TOE test configurations
7.4.1 Functional tests configuration
For testing the TOE the evaluator used the same configuration as used in the developer
tests. The virtual machines and the developer test cases were transferred to SRC and in-
stalled on a stand-alone PC. The network configuration was not changed by SRC.
Therefore the test configuration as described by the developer is still valid. The description
of the required non-TOE hardware, software and firmware is described in section 1.2.2 of
[6]. On a stand-alone PC with Pentium® 4 CPU clocked with 1.80 GHz, 1556 MB RAM
and the operating system Debian Linux 5.0.4 the additional packages screen, qemu,
kqemu, bridgemodules and bridge-utils are installed. It hosts the virtual machines with the
TOE.
The configuration PC with Intel® Pentium® II clocked with 1.78 GHz, 128 MB RAM,
operating system GNU/Linux 2.6.24 and installed secunet packet filter 3.0.3 with three
external Ethernet interfaces has been used on the virtual machine and is consistent with
the described one in [6].
The identification of the TOE is done in the operation by the command
“less /etc/issue”. The file shows the logo of the secunet wall. The modules of the
TOE are tagged with the certification identification number BSI-DSZ-CC-0595. Therefore
the command “dmesg | grep BSI” shows also that the “core”, “ip_tables”,
“iptables_filter” and “ipt_LOG” are loaded.
For the independent tests at the evaluator's site the configuration above was used.
7.4.2 Penetration tests configuration
The description of the required non-TOE hardware, software and firmware is described in
section 1.2.2 of [6]. A stand-alone PC with an Intel® Core™ 2 Duo CPU clocked with
3.00GHz, 2GB RAM, operating system Ubuntu GNU/Linux 10.04 and the additional
packages screen, qemu-kvm, uml-utilities, bridge-utils and xvnc4viewer was used to
virtualize the complete testing network environment including the TOE. Two Debian
GNU/Linux systems, 'probe' and 'monitor' were installed and used in the testing network
environment, each with three virtual interfaces and 512MB RAM. The TOE was installed
on a virtual machine similar to the one used in the independent evaluator functional tests.
8 Evaluated Configuration
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:
The TOE configuration is defined by “secunet wall packet filter version pf-3_0_3” with the
hash values for the four binary parts of the TOE given in table 2. The TOE has to be
configured following the TOE guidance. No other than the kernel modules provided with
the TOE may be loaded. The TOE may not be recompiled.
20 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
9 Results of the Evaluation
9.1 CC specific results
The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [9] 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.
The Evaluation Methodology CEM [2] was used.
As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance
components:
● All components of the EAL 4 package including the class ASE as defined in the CC (see
also part C of this report)
● The components ALC_FLR.2 augmented for this TOE evaluation.
The evaluation has confirmed:
● for the Functionality: product specific Security Target;
Common Criteria Part 2 conformant
● for the Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.2
For specific evaluation results regarding the development and production environment see
annex B in part D of this report.
The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the TOE as defined in chapter 2 and
the configuration as outlined in chapter 8 above.
9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment
The TOE does not include cryptoalgorithms. Thus, no such mechanisms were part of the
assessment.
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE
The operational documents as outlined in table 2 contain necessary information about the
usage of the TOE and all security hints therein have to be considered. In addition all
aspects of assumptions, threats and policies as outlined in the Security Target not covered
by the TOE itself need to be fulfilled by the operational environment of the TOE.
The customer or user of the product shall consider the results of the certification within his
system risk management process. In order for the evolution of attack methods and
techniques to be covered, he should define the period of time until a re-assessment for the
TOE is required and thus requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
If available, certified updates of the TOE shall be used. If non-certified updates or patches
are available he should request the sponsor for providing a re-certification. In the
meantime risk management process of the system using the TOE shall investigate and
decide on the usage of not yet certified updates and patches or to take additional
measures in order to maintain system security.
In addition, the following aspects need to be fulfilled when using the TOE:
The user must not load any new modules into the kernel. In case a new module is loaded
the TOE is no longer certified.
21 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
11 Security Target
For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [6] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is
provided within a separate document as Annex A of this report.
12 Definitions
12.1 Acronyms
BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for
Information Security, Bonn, Germany
BSIG BSI-Gesetz / Act on the Federal Office for Information Security
CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
CEM Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
IT Information Technology
ITSEC Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria
ITSEF Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
NTP Network Time Protocol
PP Protection Profile
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SF Security Function
SFP Security Function Policy
SFR Security Functional Requirement
SSH Secure Shell
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functions
12.2 Glossary
Augmentation - The addition of one or more requirement(s) to a 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 passive entity in the TOE, that contains or receives information, and upon
which subjects perform operations.
22 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
Protection Profile - An implementation-independent statement of security needs for a
TOE type.
Security Target - An implementation-dependent statement of security needs for a specific
identified TOE.
Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics.
Subject - An active entity in the TOE that performs operations on objects.
Target of Evaluation - A set of software, firmware and/or hardware possibly accompanied
by guidance.
TOE Security Functionality - combined functionality of all hardware, software, and
firmware of a TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the SFRs
23 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
13 Bibliography
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
Part 1: Introduction and general model, Revision 1, September 2006
Part 2: Security functional components, Revision 2, September 2007
Part 3: Security assurance components, Revision 2, September 2007
[2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM),
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Rev. 2, September 2007
[3] BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125)
[4] Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE8
.
[5] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148, BSI 7149), periodically updated list
published also in the BSI Website
[6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0595-2010, Version 0.97, 2nd
September 2010, secunet
wall packet filter Version 3.0.3 Security Target, secunet Security Networks AG
[7] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 1.2, 24th
September 2010, Evaluation
Technical Report (ETR) – secunet wall packet filter, SRC Security Research &
Consulting GmbH (confidential document)
[8] Configuration list for the TOE, Version 0.92, 6th
July 2010, Konfigurationsliste
(ALC_CMS.4), secunet Security Networks AG (confidential document)
[9] Guidance documentation for the TOE, Version 0.93, 2nd July 2010
Applikationsentwicklerhandbuch, secunet Security Networks AG
8
specifically
• AIS 32, Version 5, 17 May 2010, CC-Interpretationen im deutschen Zertifizierungsschema
24 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
C Excerpts from the Criteria
CC Part1:
Conformance Claim (chapter 9.4)
“The conformance claim indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is met
by a PP or ST that passes its evaluation. This conformance claim contains a CC
conformance claim that:
● describes the version of the CC to which the PP or ST claims conformance.
● describes the conformance to CC Part 2 (security functional requirements) as either:
– CC Part 2 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 conformant if all SFRs in that
PP or ST are based only upon functional components in CC Part 2, or
– CC Part 2 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 extended if at least one SFR in
that PP or ST is not based upon functional components in CC Part 2.
● describes the conformance to CC Part 3 (security assurance requirements) as either:
– CC Part 3 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 conformant if all SARs in that
PP or ST are based only upon assurance components in CC Part 3, or
– CC Part 3 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 extended if at least one SAR in
that PP or ST is not based upon assurance components in CC Part 3.
Additionally, the conformance claim may include a statement made with respect to
packages, in which case it consists of one of the following:
● Package name Conformant - A PP or ST is conformant to a pre-defined package
(e.g. EAL) if:
– the SFRs of that PP or ST are identical to the SFRs in the package, or
– the SARs of that PP or ST are identical to the SARs in the package.
● Package name Augmented - A PP or ST is an augmentation of a predefined package
if:
– the SFRs of that PP or ST contain all SFRs in the package, but have at least
one additional SFR or one SFR that is hierarchically higher than an SFR in the
package.
– the SARs of that PP or ST contain all SARs in the package, but have at least
one additional SAR or one SAR that is hierarchically higher than an SAR in the
package.
Note that when a TOE is successfully evaluated to a given ST, any conformance claims of
the ST also hold for the TOE. A TOE can therefore also be e.g. CC Part 2 conformant.
Finally, the conformance claim may also include two statements with respect to Protection
Profiles:
● PP Conformant - A PP or TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the
conformance result.
● Conformance Statement (Only for PPs) - This statement describes the manner in
which PPs or STs must conform to this PP: strict or demonstrable. For more
information on this Conformance Statement, see Annex D.”
25 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
CC Part 3:
Class APE: Protection Profile evaluation (chapter 10)
“Evaluating a PP is required to demonstrate that the PP is sound and internally consistent,
and, if the PP is based on one or more other PPs or on packages, that the PP is a correct
instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the PP to be
suitable for use as the basis for writing an ST or another PP.
Assurance Class Assurance Components
Class APE: Protection
Profile evaluation
APE_INT.1 PP introduction
APE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
APE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
APE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
APE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
APE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
APE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
APE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
APE: Protection Profile evaluation class decomposition”
Class ASE: Security Target evaluation (chapter 11)
“Evaluating an ST is required to demonstrate that the ST is sound and internally
consistent, and, if the ST is based on one or more PPs or packages, that the ST is a
correct instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the
ST to be suitable for use as the basis for a TOE evaluation.”
26 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
Assurance Class Assurance Components
Class ASE: Security
Target evaluation
ASE_INT.1 ST introduction
ASE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
ASE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
ASE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
ASE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
ASE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
ASE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
ASE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
ASE_TSS.1 TOE summary specification
ASE_TSS.2 TOE summary specification with architectural design
summary
ASE: Security Target evaluation class decomposition
Security assurance components (chapter 7)
“The following Sections describe the constructs used in representing the assurance
classes, families, and components.“
“Each assurance class contains at least one assurance family.”
“Each assurance family contains one or more assurance components.”
The following table shows the assurance class decomposition.
Assurance Class Assurance Components
ADV: Development
ADV_ARC.1 Security architecture description
ADV_FSP.1 Basic functional specification
ADV_FSP.2 Security-enforcing functional specification
ADV_FSP.3 Functional specification with complete summary
ADV_FSP.4 Complete functional specification
ADV_FSP.5 Complete semi-formal functional specification with
additional error information
ADV_FSP.6 Complete semi-formal functional specification with
additional formal specification
ADV_IMP.1 Implementation representation of the TSF
ADV_IMP.2 Implementation of the TSF
ADV_INT.1 Well-structured subset of TSF internals
ADV_INT.2 Well-structured internals
ADV_INT.3 Minimally complex internals
ADV_SPM.1 Formal TOE security policy model
ADV_TDS.1 Basic design
ADV_TDS.2 Architectural design
ADV_TDS.3 Basic modular design
ADV_TDS.4 Semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.5 Complete semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.6 Complete semiformal modular design with formal high-
27 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
Assurance Class Assurance Components
level design presentation
AGD:
Guidance documents
AGD_OPE.1 Operational user guidance
AGD_PRE.1 Preparative procedures
ALC: Life cycle support
ALC_CMC.1 Labelling of the TOE
ALC_CMC.2 Use of a CM system
ALC_CMC.3 Authorisation controls
ALC_CMC.4 Production support, acceptance procedures and
automation
ALC_CMC.5 Advanced support
ALC_CMS.1 TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.2 Parts of the TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.3 Implementation representation CM coverage
ALC_CMS.4 Problem tracking CM coverage
ALC_CMS.5 Development tools CM coverage
ALC_DEL.1 Delivery procedures
ALC_DVS.1 Identification of security measures
ALC_DVS.2 Sufficiency of security measures
ALC_FLR.1 Basic flaw remediation
ALC_FLR.2 Flaw reporting procedures
ALC_FLR.3 Systematic flaw remediation
ALC_LCD.1 Developer defined life-cycle model
ALC_LCD.2 Measurable life-cycle model
ALC_TAT.1 Well-defined development tools
ALC_TAT.2 Compliance with implementation standards
ALC_TAT.3 Compliance with implementation standards - all parts
ATE_COV.1 Evidence of coverage
ATE_COV.2 Analysis of coverage
ATE_COV.3 Rigorous analysis of coverage
ATE: Tests
ATE_DPT.1 Testing: basic design
ATE_DPT.2 Testing: security enforcing modules
ATE_DPT.3 Testing: modular design
ATE_DPT.4 Testing: implementation representation
ATE_FUN.1 Functional testing
ATE_FUN.2 Ordered functional testing
ATE_IND.1 Independent testing – conformance
ATE_IND.2 Independent testing – sample
ATE_IND.3 Independent testing – complete
AVA: Vulnerability
assessment
AVA_VAN.1 Vulnerability survey
AVA_VAN.2 Vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.3 Focused vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.4 Methodical vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.5 Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis
Assurance class decomposition
28 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 8)
“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 CC 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 8.1)
“Table 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 7 of this CC 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 standard 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 augmented with extended
assurance requirements.”
29 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
Assurance
Class
Assurance
Family
Assurance Components by
Evaluation Assurance Level
EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7
Development ADV_ARC 1 1 1 1 1 1
ADV_FSP 1 2 3 4 5 5 6
ADV_IMP 1 1 2 2
ADV_INT 2 3 3
ADV_SPM 1 1
ADV_TDS 1 2 3 4 5 6
Guidance
Documents
AGD_OPE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
AGD_PRE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Life cycle
Support
ALC_CMC 1 2 3 4 4 5 5
ALC_CMS 1 2 3 4 5 5 5
ALC_DEL 1 1 1 1 1 1
ALC_DVS 1 1 1 2 2
ALC_FLR
ALC_LCD 1 1 1 1 2
ALC_TAT 1 2 3 3
Security Target
Evaluation
ASE_CCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_ECD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_INT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_OBJ 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
ASR_REQ 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
ASE_SPD 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_TSS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tests ATE_COV 1 2 2 2 3 3
ATE_DPT 1 2 3 3 4
ATE_FUN 1 1 1 1 2 2
ATE_IND 1 2 2 2 2 2 3
Vulnerability
assessment
AVA_VAN 1 2 2 3 4 5 5
Table 1: Evaluation assurance level summary
30 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 8.3)
“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 requires only a limited security target. It is sufficient to simply state the SFRs that the
TOE must meet, rather than deriving them from threats, OSPs and assumptions through
security objectives.
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.”
Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 8.4)
“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 practise. 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 8.5)
“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 practises.
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.”
31 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
Evaluation assurance level 4 (EAL4) - methodically designed, tested, and reviewed
(chapter 8.6)
“Objectives
EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering
based on good commercial development practises 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 8.7)
“Objectives
EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering based
upon rigorous commercial development practises 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 8.8)
“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.”
32 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 7 (EAL7) - formally verified design and tested
(chapter 8.9)
“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.”
Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment (chapter 16)
“The AVA: Vulnerability assessment class addresses the possibility of exploitable
vulnerabilities introduced in the development or the operation of the TOE.”
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VAN) (chapter 16.1)
"Objectives
Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether potential vulnerabilities
identified, during the evaluation of the development and anticipated operation of the TOE
or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses or quantitative or statistical analysis of the
security behaviour of the underlying security mechanisms), could allow attackers to violate
the SFRs.
Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that an attacker will be able to discover flaws
that will allow unauthorised access to data and functionality, allow the ability to interfere
with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users.”
33 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
This page is intentionally left blank
34 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
D Annexes
List of annexes of this certification report
Annex A: Security Target provided within a separate document.
Annex B: Evaluation results regarding development
and production environment 37
35 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
This page is intentionally left blank.
36 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010 Certification Report
Annex B of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
Evaluation results regarding
development and production
environment
The IT product secunet wall packet filter, Version 3.0.3 (Target of Evaluation, TOE) has
been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for IT
Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1.
As a result of the TOE certification, dated 14 September 2010, the following results
regarding the development and production environment apply. The Common Criteria
assurance requirements ALC – Life cycle support (ALC_CMC.4, ALC_CMS.4, ALC_DEL.1,
ALC_DVS.1, ALC_FLR.2, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.1)
are fulfilled for the following development and production site of the TOE:
secunet Security Networks AG
Ammonstraße 74
01067 Dresden
Germany
For the site listed above, the requirements have been specifically applied in accordance
with the Security Target [6]). The evaluators verified, that the threats, security objectives
and requirements for the TOE life cycle phases up to delivery (as stated in the Security
Target [6]) are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites.
37 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0595-2010
This page is intentionally left blank.
38 / 38