National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
for the
Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-11100-2020
Dated: 12/9/2020
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
Paul Bicknell
Anne Gugel
Peter Kruus
Lisa Mitchell
Linda Morrison
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Kenneth Lasoski
Rodrigo Tapia
Acumen Security, LLC
3
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 4
2 Identification.......................................................................................................................... 5
3 Architectural Information .................................................................................................... 6
4 Security Policy........................................................................................................................ 7
5 Assumptions & Clarification of Scope................................................................................. 9
5.1 Assumptions....................................................................................................................................................9
5.2 Clarification of Scope.....................................................................................................................................9
6 Documentation..................................................................................................................... 10
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration ........................................................................................... 11
7.1 Evaluated Configuration..............................................................................................................................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..................................................................................................................15
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 Varonis Data Security Platform Series 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 2020. 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 the Protection Profile for
Application Software, Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP].
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. 5) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 5), as interpreted by the Assurance Activities contained in
the Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP].
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 Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6
Protection Profile Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3 [SWAPP]
Security Target Varonis Data Security Platform v8.6 Security Target Version 1.1
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Version 1.1
CC Version Version 3.1, Revision 5
Conformance Result CC Part 2 Extended and CC Part 3 Conformant
Sponsor Varonis Systems Inc
Developer Varonis Systems Inc
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Acumen Security
Rockville, MD 20850
CCEVS Validators Paul Bicknell
Anne Gugel
Peter Kruus
Lisa Mitchell
Linda Morrison
6
3 Architectural Information
The TOE is a Microsoft Windows-based software application that works with file systems across a
network to audit, analyze, and remediate improper or insecure access permissions. The TOE works with a
variety of different objects, including files, folders, Exchange mailboxes, Active Directory domains, and
SharePoint sites. The primary components and features of the TOE included in the evaluation are as
follows:
 DatAdvantage (DA)
 Data Classification Engine (DCE)
 DatAlert
 Data Privilege (DP)
 Remediation Engine and Data Transfer Engine (DTE)
DA is the underlying framework that is common across all application components.
DCE provides the facilities to classify sensitive data stored in a number of repositories, tagging of
sensitive data, identifying data owners and sensitive data patterns. In conjunction with DatAdvantage the
DCE engine provides full identification cycle for sensitive data owners.
DatAlert provides real-time alerting for events such as privilege escalations, access on or deletion of
sensitive data, permissions or other anomalous behavior related to object access.
Data Privilege is an interface to the application that provides a web-based form providing request and
approval workflows for data consumers and owners.
DTE facilitates the secure migration of data between heterogenous file systems by comparing source and
target file system access control information and allowing administrators to ensure that the resultant
migrated data contains the appropriate permissions in its new location. An additional, complementing part
of the suite is the Remediation engine which allows the TOE to identify and correct permissions on data
located within the monitored assets.
The TOE is managed remotely via two primary web-based interfaces: DatAdvantage Web and Data
Privilege Web. In addition, two locally accessible interfaces are available: DatAdvantage UI and
DatAdvantage Management Console. DatAdvantage UI provides the same functionality as DatAdvantage
Web, while DatAdvantage Management Console provides initial configuration and maintenance tasks.
DatAdvantage UI provides the same functionality as DatAdvantage Web, while DatAdvantage
Management Console provides initial configuration and maintenance tasks.
7
4 Security Policy
The TOE provides the security functionality required by [SWAPP].
Cryptographic Support
The Microsoft Windows Server 2019 platform provides TLS/HTTPS functionality for users
communicating with the TOE via its remote web interfaces, as well as TLS/HTTPS connections
from the TOE to third party devices including Microsoft Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange
Server, Microsoft SharePoint, and NetApp filers.
The TOE invokes the platform cryptography for secure credential storage including database
connection strings, credentials for third party applications, and X.509 certificates and keypairs.
There are no cryptographic algorithms implemented within the TOE.
According to NIAP Policy #5 FAQ #8, the TOE relies on the platform which has been evaluated
and is listed on the NIAP PCL as described in section 1.3 above.
User Data Protection
Access to TOE platform resources is restricted to network communications and application logs.
The TOE initiates communications to third party applications and allows initiation to the TOE
from remote users for management.
The TOE leverages the Windows platform to securely store sensitive data.
Security Management
The TOE stores configuration data using the recommended platform configuration storage
mechanisms.
The TOE provides no access to any TSF functionality by default. No credentials are provided
with the application on a default install and must be configured during the TOE installation
process.
The TOE’s binary and data files are protected with file permissions that prevent modification
from unprivileged users.
The TOE is managed by the DatAdvantage Management Console, DatAdvantage UI,
DatAdvantage Web, and DataPrivilege Web.
Privacy
The TOE does not transmit PII.
Protection of the TSF
The TOE uses only documented platform APIs and third-party libraries as specified in Appendix A of the
ST.
The TOE does not request memory mapping at any explicit addresses, does not allocate any
memory regions with both write and execute permissions, and does not write user-modifiable
8
files to directories containing executable files. The TOE is built with stack-based buffer overflow
protection enabled and is compatible with the platform security features.
Updates to the TOE are performed manually by the TOE administrator. The TOE provides the
ability to check for updates and verify the currently installed version. All TOE installation and
update files are distributed in an executable format supported by Windows and binaries are
signed to provide integrity of the update file.
SWID tags are used to uniquely identify the TOE binaries.
Trusted Path/Channels
The TOE invokes the Windows platform to encrypt transmitted data between itself and third-
party systems using TLS/HTTPS.
9
5 Assumptions & 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.
The following assumptions are drawn directly from the SWAPP.
ID Assumption
A.PLATFORM The TOE relies upon a trustworthy computing platform with a reliable time clock
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 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:
 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 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3,
dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP].
 Consistent with the expectations of the Protection Profile, 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:
 Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Security Target v1.1 [ST]
 Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Common Criteria Configuration Guide v1.1 [AGD]
11
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration
7.1 Evaluated Configuration
The TOE is an application running on a general-purpose operating system. The TOE consists of
a set of application binaries (executable runtimes, DLLs, etc.), web-based UIs, configuration
files, and data that correspond with the application components discussed in section 1.2 of the
ST. The TOE leverages the Windows platform to secure connectivity with third party products
using TLS/HTTPS. In addition, the Windows platform provides the secure TLS/HTTPS
functionality as necessary to protect the trusted path to TOE administrators. TOE environment
components are described in section 1.3.3 of the ST.
The TOE is evaluated on the Microsoft Windows Server 2019 build 1809 platform, which has
been evaluated against the Protection Profile for General Purpose Operating Systems, Version
4.2.1, and the Extended Package for Wireless LAN Client, Version 1.0.
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 Varonis Data Security Platform, which
is not publicly 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 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3, dated
01 March 2019 [SWAPP]. The Independent Testing activity is documented in the Assurance
Activities Report, which is publicly 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 5 and CEM version 3.1 rev 5. The evaluation determined the Varonis Data Security
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 Varonis Data Security 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 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019
[SWAPP].
The validation team 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 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 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3,
dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP] related to the examination of the information contained in the
TOE Summary Specification.
The validation team 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 AGD CEM work unit. The evaluation team ensured the
adequacy of the user guidance in describing how to use the operational TOE. Additionally, the
14
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
the evaluation to ensure they were complete. Additionally, the evaluator performed the
Assurance Activities specified in the Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3,
dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP] related to the examination of the information contained in the
operational guidance documents.
The validation team 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 ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found
that the TOE was identified.
The validation team 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 ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set of tests
specified by the Assurance Activities in the Protection Profile for Application Software, Version
1.3, dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP] and recorded the results in a Test Report, summarized in the
Evaluation Technical Report and Assurance Activities Report.
The validation team 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 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019
[SWAPP], and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity
The evaluation team applied each AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team performed a public
search for vulnerabilities, performed vulnerability testing and found that any vulnerabilities have
been mitigated or did not result in the TOE being able to be exploited in its evaluated
configuration. The search terms, dates, and public databases used are documented in the AAR.
The validation team 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 Protection Profile for Application Software,
Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP], and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation
team was justified.
15
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 Protection
Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP], 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 to ensure the product is placed into the evaluated configuration. It is particularly
important that the guidance documentation be followed to enable BitLocker on the TOE
platform.
The consumer should note the software in the operational environment, as listed in the ST, that is
required for the operation of the TOE.
17
11 Annexes
Not applicable.
18
12 Security Target
Please see the Varonis Data Security Platform v8.6 Security Target Version 1.1 [ST].
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 5.
2. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 2: Security
functional requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 5.
3. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 3: Security
assurance requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 5.
4. Common Evaluation Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5.
5. Protection Profile for Application Software, version 1.3, dated, 01 March 2019
[SWAPP].
6. Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Security Target Version 1.1 [ST]
7. Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Common Criteria Configuration Guide Version 1.1
[AGD]
8. Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Evaluation Technical Report Version 1.1 [ETR]
9. Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Assurance Activities Report Version 1.2 [AAR]
10. Test Plan for Varonis Data Security Platform 8.6 Version 1.2 [DTR]