Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 1 of 164
Microsoft Windows
Common Criteria Evaluation
Microsoft Windows 10 version 1909 (November 2019 Update)
Microsoft Windows Server version 1909 (November 2019
Update)
Security Target
Document Information
Version Number 0.04
Updated On January 16, 2020
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 2 of 164
Version History
Version Date Summary of changes
0.01 June 27, 2019 Initial draft
0.02 October 31, 2019 Updates from security target evaluation
0.03 January 16, 2020 Final version for certification bod
0.04 January 16, 2020 Version for publication
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 3 of 164
This is a preliminary document and may be changed
substantially prior to final commercial release of the
software described herein.
The information contained in this document
represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation
on the issues discussed as of the date of publication.
Because Microsoft must respond to changing market
conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a
commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft
cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information
presented after the date of publication.
This document is for informational purposes only.
MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS
DOCUMENT.
Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the
responsibility of the user. This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-
NonCommercial License (which allows redistribution
of the work). To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/ or
send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan
Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Microsoft may have patents, patent applications,
trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property
rights covering subject matter in this document.
Except as expressly provided in any written license
agreement from Microsoft, the furnishing of this
document does not give you any license to these
patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual
property.
The example companies, organizations, products,
people and events depicted herein are fictitious. No
association with any real company, organization,
product, person or event is intended or should be
inferred.
© 2020 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Microsoft, Active Directory, Visual Basic, Visual
Studio, Windows, the Windows logo, Windows NT,
and Windows Server are either registered trademarks
or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United
States and/or other countries.
The names of actual companies and products
mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their
respective owners.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 4 of 164
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECURITY TARGET.........................................................................................................................1
VERSION HISTORY..............................................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................7
1 SECURITY TARGET INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................9
1.1 ST REFERENCE ........................................................................................................................9
1.2 TOE REFERENCE......................................................................................................................9
1.3 TOE OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................9
1.3.1 TOE TYPES.......................................................................................................................................9
1.3.2 TOE USAGE....................................................................................................................................10
1.3.3 TOE SECURITY SERVICES...................................................................................................................10
1.3.4 NON-TOE HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, FIRMWARE IN THE EVALUATION.......................................................12
1.4 TOE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................12
1.4.1 EVALUATED CONFIGURATIONS...........................................................................................................12
1.4.2 SECURITY ENVIRONMENT AND TOE BOUNDARY ...................................................................................13
1.4.2.1 Logical Boundaries ......................................................................................................................13
1.4.2.2 Physical Boundaries ....................................................................................................................14
1.5 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................15
1.6 CONVENTIONS, TERMINOLOGY, ACRONYMS ................................................................................15
1.6.1 CONVENTIONS ................................................................................................................................15
1.6.2 TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................................................16
1.6.3 ACRONYMS.....................................................................................................................................19
1.7 ST OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION ...........................................................................................19
2 CC CONFORMANCE CLAIMS...............................................................................................20
3 SECURITY PROBLEM DEFINITION........................................................................................22
3.1 THREATS TO SECURITY ............................................................................................................22
3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES.........................................................................................26
3.3 SECURE USAGE ASSUMPTIONS..................................................................................................26
4 SECURITY OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................28
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 5 of 164
4.1 TOE SECURITY OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................28
4.2 SECURITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................29
5 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................31
5.1 TOE SECURITY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................31
5.1.1 SECURITY AUDIT (FAU)....................................................................................................................33
5.1.1.1 Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1) and FAU_GEN.1(WLAN)...................................................33
5.1.1.2 Security Audit for IPsec Client EP................................................................................................35
5.1.2 CRYPTOGRAPHIC SUPPORT (FCS).......................................................................................................36
5.1.2.1 Cryptographic Support for GP OS PP ..........................................................................................36
5.1.2.2 Cryptographic Support for WLAN Client EP................................................................................40
5.1.2.3 Cryptographic Support for IPsec Client EP..................................................................................41
5.1.3 USER DATA PROTECTION (FDP).........................................................................................................43
5.1.3.1 User Data Protection for GP OS PP .............................................................................................43
5.1.3.2 User Data Protection for IPsec Client EP.....................................................................................43
5.1.4 IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION (FIA).......................................................................................43
5.1.4.1 Identification and Authentication for GP OS PP .........................................................................43
5.1.4.2 Identification and Authentication for WLAN Client EP...............................................................45
5.1.4.3 Identification and Authentication for IPsec Client EP.................................................................46
5.1.5 SECURITY MANAGEMENT (FMT) .......................................................................................................46
5.1.5.1 Security Management for GP OS PP ...........................................................................................46
5.1.5.2 Security Management for WLAN Client EP.................................................................................47
5.1.5.3 Security Management for IPsec Client EP...................................................................................48
5.1.6 PROTECTION OF THE TSF (FPT) .........................................................................................................48
5.1.6.1 Protection of the TSF for GP OS PP.............................................................................................48
5.1.6.2 Protection of the TSF for WLAN Client EP...................................................................................50
5.1.6.3 Protection of the TSF for IPsec Client EP ....................................................................................50
5.1.7 TOE ACCESS (FTA)..........................................................................................................................50
5.1.7.1 TOE Access for GP OS PP.............................................................................................................50
5.1.7.2 TOE Access for WLAN Client EP ..................................................................................................50
5.1.8 TRUSTED PATH / CHANNELS (FTP).....................................................................................................50
5.1.8.1 Trusted Path / Channels for GP OS PP ........................................................................................50
5.1.8.2 Trusted Path / Channels for WLAN Client EP..............................................................................51
5.1.8.3 Trusted Path / Channels for IPsec Client EP................................................................................51
5.2 TOE SECURITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................52
5.2.1 CC PART 3 ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................52
5.2.1.1 Timely Security Updates (ALC_TSU_EXT.1).................................................................................52
5.2.2 GENERAL PURPOSE OS PP ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................53
5.2.2.1 Security Audit (FAU)....................................................................................................................53
5.2.2.2 Cryptographic Support (FCS).......................................................................................................54
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 6 of 164
5.2.2.3 User Data Protection (FDP).........................................................................................................73
5.2.2.4 Identification and Authentication (FIA) ......................................................................................74
5.2.2.5 Security Management (FMT) ......................................................................................................77
5.2.2.6 Protection of the TSF (FPT) .........................................................................................................78
5.2.2.7 TOE Access (FTA).........................................................................................................................82
5.2.2.8 Trusted Path / Channels (FTP).....................................................................................................82
5.2.3 WLAN CLIENT EP ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES...........................................................................................82
5.2.3.1 Security Audit (FAU)....................................................................................................................82
5.2.3.2 Cryptographic Support (FCS).......................................................................................................83
5.2.3.3 Identification and Authentication (FIA) ......................................................................................88
5.2.3.4 Security Management (FMT) ......................................................................................................90
5.2.3.5 Protection of the TSF (FPT) .........................................................................................................90
5.2.3.6 TOE Access (FTA).........................................................................................................................91
5.2.3.7 Trusted Path / Channels (FTP).....................................................................................................92
5.2.4 IPSEC CLIENT EP ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................92
5.2.4.1 Security Audit (FAU)....................................................................................................................92
5.2.4.2 Cryptographic Support (FCS).......................................................................................................94
5.2.4.3 User Data Protection (FDP).......................................................................................................105
5.2.4.4 Identification & Authentication (FIA)........................................................................................106
5.2.4.5 Security Management (FMT) ....................................................................................................108
5.2.4.6 Protection of the TSF (FPT) .......................................................................................................109
5.2.4.7 Trusted Path/Channels (FTP) ....................................................................................................110
6 TOE SUMMARY SPECIFICATION (TSS) ...............................................................................112
6.1 AUDIT ..............................................................................................................................112
6.1.1 AUDIT COLLECTION........................................................................................................................112
6.1.2 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................114
6.2 CRYPTOGRAPHIC SUPPORT ....................................................................................................115
6.2.1 CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS AND OPERATIONS ...............................................................................115
6.2.2 CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHM VALIDATION ........................................................................................116
6.2.3 NETWORKING ...............................................................................................................................119
6.2.3.1 TLS, HTTPS, DTLS, EAP-TLS ........................................................................................................119
6.2.3.2 Wireless Networking.................................................................................................................121
6.2.3.3 IPsec ..........................................................................................................................................121
6.2.4 PROTECTING DATA WITH DPAPI......................................................................................................123
6.2.5 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................124
6.3 USER DATA PROTECTION.......................................................................................................124
6.3.1 DISCRETIONARY ACCESS CONTROL....................................................................................................124
6.3.1.1 Subject DAC Attributes .............................................................................................................125
6.3.1.2 Object DAC Attributes...............................................................................................................125
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 7 of 164
6.3.1.3 DAC Enforcement Algorithm.....................................................................................................127
6.3.1.4 Default DAC Protection.............................................................................................................129
6.3.1.5 DAC Management.....................................................................................................................130
6.3.1.6 Reference Mediation ................................................................................................................130
6.3.2 VPN CLIENT .................................................................................................................................130
6.3.3 MEMORY MANAGEMENT AND OBJECT REUSE....................................................................................131
6.3.4 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................132
6.4 IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION ....................................................................................132
6.4.1 X.509 CERTIFICATE VALIDATION AND GENERATION ............................................................................133
6.4.2 CERTIFICATE STORAGE....................................................................................................................133
6.4.3 IPSEC AND PRE-SHARED KEYS ..........................................................................................................133
6.4.4 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................134
6.5 SECURITY MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................134
6.5.1 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................136
6.6 PROTECTION OF THE TSF.......................................................................................................136
6.6.1 SEPARATION AND DOMAIN ISOLATION ..............................................................................................136
6.6.2 PROTECTION OF OS BINARIES, AUDIT AND CONFIGURATION DATA ........................................................137
6.6.3 PROTECTION FROM IMPLEMENTATION WEAKNESSES...........................................................................137
6.6.4 WINDOWS PLATFORM INTEGRITY AND CODE INTEGRITY.......................................................................138
6.6.5 WINDOWS AND APPLICATION UPDATES ............................................................................................141
6.6.5.1 Windows Store Applications.....................................................................................................142
6.6.5.2 Distributing updates..................................................................................................................142
6.6.6 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................143
6.7 TOE ACCESS ......................................................................................................................143
6.7.1 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................144
6.8 TRUSTED CHANNELS.............................................................................................................144
6.8.1 SFR SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................145
6.9 SECURITY RESPONSE PROCESS ................................................................................................145
7 PROTECTION PROFILE CONFORMANCE CLAIM..................................................................146
8 RATIONALE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ...............................154
8.1 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................154
8.2 SECURITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .....................................................................................157
8.3 RATIONALE FOR THE TOE SUMMARY SPECIFICATION....................................................................157
9 APPENDIX A: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................160
LIST OF TABLES
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 8 of 164
Table 1 GP OS PP Threats Addressed by Windows ...................................................................................22
Table 2 WLAN Client EP Threats Addressed by Windows.........................................................................22
Table 3 IPsec Client EP Threats Addressed by Windows...........................................................................23
Table 4 Organizational Security Policies....................................................................................................26
Table 5 GP OS PP Secure Usage Assumptions...........................................................................................26
Table 6 WLAN Client EP Secure Usage Assumptions.................................................................................26
Table 7 IPsec Client EP Secure Usage Assumptions ..................................................................................26
Table 8 GP OS PP Security Objectives for the TOE....................................................................................28
Table 9 WLAN Client EP Security Objectives for the TOE..........................................................................29
Table 10 GP OS PP Security Objectives for the Operational Environment..............................................29
Table 11 WLAN Client EP Security Objectives for the Operational Environment ...................................29
Table 12 IPsec Client EP Security Objectives for the Operational Environment.....................................30
Table 13 TOE Security Functional Requirements for GP OS PP ................................................................31
Table 14 TOE Security Functional Requirements for WLAN Client EP......................................................32
Table 15 TOE Security Functional Requirements for IPsec Client EP........................................................33
Table 16 WLAN Client EP Audit Events......................................................................................................34
Table 17 IPsec Client EP Audit Events........................................................................................................35
Table 18 TOE Security Management Functions.........................................................................................47
Table 19 TOE Security Assurance Requirements.......................................................................................52
Table 20 Standard Fields in a Windows Audit Entry...............................................................................112
Table 21 Windows Cryptographic Algorithm Standards and Evaluation Methods ...............................116
Table 22 Types of Keys Used by Windows ..............................................................................................118
Table 23 TLS RFCs Implemented by Windows.........................................................................................119
Table 24 Windows 10 Implementation of IPsec RFCs.............................................................................122
Table 25 DAC Access Rights and Named Objects ....................................................................................126
Table 26 General Purpose OS Windows Security Management Functions............................................134
Table 27 IPsec VPN Client Windows Security Management Functions..................................................135
Table 28 GP OS PP Security Objectives Rationale..................................................................................146
Table 29 WLAN Client EP Security Objectives Rationale........................................................................147
Table 30 IPsec Client EP Security Objectives Rationale .........................................................................148
Table 31 GP OS PP Tracing Between SFR and TOE Security Objective ..................................................149
Table 32 WLAN Client EP Tracing Between SFR and TOE Security Objective........................................151
Table 33 Tracing Between GP OS PP Security Objective and IPsec Client EP SFRs ...............................152
Table 34 Rationale for Operations...........................................................................................................154
Table 35 Requirement to Security Function Correspondence................................................................157
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 9 of 164
1 Security Target Introduction
This section presents the following information required for a Common Criteria (CC) evaluation:
• Identifies the Security Target (ST) and the Target of Evaluation (TOE)
• Specifies the security target conventions,
• Describes the organization of the security target
1.1 ST Reference
ST Title: Microsoft Windows 10, Windows Server version 1909 Security Target
ST Version: version 0.04, January 16, 2020
1.2 TOE Reference
TOE Software Identification: The following Windows Operating Systems (OS):
• Microsoft Windows 10 Home edition (November 2019 Update) (32-bit and 64-bit versions)
• Microsoft Windows 10 Pro edition (November 2019 Update) (64-bit version)
• Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise edition (November 2019 Update) (64-bit version)
• Microsoft Windows Server Standard edition (November 2019 Update)
• Microsoft Windows Server Datacenter edition (November 2019 Update)
TOE Versions:
• Windows 10: build 10.0. 18363 (also known as version 1909)
• Windows Server: build 10.0. 18363 (also known as version 1909)
The following security updates must be applied for:
• Windows 10 and Windows Server: all critical updates as of October 31, 2019
1.3 TOE Overview
The TOE includes the Windows 10 operating system, the Windows Server operating system, and those
applications necessary to manage, support and configure the operating system. Windows 10 and
Windows Server can be delivered preinstalled on a new computer or downloaded from the Microsoft
website.
1.3.1 TOE Types
All Windows 10 and Windows Server editions, collectively called “Windows”, are preemptive
multitasking, multiprocessor, and multi-user operating systems. In general, operating systems provide
users with a convenient interface to manage underlying hardware. They control the allocation and
manage computing resources such as processors, memory, and Input/Output (I/O) devices. Windows
expands these basic operating system capabilities to controlling the allocation and managing higher
level IT resources such as security principals (user or machine accounts), files, printing objects, services,
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 10 of 164
window station, desktops, cryptographic keys, network ports traffic, directory objects, and web content.
Multi-user operating systems such as Windows keep track of which user is using which resource, grant
resource requests, account for resource usage, and mediate conflicting requests from different
programs and users.
1.3.2 TOE Usage
Windows 10 is suited for business desktops, notebook, and convertible computers. It is the workstation
product and while it can be used by itself, it is designed to serve as a client within Windows domains.
Built for workloads ranging from the department to the enterprise to the cloud, Windows Server
delivers intelligent file and printer sharing; secure connectivity based on Internet technologies, and
centralized desktop policy management. It provides the necessary scalable and reliable foundation to
support mission-critical solutions for databases, enterprise resource planning software, high-volume,
real-time transaction processing, server consolidation, public key infrastructure, virtualization, and
additional server roles.
Windows provides an interactive User Interface (UI), as well as a network interface. The TOE includes a
set of computer systems that can be connected via their network interfaces and organized into domains
and forests. A domain is a logical collection of Windows systems that allows the administration and
application of a common security policy and the use of a common accounts database. One or more
domains combine to comprise a forest. Windows supports single-domain and multiple-domain (i.e.,
forest) configurations as well as federation between forests and external authentication services.
Each domain must include at least one designated server known as a Domain Controller (DC) to manage
the domain. The TOE allows for multiple DCs that replicate TOE user and machine account as well as
group policy management data among themselves to provide for higher availability.
Each Windows system, whether it is a DC server, non-DC server, or workstation, provides a subset of the
TSFs. The TSF subset for Windows can consist of the security functions from a single system, for a stand-
alone system, or the collection of security functions from an entire network of systems, for a domain
configuration.
1.3.3 TOE Security Services
This section summarizes the security services provided by the TOE:
• Security Audit: Windows has the ability to collect audit data, review audit logs, protect audit
logs from overflow, and restrict access to audit logs. Audit information generated by the system
includes the date and time of the event, the user identity that caused the event to be generated,
and other event specific data. Authorized administrators can review audit logs and have the
ability to search and sort audit records. Authorized Administrators can also configure the audit
system to include or exclude potentially auditable events to be audited based on a wide range of
characteristics. In the context of this evaluation, the protection profile requirements cover
generating audit events, selecting which events should be audited, and providing secure storage
for audit event entries.
• Cryptographic Support: Windows provides FIPS 140-2 CAVP validated cryptographic functions
that support encryption/decryption, cryptographic signatures, cryptographic hashing,
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 11 of 164
cryptographic key agreement, and random number generation. The TOE additionally provides
support for public keys, credential management and certificate validation functions and
provides support for the National Security Agency’s Suite B cryptographic algorithms. Windows
also provides extensive auditing support of cryptographic operations, the ability to replace
cryptographic functions and random number generators with alternative implementations,1
and
a key isolation service designed to limit the potential exposure of secret and private keys. In
addition to using cryptography for its own security functions, Windows offers access to the
cryptographic support functions for user-mode and kernel-mode programs. Public key
certificates generated and used by Windows authenticate users and machines as well as protect
both user and system data in transit.
o TLS: Windows implements Transport Layer Security to provide protected, authenticated,
confidential, and tamper-proof networking between two peer computers
o IPsec: Windows implements IPsec to provide protected, authenticated, confidential, and
tamper-proof networking between two peer computers.
o Wi-Fi: Windows implements IEEE 802.11 wireless networking to provide protected,
authenticated, confidential, and tamper-proof networking between Windows clients
and Wi-Fi access points.
• User Data Protection: In the context of this evaluation Windows protects user data and provides
virtual private networking capabilities.
• Identification and Authentication Each Windows user must be identified and authenticated
based on administrator-defined policy prior to performing any TSF-mediated functions. An
interactive user invokes a trusted path in order to protect his I&A information. Windows
maintains databases of accounts including their identities, authentication information, group
associations, and privilege and logon rights associations. Windows account policy functions
include the ability to define the minimum password length, the number of failed logon
attempts, the duration of lockout, and password age. Windows provides the ability to use, store,
and protect X.509 certificates that are used for IPsec VPN sessions.
• Protection of the TOE Security Functions: Windows provides a number of features to ensure
the protection of TOE security functions. Windows protects against unauthorized data
disclosure and modification by using a suite of Internet standard protocols including IPsec, IKE,
and ISAKMP. Windows ensures process isolation security for all processes through private
virtual address spaces, execution context, and security context. The Windows data structures
defining process address space, execution context, memory protection, and security context are
stored in protected kernel-mode memory. Windows includes self-testing features that ensure
the integrity of executable program images and its cryptographic functions. Finally, Windows
provides a trusted update mechanism to update Windows binaries itself.
• Session Locking: Windows provides the ability for a user to lock their session either immediately
or after a defined interval. Windows constantly monitors the mouse, keyboard, and touch
display for activity and locks the computer after a set period of inactivity.
1
This option is not included in the Windows Common Criteria evaluation.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 12 of 164
• TOE Access: Windows allows an authorized administrator to configure the system to display a
logon banner before the logon dialog.
• Trusted Path for Communications: Windows uses TLS, HTTPS, DTLS, EAP-TLS, and IPsec to
provide a trusted path for communications.
• Security Management: Windows includes several functions to manage security policies. Policy
management is controlled through a combination of access control, membership in
administrator groups, and privileges.
1.3.4 Non-TOE Hardware, Software, Firmware in the Evaluation
Non-TOE Hardware Identification: The following real and virtualized hardware platforms, corresponding
firmware, and components are included in the evaluated configuration:
• Microsoft Surface Go
• Microsoft Surface Go LTE
• Microsoft Surface Pro LTE
• Microsoft Surface Book 2
• Microsoft Surface Pro 6
• Microsoft Surface Laptop 2
• Microsoft Surface Studio 2
• Microsoft Windows Server 2019 Hyper-V
• Microsoft Windows Server 2016 Hyper-V
• Dell Latitude 7200 2-in-1
• Dell Latitude 5300 2-in-1
• Dell PowerEdge R740
• Dell PowerEdge R7425
• HP ZBook 15G6
• HP ProBook 650 G5
• Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
• Samsung Galaxy Book 10.6”
• Samsung Galaxy Book 12”
1.4 TOE Description
The TOE includes the Windows 10 operating system, the Windows Server supporting hardware, and
those applications necessary to manage, support and configure the operating system.
1.4.1 Evaluated Configurations
The TOE includes five product variants of Windows (build 10.0.18363):
• Microsoft Windows 10 Home edition (November 2019 Update) (32-bit and 64-bit versions)
• Microsoft Windows 10 Pro edition (November 2019 Update) (64-bit version)
• Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise edition (November 2019 Update) (64-bit version)
• Microsoft Windows Server Standard edition (November 2019 Update)
• Microsoft Windows Server Datacenter edition (November 2019 Update)
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 13 of 164
Within this security target, when specifically referring to a type of TSF (for example, a domain
controller), the TSF type will be explicitly stated. Otherwise, the term TSF refers to the total of all TSFs
within the TOE.
1.4.2 Security Environment and TOE Boundary
The TOE includes both physical and logical boundaries. Its operational environment is a networked
environment.
1.4.2.1 Logical Boundaries
Conceptually the Windows TOE can be thought of as a collection of the following security services which
the security target describes with increasing detail:
• Security Audit
• Cryptographic Support
• User Data Protection
• Identification and Authentication
• Security Management
• Protection of the TOE Security Functions
• Access to the TOE
• Trusted Path and Channels
These services are primarily provided by Windows components:
• The Boot Manager, which is invoked by the computer’s bootstrapping code.
• The Windows Loader which loads the operating system into the computer’s memory.
• Windows OS Resume which reloads an image of the executing operating system from a
hibernation file as part of resuming from a hibernated state.
• The Windows Kernel which contains device drivers for the Windows NT File System, full volume
encryption, the crash dump filter, and the kernel-mode cryptographic library.
• The IPv4 / IPv6 network stack in the kernel.
• The IPsec module in user-mode.
• The IKE and AuthIP Keying Modules service which hosts the IKE and Authenticated Internet
Protocol (AuthIP) keying modules. These keying modules are used for authentication and key
exchange in Internet Protocol security (IPsec).
• The Remote Access Service device driver in the kernel, which is used primarily for ad hoc or
user-defined VPN connections; known as the “RAS IPsec VPN” or “RAS VPN”.
• The IPsec Policy Agent service which enforces IPsec policies.
• The Key Isolation Service which protects secret and private keys.
• The Local Security Authority Subsystem which identifies and authenticates users prior to log on
and generates events for the security audit log.
• FIPS-Approved cryptographic algorithms to protect user and system data.
• Local and remote administrative interfaces for security management.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 14 of 164
• Windows Explorer which can be used to manage the OS and check the integrity of Windows
files and updates.
• The Windows Trusted Installer which installs updates to the Windows operating system.
1.4.2.2 Physical Boundaries
Each instance of the general-purpose OS TOE runs on a tablet, convertible, workstation or server
computer. The TOE executes on processors from Intel (x86 and x64) or AMD (x86 and x64) along with
peripherals for input/output (keyboard, mouse, display, and network).
The TOE was tested on the following physical and virtual computer platforms:
• Microsoft Surface Go
• Microsoft Surface Go LTE
• Microsoft Surface Pro LTE
• Microsoft Surface Book 2
• Microsoft Surface Pro 6
• Microsoft Surface Laptop 2
• Microsoft Surface Studio 2
• Microsoft Windows Server 2019 Hyper-V
• Microsoft Windows Server 2016 Hyper-V
• Dell Latitude 7200 2-in-1
• Dell Latitude 5300 2-in-1
• Dell PowerEdge R740
• Dell PowerEdge R7425
• HP ZBook 15G6
• HP ProBook 650 G5
• Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
• Samsung Galaxy Book 10.6”
• Samsung Galaxy Book 12”
The Assurance Activity Report describes the relationship between the different hardware platforms and
the operating systems examined during the evaluation.
The TOE does not include any hardware or network infrastructure components between the computers
that comprise the distributed TOE. The security target assumes that any network connections,
equipment, peripherals and cables are appropriately protected in the TOE security environment.
The Windows operating system must be pre-installed on a computer by an OEM, installed by the end-
user, by an organization’s IT administrator, or updated from a previous Windows 10 version downloaded
from Windows Update. Consumers can download Windows 10 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/software-download/windows10 and IT professionals can obtain a copy of Windows Server from
https://www.microsoft.com/Licensing/servicecenter/default.aspx. The obtained file is in .iso format.
Enterprises typically obtain Windows using volume licensing programs and subscriptions such as these
for Windows 10.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 15 of 164
Windows is pre-installed on all Microsoft Surface computers.
TOE Guidance Identification: The following administrator, user, and configuration guides were evaluated
as part of the TOE and delivered in .docx format:
• Microsoft Windows 10 and Windows Server version 1909 GP OS Operational and
Administrative Guidance along with all the documents referenced therein.
The administrator and user must follow the instructions in the Microsoft Windows 10 and Windows
Server version 1909 GP OS Operational and Administrative Guidance to configure and remain in the
evaluated configuration.
1.5 Product Description
In addition to core operating system capabilities described in the previous section, Windows can also be
categorized as the following types of Information Assurance (IA) or IA-enabled IT products, these
capabilities leverage functionality included in this General Purpose OS evaluation as well as capabilities
which fall outside the scope of the GP OS PP:
• Windows is a Network Management and Desktop Management product to support security
infrastructure. Group Policy and mobile device management Configuration Service Providers,
which is part of the Windows TOE, provide the centralized network management in Windows
networks and desktops.
• Windows is a Single Sign-On product (using password or certificate) for Windows networks to
defend the computing environment. Windows supports single sign on to the TOE.
• Windows is a Firewall product with the capability to filter network traffic based upon source and
destination addresses, ports, applications, user or machine identity, and protocols.
1.6 Conventions, Terminology, Acronyms
This section specifies the formatting information used in the security target.
1.6.1 Conventions
The following conventions have been applied in this document:
• Security Functional Requirements (SFRs): Part 2 of the CC defines the approved set of operations
that may be applied to functional requirements: iteration, assignment, selection, and
refinement.
o Iteration: allows a component to be used more than once with varying operations.
o Assignment: allows the specification of an identified parameter.
o Selection: allows the specification of one or more elements from a list.
o Refinement: allows the addition of details.
The conventions for the assignment, selection, refinement, and iteration operations are
described in Section 5.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 16 of 164
• Other sections of the security target use a bold font to highlight text of special interest, such as
captions.
1.6.2 Terminology
The following terminology is used in the security target:
Term Definition
Access Interaction between an entity and an object that results in the flow or
modification of data.
Access control Security service that controls the use of resources2
and the disclosure and
modification of data3
.
Accountability Tracing each activity in an IT system to the entity responsible for the
activity.
Active Directory Active Directory manages enterprise identities, credentials, information
protection, system and application settings through AD Domain Services,
Federation Services, Certificate Services and Lightweight Directory
Services.
Administrator An authorized user who has been specifically granted the authority to
manage some portion or the entire TOE and thus whose actions may affect
the TOE Security Policy (TSP). Administrators may possess special
privileges that provide capabilities to override portions of the TSP.
Assurance A measure of confidence that the security features of an IT system are
sufficient to enforce the IT system’s security policy.
Attack An intentional act attempting to violate the security policy of an IT system.
Authentication A security measure that verifies a claimed identity.
Authentication data The information used to verify a claimed identity.
Authorization Permission, granted by an entity authorized to do so, to perform functions
and access data.
Authorized user An authenticated user who may, in accordance with the TOE Security
Policy, perform an operation.
Availability Timely4
, reliable access to IT resources.
Compromise Violation of a security policy.
Confidentiality A security policy pertaining to disclosure of data.
Critical cryptographic
security parameters
Security-related information appearing in plaintext or otherwise
unprotected form and whose disclosure or modification can compromise
the security of a cryptographic module or the security of the information
protected by the module.
Cryptographic boundary An explicitly defined contiguous perimeter that establishes the physical
bounds (for hardware) or logical bounds (for software) of a cryptographic
module.
Cryptographic key (key) A parameter used in conjunction with a cryptographic algorithm that
determines:
• the transformation of plaintext data into ciphertext data
2
Hardware and software
3
Stored or communicated
4
According to a defined metric
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 17 of 164
• the transformation of ciphertext data into plaintext data
• a digital signature computed from data
• the verification of a digital signature computed from data
• a data authentication code computed from data
Cryptographic module The set of hardware, software, and/or firmware that implements approved
security functions, including cryptographic algorithms and key generation,
which is contained within the cryptographic boundary.
Cryptographic module
security policy
A precise specification of the security rules under which a cryptographic
module must operate.
Defense-in-depth A security design strategy whereby layers of protection are utilized to
establish an adequate security posture for an IT system.
Discretionary Access
Control (DAC)
A means of restricting access to objects based on the identity of subjects
and groups to which the objects belong. The controls are discretionary
meaning that a subject with a certain access permission is capable of
passing that permission (perhaps indirectly) on to any other subject.
Edition A distinct variation of a Windows OS version. Examples of editions are
Windows 10 Pro and Windows 10 Enterprise.
Enclave A collection of entities under the control of a single authority and having a
homogeneous security policy. They may be logical or based on physical
location and proximity.
Entity A subject, object, user or external IT device.
General-Purpose
Operating System
A general-purpose operating system is designed to meet a variety of goals,
including protection between users and applications, fast response time
for interactive applications, high throughput for server applications, and
high overall resource utilization.
Identity A means of uniquely identifying an authorized user of the TOE.
Integrated Windows
authentication
An authentication protocol formerly known as NTLM or Windows NT
Challenge/Response.
Named object • An object that exhibits all of the following characteristics:
• The object may be used to transfer information between subjects
of differing user identities within the TOE Security Function (TSF).
• Subjects in the TOE must be able to request a specific instance of
the object.
• The name used to refer to a specific instance of the object must
exist in a context that potentially allows subjects with different
user identities to request the same instance of the object.
Object An entity under the control of the TOE that contains or receives
information and upon which subjects perform operations.
Operating environment The total environment in which a TOE operates. It includes the physical
facility and any physical, procedural, administrative and personnel
controls.
Persistent storage All types of data storage media that maintain data across system boots
(e.g., hard disk, removable media).
Public object An object for which the TSF unconditionally permits all entities “read”
access under the Discretionary Access Control SFP. Only the TSF or
authorized administrators may create, delete, or modify the public objects.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 18 of 164
Resource A fundamental element in an IT system (e.g., processing time, disk space,
and memory) that may be used to create the abstractions of subjects and
objects.
SChannel A security package (SSP) that provides network authentication between
clients and servers.
Secure State Condition in which all TOE security policies are enforced.
Security attributes TSF data associated with subjects, objects and users that is used for the
enforcement of the TSP.
Security-enforcing A term used to indicate that the entity (e.g., module, interface, subsystem)
is related to the enforcement of the TOE security policies.
Security-supporting A term used to indicate that the entity (e.g., module, interface, subsystem)
is not security-enforcing; however, the entity’s implementation must still
preserve the security of the TSF.
Security context The security attributes or rules that are currently in effect. For SSPI, a
security context is an opaque data structure that contains security data
relevant to a connection, such as a session key or an indication of the
duration of the session.
Security package The software implementation of a security protocol. Security packages are
contained in security support provider libraries or security support
provider/authentication package libraries.
Security principal An entity recognized by the security system. Principals can include human
users as well as autonomous processes.
Security Support
Provider (SSP)
A dynamic-link library that implements the SSPI by making one or more
security packages available to applications. Each security package provides
mappings between an application's SSPI function calls and an actual
security model’s function. Security packages support security protocols
such as Kerberos authentication and Integrated Windows Authentication.
Security Support
Provider Interface (SSPI)
A common interface between transport-level applications. SSPI allows a
transport application to call one of several security providers to obtain an
authenticated connection. These calls do not require extensive knowledge
of the security protocol's details.
Security Target (ST) A set of security requirements and specifications to be used as the basis for
evaluation of an identified TOE.
Subject An active entity within the TOE Scope of Control (TSC) that causes
operations to be performed. Subjects can come in two forms: trusted and
untrusted. Trusted subjects are exempt from part or all of the TOE security
policies. Untrusted subjects are bound by all TOE security policies.
Target of Evaluation
(TOE)
An IT product or system and its associated administrator and user guidance
documentation that is the subject of an evaluation.
Threat Capabilities, intentions and attack methods of adversaries, or any
circumstance or event, with the potential to violate the TOE security
policy.
Unauthorized individual A type of threat agent in which individuals who have not been granted
access to the TOE attempt to gain access to information or functions
provided by the TOE.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 19 of 164
Unauthorized user A type of threat agent in which individuals who are registered and have
been explicitly granted access to the TOE may attempt to access
information or functions that they are not permitted to access.
Universal Unique
Identifier (UUID)
UUID is an identifier that is unique across both space and time, with
respect to the space of all UUIDs. A UUID can be used for multiple
purposes, from tagging objects with an extremely short lifetime, to reliably
identifying very persistent objects across a network.
User Any person who interacts with the TOE.
User Principal Name
(UPN)
An identifier used by Microsoft Active Directory that provides a user name
and the Internet domain with which that username is associated in an e-
mail address format. The format is [AD username]@[associated domain];
an example would be john.smith@microsoft.com.
Uniform Resource
Locator (URL)
The address that is used to locate a Web site. URLs are text strings that
must conform to the guidelines in RFC 2396.
Version A Version refers to a release level of the Windows operating system.
Windows 7 and Windows 8 are different versions.
Vulnerability A weakness that can be exploited to violate the TOE security policy.
1.6.3 Acronyms
The acronyms used in this security target are specified in Appendix A: List of Abbreviations.
1.7 ST Overview and Organization
This security target contains the following additional sections:
• CC Conformance Claims (Section ): Formal conformance claims which are examined during the
evaluation.
• Security Problem Definition (Section 3): Describes the threats, organizational security policies
and assumptions that pertain to the TOE.
• Security Objectives (Section 4): Identifies the security objectives that are satisfied by the TOE
and the TOE operational environment.
• Security Requirements (Section 5): Presents the security functional and assurance requirements
met by the TOE.
• TOE Summary Specification (TSS) (Section 6): Describes the security functions provided by the
TOE to satisfy the security requirements and objectives.
• Protection Profile Conformance Claim (Section 7): Presents the rationale concerning compliance
of the ST with the General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile.
• Rationale for Modifications to the Security Requirements (Section 8): Presents the rationale for
the security objectives, requirements, and TOE Summary Specification as to their consistency,
completeness and suitability.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 20 of 164
2 CC Conformance Claims
This ST and the Windows 10 editions (TOEs) are consistent with the following specifications:
• Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security functional
requirements, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017, extended (Part 2 extended)
• Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security assurance
requirements Version 3.1, Revision 5 April 2017, (Part 3 extended)
• Protection Profile for General Purpose Operating Systems, Version 4.2.1, April 22, 2019 (GP OS
PP)
• General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile / Mobile Device Fundamentals Protection
Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Clients, version 1.0, February 8,
2016 (“WLAN Client EP”)
• General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile / Mobile Device Fundamentals Protection
Profile / Application Software Protection Profile: PP-Module for Virtual Private Network (VPN)
Clients, version 2.1, October 5, 2017 (“IPsec Client EP”)
This ST and the Windows Server editions (TOEs) are consistent with the following specifications:
• Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security functional
requirements, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017, extended (Part 2 extended)
• Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security assurance
requirements Version 3.1, Revision 5 April 2017, (Part 3 extended)
• General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile, Version 4.2.1, April 22, 2019 (GP OS PP)
• General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile / Mobile Device Fundamentals Protection
Profile / Application Software Protection Profile: PP-Module for Virtual Private Network (VPN)
Clients, version 2.1, October 5, 2017 (IPsec Client EP)
The security functional requirements and assurance activities have been modified with the following
NIAP Technical Decisions:
• NIAP Technical Decision 496 for the GP OS PP
• NIAP Technical Decision 492 for FCS_TLSC_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 485 in the IPsec Client EP is not applicable to the GP OS
• NIAP Technical Decision 470 for FMT_SMF_EXT.1/WLAN and FTA_WSE_EXT.1 in the WLAN
Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 463 for FPT_TUD_EXT.1, FPT_TUD_EXT.2
• NIAP Technical Decision 441 for FCS_TLSC_EXT.1
• NIAP Technical Decision 439 for FIA_X509_EXT.1 in the WLAN Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 404 in the IPsec Client EP is not applicable to the GP OS
• NIAP Technical Decision 365 for FCS_CKM_EXT.4
• NIAP Technical Decision 386 for FPT_TUD_EXT.1
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 21 of 164
• NIAP Technical Decision 194 for FTP_ITC_EXT.1 in the WLAN Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 303 for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 in the IPsec Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 330 for FCS_CKM.1 is not applicable in a GP OS evaluation
• NIAP Technical Decision 355 for FCS_CKM.1(VPN) is not applicable in a GP OS evaluation
• NIAP Technical Decision 362 for FAU_GEN.1 in the IPsec Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 378 for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 in the IPsec Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 379 for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 in the IPsec Client EP
• NIAP Technical Decision 385 in the IPsec Client EP is not applicable in a GP OS evaluation
• NIAP Technical Decision 387 in the IPsec Client EP
Evaluation Assurance: As specified in section 5.2.1 and specific Assurance Activities associated with the
security functional requirements from section 5.2.2.
CC Identification: CC for Information Technology (IT) Security Evaluation, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April
2017.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 22 of 164
3 Security Problem Definition
The security problem definition consists of the threats to security, organizational security policies, and
usage assumptions as they relate to Windows. The assumptions, threats, and policies are copied from
the General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile, Version 4.2.1, April 22, 2019 (“GP OS PP”)
and the General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile/Mobile Device Fundamentals Protection
Profile Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Clients (“WLAN Client EP”) and the
PP-Module for Virtual Private Network (VPN) Clients (“IPsec Client EP”).
3.1 Threats to Security
Table 1 presents known or presumed threats to protected resources that are addressed by Windows
based on conformance to the General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile.
Table 1 GP OS PP Threats Addressed by Windows
Threat Description
T.NETWORK_ATTACK An attacker is positioned on a communications channel or
elsewhere on the network infrastructure. Attackers may engage in
communications with applications and services running on or part
of the OS with the intent of compromise. Engagement may consist
of altering existing legitimate communications.
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 applications and
services that are running on or part of the OS.
T.LOCAL_ATTACK An attacker may compromise applications running on the OS. The
compromised application may provide maliciously formatted
input to the OS through a variety of channels including
unprivileged system calls and messaging via the file system.
T.LIMITED_PHYSICAL_ACCESS An attacker may attempt to access data on the OS while having a
limited amount of time with the physical device.
Table 2 presents known or presumed threats to protected resources that are addressed by Windows
based on conformance to the WLAN Client EP.
Table 2 WLAN Client EP Threats Addressed by Windows
Threat Description
T.TSF_FAILURE
(TSF Failure)
Security mechanisms of the TOE generally build up from a
primitive set of mechanisms (e.g., memory management,
privileged modes of process execution) to more complex sets of
mechanisms. Failure of the primitive mechanisms could lead to a
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 23 of 164
compromise in more complex mechanisms, resulting in a
compromise of the TSF.
T.UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS
(Unauthorized Access)
A user may gain unauthorized access to the TOE data and TOE
executable code. A malicious user, process, or external IT entity
may masquerade as an authorized entity in order to gain
unauthorized access to data or TOE resources. A malicious user,
process, or external IT entity may misrepresent itself as the TOE to
obtain identification and authentication data.
T.UNDETECTED_ACTIONS
(Undetected Actions)
Malicious remote users or external IT entities may take actions
that adversely affect the security of the TOE. These actions may
remain undetected and thus their effects cannot be effectively
mitigated.
The following table presents known or presumed threats to protected resources that are addressed by
Windows based on conformance to the IPsec Client EP.
Table 3 IPsec Client EP Threats Addressed by Windows
Threat Description
T.UNAUTHORIZED_ACCESS This PP-Module does not include requirements that can protect
against an insider threat. Authorized users are not considered
hostile or malicious and are trusted to follow appropriate
guidance. Only authorized personnel should have access to the
system or device that contains the IPsec VPN client. Therefore, the
primary threat agents are the unauthorized entities that try to
gain access to the protected network (in cases where tunnel mode
is used) or to plaintext data that traverses the public network
(regardless of whether transport mode or tunnel mode is used).
The endpoint of the network communication can be both
geographically and logically distant from the TOE, and can pass
through a variety of other systems. These intermediate systems
may be under the control of the adversary, and offer an
opportunity for communications over the network to be
compromised.
Plaintext communication over the network may allow critical data
(such as passwords, configuration settings, and user data) to be
read and/or manipulated directly by intermediate systems, leading
to a compromise of the TOE or to the secured environmental
system(s) that the TOE is being used to facilitate communications
with. IPsec can be used to provide protection for this
communication; however, there are myriad options that can be
implemented for the protocol to be compliant to the protocol
specification listed in the RFC. Some of these options can have
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 24 of 164
negative impacts on the security of the connection. For instance,
using a weak encryption algorithm (even one that is allowed by
the RFC, such as DES) can allow an adversary to read and even
manipulate the data on the encrypted channel, thus circumventing
countermeasures in place to prevent such attacks. Further, if the
protocol is implemented with little-used or non-standard options,
it may be compliant with the protocol specification but will not be
able to interact with other, diverse equipment that is typically
found in large enterprises.
Even though the communication path is protected, there is a
possibility that the IPsec peer could be duped into thinking that a
malicious third-party user or system is the TOE. For instance, a
middleman could intercept a connection request to the TOE, and
respond to the request as if it were the TOE. In a similar manner,
the TOE could also be duped into thinking that it is establishing
communications with a legitimate IPsec peer when in fact it is not.
An attacker could also mount a malicious man-in-the-middle-type
of attack, in which an intermediate system is compromised, and
the traffic is proxied, examined, and modified by this system. This
attack can even be mounted via encrypted communication
channels if appropriate countermeasures are not applied. These
attacks are, in part, enabled by a malicious attacker capturing
network traffic (for instance, an authentication session) and
“playing back” that traffic in order to fool an endpoint into
thinking it was communicating with a legitimate remote entity.
T.TSF_CONFIGURATION Configuring VPN tunnels is a complex and time-consuming
process, and prone to errors if the interface for doing so is not
well-specified or well-behaved. The inability to configure certain
aspects of the interface may also lead to the mis-specification of
the desired communications policy or use of cryptography that
may be desired or required for a particular site. This may result in
unintended weak or plaintext communications while the user
thinks that their data are being protected. Other aspects of
configuring the TOE or using its security mechanisms (for example,
the update process) may also result in a reduction in the
trustworthiness of the VPN client.
T.UNAUTHORIZED_UPDATE Since the most common attack vector used involves attacking
unpatched versions of software containing well-known flaws,
updating the VPN client is necessary to ensure that changes to
threat environment are addressed. Timely application of patches
ensures that the client is a “hard target”, thus increasing the
likelihood that product will be able to maintain and enforce its
security policy. However, the updates to be applied to the product
must be trustable in some manner; otherwise, an attacker can
write their own “update” that instead contains malicious code of
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 25 of 164
their choosing, such as a rootkit, bot, or other malware. Once this
“update” is installed, the attacker then has control of the system
and all of its data.
Methods of countering this threat typically involve hashes of the
updates, and potentially cryptographic operations (e.g., digital
signatures) on those hashes as well. However, the validity of these
methods introduces additional threats. For instance, a weak hash
function could result in the attacker being able to modify the
legitimate update in such a way that the hash remained
unchanged. For cryptographic signature schemes, there are
dependencies on
1) the strength of the cryptographic algorithm used to
provide the signature, and
2) the ability of the end user to verify the signature (which
typically involves checking a hierarchy of digital signatures
back to a root of trust (a certificate authority)).
If a cryptographic signature scheme is weak, then it may be
compromised by an attacker and the end user will install a
malicious update, thinking that it is legitimate. Similarly, if the root
of trust can be compromised, then a strong digital signature
algorithm will not stop the malicious update from being installed
(the attacker will just create their own signature on the update
using the compromised root of trust, and the malicious update will
then be installed without detection).
T.USER_DATA_REUSE Data traversing the TOE could inadvertently be sent to a different
user; since these data may be sensitive, this may cause a
compromise that is unacceptable. The specific threat that must be
addressed concerns user data that is retained by the TOE in the
course of processing network traffic that could be inadvertently
re-used in sending network traffic to a user other than that
intended by the sender of the original network traffic.
T.TSF_FAILURE Security mechanisms of the TOE generally build up from a
primitive set of mechanisms (e.g., memory management,
privileged modes of process execution) to more complex sets of
mechanisms. Failure of the primitive mechanisms could lead to a
compromise in more complex mechanisms, resulting in a
compromise of the TSF.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 26 of 164
3.2 Organizational Security Policies
An organizational security policy is a set of rules or procedures imposed by an organization upon its
operations to protect its sensitive data and IT assets. Table 4 describes organizational security policies
which are necessary for conformance to the protection profile.
Table 4 Organizational Security Policies
Security Policy Description
[None] There are no Organizational Security Policies for the protection
profile or extended package.
3.3 Secure Usage Assumptions
Table 5 describes the core security aspects of the environment in which Windows is intended to be
used. It includes information about the physical, personnel, procedural, and connectivity aspects of the
environment.
The following specific conditions are assumed to exist in an environment where the TOE is employed in
order to conform to the protection profile:
Table 5 GP OS PP Secure Usage Assumptions
Assumption Description
A.PLATFORM The OS relies upon a trustworthy computing platform for its execution. This
underlying platform is out of scope of this PP.
A.PROPER_USER The user of the OS is not willfully negligent or hostile, and uses the software in
compliance with the applied enterprise security policy. At the same time,
malicious software could act as the user, so requirements which confine
malicious subjects are still in scope.
A.PROPER_ADMIN The administrator of the OS is not careless, willfully negligent or hostile, and
administers the OS within compliance of the applied enterprise security policy.
Table 6 WLAN Client EP Secure Usage Assumptions
Assumption Description
A.NO_TOE_BYPASS Information cannot flow between the wireless client and the internal wired
network without passing through the TOE.
A.TRUSTED_ADMIN TOE Administrators are trusted to follow and apply all administrator guidance in a
trusted manner.
Table 7 IPsec Client EP Secure Usage Assumptions
Assumption Description
A.NO_TOE_BYPASS Information cannot flow onto the network to which the VPN client's host is
connected without passing through the TOE.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 27 of 164
A.PHYSICAL Physical security, commensurate with the value of the TOE and the data it
contains, is assumed to be provided by the environment.
A.TRUSTED_CONFIG Personnel configuring the TOE and its operational environment will follow the
applicable security configuration guidance.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 28 of 164
4 Security Objectives
This section defines the security objectives for Windows and its supporting environment. Security
objectives, categorized as either TOE security objectives or objectives by the supporting environment,
reflect the stated intent to counter identified threats, comply with any organizational security policies
identified, or address identified assumptions. All of the identified threats, organizational policies, and
assumptions are addressed under one of the categories below.
4.1 TOE Security Objectives
Table 8 describes the security objectives for Windows which are needed to comply with the GP OS PP.
Table 8 GP OS PP Security Objectives for the TOE
Security Objective Source
O.ACCOUNTABILITY Conformant OSes ensure that information exists that allows
administrators to discover unintentional issues with the
configuration and operation of the operating system and discover
its cause. Gathering event information and immediately
transmitting it to another system can also enable incident
response in the event of system compromise.
O.INTEGRITY Conformant OSes ensure the integrity of their update packages.
OSes are seldom if ever shipped without errors, and the ability to
deploy patches and updates with integrity is critical to enterprise
network security. Conformant OSes provide execution
environment-based mitigations that increase the cost to
attackers by adding complexity to the task of compromising
systems.
O.MANAGEMENT To facilitate management by users and the enterprise,
conformant OSes provide consistent and supported interfaces for
their security-relevant configuration and maintenance. This
includes the deployment of applications and application updates
through the use of platform-supported deployment mechanisms
and formats, as well as providing mechanisms for configuration
and application execution control.
O.PROTECTED_STORAGE To address the issue of loss of confidentiality of credentials in the
event of loss of physical control of the storage medium,
conformant OSes provide data-at-rest protection for credentials.
Conformant OSes also provide access controls which allow users
to keep their files private from other users of the same system.
O.PROTECTED_COMMS To address both passive (eavesdropping) and active (packet
modification) network attack threats, conformant OSes provide
mechanisms to create trusted channels for CSP and sensitive
data. Both CSP and sensitive data should not be exposed outside
of the platform.
Table 9 describes the security objectives for Windows which are needed to comply with the WLAN
Client EP.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 29 of 164
Table 9 WLAN Client EP Security Objectives for the TOE
Security Objective Source
O.AUTH_COMM
(Authorized Communication)
The TOE will provide a means to ensure that it is
communicating with an authorized Access Point and not
some other entity pretending to be an authorized Access
Point, and will provide assurance to the Access Point of its
identity.
O.CRYPTOGRAPHIC_FUNCTIONS
(Cryptographic Functions)
The TOE shall provide or use cryptographic functions (i.e.,
encryption/decryption and digital signature operations) to
maintain the confidentiality and allow for detection of
modification of data that are transmitted outside the TOE
and its host environment.
O.SYSTEM_MONITORING (System
Monitoring)
The TOE will provide the capability to generate audit data.
O.TOE_ADMINISTRATION
(TOE Administration)
The TOE will provide mechanisms to allow administrators
to be able to configure the TOE.
O.TSF_SELF_TEST
(TSF Self Test)
The TOE will provide the capability to test some subset of
its security functionality to ensure it is operating properly.
O.WIRELESS_ACCESS_POINT_CONNECTION
Wireless Access Point Connection
The TOE will provide the capability to restrict the wireless
access points to which it will connect.
The IPsec Client EP does not define any security objective to supplement the ones in the GP OS
protection profile.
4.2 Security Objectives for the Operational Environment
The TOE is assumed to be complete and self-contained and, as such, is not dependent upon any other
products to perform properly. However, certain objectives with respect to the general operating
environment must be met. Table 10 describes the security objectives for the operational environment
as specified in the protection profile.
Table 10 GP OS PP Security Objectives for the Operational Environment
Environment Objective Description
OE.PLATFORM The OS relies on being installed on trusted hardware.
OE.PROPER_USER The user of the OS is not willfully negligent or hostile, and uses the
software within compliance of the applied enterprise security policy.
Standard user accounts are provisioned in accordance with the least
privilege model. Users requiring higher levels of access should have a
separate account dedicated for that use.
OE.PROPER_ADMIN The administrator of the OS is not careless, willfully negligent or
hostile, and administers the OS within compliance of the applied
enterprise policy.
Table 11 WLAN Client EP Security Objectives for the Operational Environment
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 30 of 164
Environment Objective Description
OE.NO_TOE_BYPASS Information cannot flow between external and internal networks
located in different enclaves without passing through the TOE.
OE.TRUSTED_ADMIN TOE Administrators are trusted to follow and apply all administrator
guidance in a trusted manner.
Table 12 IPsec Client EP Security Objectives for the Operational Environment
Environment Objective Description
OE.NO_TOE_BYPASS Information cannot flow onto the network to which the VPN client's
host is connected without passing through the TOE.
OE.PHYSICAL Physical security, commensurate with the value of the TOE and the
data it contains, is assumed to be provided by the environment.
OE.TRUSTED_CONFIG Personnel configuring the TOE and its operational environment will
follow the applicable security configuration guidance.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 31 of 164
5 Security Requirements
The section defines the Security Functional Requirements (SFRs) and Security Assurance Requirements
(SARs) for the TOE. The requirements in this section have been drawn from the General Purpose
Operating Systems Protection Profile, Version 4.2.1, April 22, 2019 (GP OS PP), the General Purpose
Operating Systems Protection Profile/ Mobile Device Fundamentals Protection Profile Extended
Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Clients, version 1.0, February 8, 2016 (WLAN Client
EP), the Common Criteria, or are defined in the following section.
Conventions:
Where requirements are drawn from the protection profile, the requirements are copied verbatim,
except for some changes to required identifiers to match the iteration convention of this document,
from that protection profile and only operations performed in this security target are identified.
The extended requirements, extended component definitions and extended requirement conventions in
this security target are drawn from the protection profile; the security target reuses the conventions
from the protection profile which include the use of the word “Extended” and the “_EXT” identifier to
denote extended functional requirements. The security target assumes that the protection profile
correctly defines the extended components and so they are not reproduced in the security target.
Where applicable the following conventions are used to identify operations:
• Iteration: Iterated requirements (components and elements) are identified with letter following
the base component identifier. For example, iterations of FMT_MOF.1 are identified in a
manner similar to FMT_MOF.1(Audit) (for the component) and FCS_COP.1.1(Audit) (for the
elements).
• Assignment: Assignments are identified in brackets and bold (e.g., [assigned value]).
• Selection: Selections are identified in brackets, bold, and italics (e.g., [selected value]).
o Assignments within selections are identified using the previous conventions, except that
the assigned value would also be italicized and extra brackets would occur (e.g.,
[selected value [assigned value]]).
• Refinement: Refinements are identified using bold text (e.g., added text) for additions and
strike-through text (e.g., deleted text) for deletions.
5.1 TOE Security Functional Requirements
This section specifies the SFRs for the TOE.
Table 13 TOE Security Functional Requirements for GP OS PP
Requirement Class Requirement Component
Security Audit (FAU) Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1)
Cryptographic
Support (FCS)
Cryptographic Key Generation for (FCS_CKM.1)
Cryptographic Key Establishment (FCS_CKM.2)
Cryptographic Key Destruction (FCS_CKM_EXT.4)
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 32 of 164
Cryptographic Operation for Data Encryption/Decryption (FCS_COP.1(SYM))
Cryptographic Operation for Hashing (FCS_COP.1(HASH))
Cryptographic Operation for Signing (FCS_COP.1(SIGN))
Cryptographic Operation for Keyed Hash Algorithms (FCS_COP.1(HMAC))
Random Bit Generation (FCS_RBG_EXT.1)
Storage of Sensitive Data (FCS_STO_EXT.1)
TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.1)
TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.2)
TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.3)
TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.4)
DTLS Implementation (FCS_DTLS_EXT.1)
User Data Protection
(FDP)
Access Controls for Protecting User Data (FDP_ACF_EXT.1)
Information Flow Control (FDP_IFC_EXT.1)
Identification &
Authentication (FIA)
Authorization Failure Handling (FIA_AFL.1)
Multiple Authentication Mechanisms (FIA_UAU.5)
X.509 Certification Validation (FIA_X509_EXT.1)
X.509 Certificate Authentication (FIA_X509_EXT.2)
Security
Management (FMT)
Management of Security Functions Behavior (FMT_MOF_EXT.1)
Specification of Management Functions (FMT_SMF_EXT.1)
Protection of the TSF
(FPT)
Access Controls (FPT_ACF_EXT.1)
Address Space Layout Randomization (FPT_ASLR_EXT.1)
Stack Buffer Overflow Protection (FPT_SBOP_EXT.1)
Software Restriction Policies (FPT_SRP_EXT.1)
Boot Integrity (FPT_TST_EXT.1)
Trusted Update (FPT_TUD_EXT.1)
Trusted Update for Application Software (FPT_TUD_EXT.2)
TOE Access (FTA) Default TOE Access Banners (FTA_TAB.1)
Trusted
Path/Channels (FTP)
Trusted Path (FTP_TRP.1)
Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1(TLS))
Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1(DTLS))
Table 14 TOE Security Functional Requirements for WLAN Client EP
Requirement Class Requirement Component
Security Audit (FAU) Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1 (WLAN))
Cryptographic
Support (FCS)
Cryptographic Key Generation for WPA2 Connections (FCS_CKM.1(WLAN))
Cryptographic Key Distribution for GTK (FCS_CKM.2(WLAN))
Extended: Extensible Authentication Protocol-Transport Layer Security
(FCS_TLSC_EXT.1(WLAN))
Extended: TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.2(WLAN))
Identification &
Authentication (FIA)
Extended: Port Access Entity Authentication (FIA_PAE_EXT.1)
Extended: X.509 Certificate Validation (FIA_X509_EXT.1(WLAN))
Extended: X.509 Certificate Authentication (EAP-TLS)
(FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN))
Extended: Certificate Storage and Management (FIA_X509_EXT.4)
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 33 of 164
Security
Management (FMT)
Extended: Specification of Management Functions (FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN))
Protection of the TSF
(FPT)
Extended: TSF Cryptographic Functionality Testing (FPT_TST_EXT.1 (WLAN))
TOE Access (FTA) Extended: Wireless Network Access (FTA_WSE_EXT.1)
Trusted
Path/Channels (FTP)
Extended: Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1 (WLAN))
Table 15 TOE Security Functional Requirements for IPsec Client EP
Requirement Class Requirement Component
Security Audit (FAU) Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1(IPSEC))
Selective Audit (FAU_SEL.1)
Cryptographic
Support (FCS)
Cryptographic Key Generation (FCS_CKM.1 (VPN))
Cryptographic Key Storage (FCS_CKM_EXT.2)
IPsec (FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1)
User Data Protection
(FDP)
Subset Information Flow Control (FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC))
Full Residual Information Protection (FDP_RIP.2)
Identification &
Authentication (FIA)
Extended: Pre-Shared Key Composition (FIA_PSK_EXT.1)
Extended: X.509 Certificate Use and Management (FIA_X509_EXT.3)
Security
Management (FMT)
Specification of Management Functions (VPN) (FMT_SMF.1(VPN))
Protection of the TSF
(FPT)
Self-Test (FPT_TST_EXT.1 (IPSEC))
Trusted
Path/Channels (FTP)
Inter-TSF Trusted Channel (FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC))
5.1.1 Security Audit (FAU)
5.1.1.1 Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1) and FAU_GEN.1(WLAN)
FAU_GEN.1.1 The OS shall be able to generate an audit record of the following auditable
events:
a. Start-up and shutdown of the audit functions;
b. All auditable events for the not specified level of audit; and
c.
o Authentication events (Success/Failure);
o Use of privileged/special rights events (Successful and
unsuccessful security, audit, and configuration changes);
o Privilege or role escalation events (Success/Failure);
[
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 34 of 164
o File and object events (Successful and
unsuccessful attempts to create, access, delete,
modify, modify permissions),
o User and Group management events (Successful
and unsuccessful add, delete, modify, disable),
o Audit and log data access events (Success/Failure),
o Cryptographic verification of software (Success/Failure),
o Attempted application invocation with arguments
(Success/Failure e.g. due to software restriction policy),
o System reboot, restart, and shutdown events
(Success/Failure),
o Kernel module loading and unloading events
(Success/Failure),
o Administrator or root-level access events (Success/Failure),
o [Lock and unlock a user account, audit events from the WLAN
Client EP listed in Table 16].
]
FAU_GEN.1.2 The OS shall record within each audit record at least the following
information:
a. Date and time of the event, type of event, subject identity (if
applicable), and outcome (success or failure) of the event; and
b. For each audit event type, based on the auditable event definitions of
the functional components included in the PP/ST [none].
Table 16 WLAN Client EP Audit Events
Requirement Auditable Events Additional Audit Record
Contents
FAU_GEN.1/WLAN None.
FCS_CKM.1/WLAN None.
FCS_CKM.2/WLAN None.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1/WLAN Failure to establish an EAP-TLS
session.
Establishment/termination of
an EAP-TLS session.
Reason for failure.
Non-TOE endpoint of
connection.
FIA_PAE_EXT.1 None.
FIA_X509_EXT.1/WLAN5
Failure to validate X.509v3
certificate
Reason for failure of validation.
FIA_X509_EXT.2/WLAN None.
FIA_X509_EXT.4/WLAN Attempts to load certificates.
Attempts to revoke certificates.
None.
FMT_SMF_EXT.1/WLAN None.
5
This extended package requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 439.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 35 of 164
FPT_TST_EXT.1/WLAN Execution of this set of TSF self-
tests.
[detected integrity violation].
[The TSF binary file that caused
the integrity violation].
FTA_WSE_EXT.1 All attempts to connect to
access points.
Identity of access point being
connected to as well as success
and failures (including reason
for failure).
FTP_ITC_EXT.1/WLAN6
All attempts to establish a
trusted channel.
Identification of the non-TOE
endpoint of the channel.
5.1.1.2 Security Audit for IPsec Client EP
5.1.1.2.1 Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1(IPSEC))
Application Note: FAU_GEN.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FAU_GEN.1 in the IPsec extended package.
FAU_GEN.1.1(IPSEC) The TSF and [no other component] shall be able to generate an audit record of
the following auditable events:
a) Start-up and shutdown of the audit functions;
b) All auditable events for the [not specified] level of audit; and
c) All administrative actions;
d) Specifically defined auditable events listed in Table 17 C-1.
FAU_GEN.1.2(IPSEC) The TSF and [no other component] shall record within each audit record at
least the following information:
a) Date and time of the event, type of event, subject identity, and the
outcome (success or failure) of the event; and
b) For each audit event type, based on the auditable event definitions of the
functional components included in the PP-Module/ST, information
specified in column three of Table 17 C-1.
Table 17 IPsec Client EP Audit Events
Requirement Auditable Events Additional Audit Record
Contents
FAU_SEL.1 All modifications to the audit
configuration that occur while
the audit collection functions
are operating.
None.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 Decisions to DISCARD or BYPASS
network packets processed by
the TOE.
Failure to establish an IPsec SA.
Presumed identity of source
subject. Identity of destination
subject. Transport layer
protocol, if applicable. Source
subject service identifier, if
applicable.
6
This extended package requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 194.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 36 of 164
Establishment/Termination of
an IPsec SA.
The entry in the SPD that
applied to the decision.
Reason for failure.
Non-TOE endpoint of
connection (IP address) for both
successes and failures.
FDP_RIP.2 None.
FCS_RBG_EXT.17
Failure of the randomization
process. (Optional)8
None.
FMT_SMF.1(VPN) Success or failure of
management function.
None.
FPT_TUD_EXT.1 Initiation of the update.
Any failure to verify the
integrity of the update.
No additional information.
5.1.1.2.2 Selective Audit (FAU_SEL.1)
FAU_SEL.1.1 The [TSF] shall be able to select the set of events to be audited from the set of
all auditable events based on the following attributes:
event type, success of auditable security events, failure of auditable security
events, [subject or user identity].
5.1.2 Cryptographic Support (FCS)
5.1.2.1 Cryptographic Support for GP OS PP
5.1.2.1.1 Cryptographic Key Generation (FCS_CKM.1)9
FCS_CKM.1.1 The OS shall generate asymmetric cryptographic keys in accordance
with a specified cryptographic key generation algorithm
• ECC schemes using “NIST curves” P-256, P-384 and [P-521] that meet
the following: FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature Standard (DSS),
Appendix B.4;
• FFC schemes using cryptographic key sizes of 2048-bit or greater that
meet the following: FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature Standard
(DSS)”, Appendix B.1,
[
• RSA schemes using cryptographic key sizes of 2048-bit or
greater that meet the following: FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature
Standard (DSS)”, Appendix B.3
].
7
This extended package requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 362.
8
This protection profile requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 362.
9
This GP OS PP requirement was replaced by the IPsec Client EP equivalent.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 37 of 164
5.1.2.1.2 Cryptographic Key Establishment (FCS_CKM.2)10
FCS_CKM.2.1 The OS shall implement functionality to perform cryptographic key
establishment in accordance with a specified cryptographic key establishment
method:
• RSA-based key establishment schemes that meets the following: NIST
Special Publication 800-56B, “Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key
Establishment Schemes Using Integer Factorization Cryptography” and
• Elliptic curve-based key establishment schemes that meets the
following: NIST Special Publication 800-56A, “Recommendation for
Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm
Cryptography” and implementing “NIST curves” P-256, P-384, and [P-
521] as defined in FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature Standard”, and [
• Finite field-based key establishment schemes that meets the
following: NIST Special Publication 800-56A, “Recommendation for
Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm
Cryptography”,
• Key establishment scheme using Diffie-Hellman group 14 that meets
the following: RFC 3526, Section 3
].
5.1.2.1.3 Cryptographic Key Destruction (FCS_CKM_EXT.4)11
FCS_CKM_EXT.4.1 The OS shall destroy cryptographic keys and key material in accordance with a
specified cryptographic key destruction method [
• For volatile memory, the destruction shall be executed by a [
o single overwrite consisting of [zeroes],
].
FCS_CKM_EXT.4.2 The OS shall destroy all keys and key material when no longer needed.
5.1.2.1.4 Cryptographic Operation for Encryption / Decryption (FCS_COP.1(SYM))12
Application Note: FCS_COP.1(SYM) corresponds to FCS_COP.1(1) in the GP OS protection profile.
FCS_COP.1.1(SYM) The OS shall perform encryption/decryption services for data in accordance
with a specified cryptographic algorithm
• AES-XTS (as defined in NIST SP 800-38E) mode;
• AES-CBC (as defined in NIST SP 800-38A) mode,
• AES-GCM (as defined in NIST SP 800-38D),
•
and [
• AES-CCMP (as defined in FIPS PUB 197, NIST SP 800-38C and IEEE
802.11-2012),
• AES Key Wrap (KW) (as defined in NIST SP 800-38F),
• AES-CCM (as defined in NIST SP 800-38C)
10
This GP OS PP requirement was replaced by the IPsec Client EP equivalent.
11
This protection profile requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 365.
12
This GP OS PP requirement was replaced by the IPsec Client EP equivalent.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 38 of 164
• AES-CCMP-256 (as defined in NIST SP800-38C and IEEE
802.11ac2013),
• AES-GCMP-256 (as defined in NIST SP800-38D and IEEE
802.11ac2013),
] and cryptographic key sizes 128-bit, 256-bit.
5.1.2.1.5 Cryptographic Operation for Hashing (FCS_COP.1(HASH))
Application Note: FCS_COP.1(HASH) corresponds to FCS_COP.1(2) in the GP OS protection profile.
FCS_COP.1.1(HASH) The OS shall perform cryptographic hashing services in accordance with a
specified cryptographic algorithm SHA-1 and [SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512]
and message digest sizes 160 bits and [256 bits, 384 bits, 512 bits] that meet
the following: FIPS Pub 180-4.
5.1.2.1.6 Cryptographic Operation for Signing (FCS_COP.1(SIGN))
Application Note: FCS_COP.1(SIGN) corresponds to FCS_COP.1(3) in the GP OS protection profile.
FCS_COP.1.1(SIGN) The OS shall perform cryptographic signature services (generation and
verification) in accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm
[
• RSA schemes using cryptographic key sizes of 2048-bit or greater that
meet the following: FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature Standard
(DSS)”, Section 4,
• ECDSA schemes using “NIST curves” P-256, P-384 and [P-521] that
meet the following: FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature Standard
(DSS)”, Section 5
].
5.1.2.1.7 Cryptographic Operation for Keyed Hash Algorithms (FCS_COP.1(HMAC))
Application Note: FCS_COP.1(HMAC) corresponds to FCS_COP.1(4) in the GP OS protection profile.
FCS_COP.1.1(HMAC) The OS shall perform keyed-hash message authentication services in
accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm [SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-
384, SHA-512] with key sizes [128 and 256 bits] and message digest sizes
[160 bits, 256 bits, 384 bits, 512 bits] that meet the following: FIPS Pub 198-1
The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code and FIPS Pub 180-4 Secure
Hash Standard.
5.1.2.1.8 Random Bit Generation (FCS_RBG_EXT.1)
FCS_RBG_EXT.1.1 The OS shall perform all deterministic random bit generation (DRBG) services
in accordance with NIST Special Publication 800-90A using [CTR_DRBG (AES)].
FCS_RBG_EXT.1.2 The deterministic RBG used by the OS shall be seeded by an entropy source
that accumulates entropy from a [software-based noise source, platform-
based noise source] with a minimum of [256 bits] of entropy at least equal to
the greatest security strength (according to NIST SP 800-57) of the keys and
hashes that it will generate.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 39 of 164
5.1.2.1.9 Storage of Sensitive Data (FCS_STO_EXT.1)
FCS_STO_EXT.1.1 The OS shall implement functionality to encrypt sensitive data stored in non-
volatile storage and provide interfaces to applications to invoke this
functionality.
5.1.2.1.10 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.1)
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.1 The OS shall implement TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246) supporting the following
ciphersuites: [
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC
5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC
5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 as defined in RFC
5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC
5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC
5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC
5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 as defined in RFC
5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC
5289 ].13
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.2 The OS shall verify that the presented identifier matches the reference
identifier according to RFC 6125.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.3 The OS shall only establish a trusted channel if the peer certificate is valid.
5.1.2.1.11 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.2)
FCS_TLSC_EXT.2.1 The OS shall present the Supported Elliptic Curves Extension in the Client Hello
with the following NIST curves: [secp256r1, secp384r1, secp521r1].
5.1.2.1.12 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.3)
FCS_TLSC_EXT.3.1 The OS shall present the signature_algorithms extension in the Client Hello
with the supported_signature_algorithms value containing the following hash
algorithms [SHA256, SHA384, SHA512] and no other hash algorithms.
13
This protection profile requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 441.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 40 of 164
5.1.2.1.13 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.4)
FCS_TLSC_EXT.4.1 The OS shall support mutual authentication using X.509v3 certificates.
5.1.2.1.14 DTLS Implementation (FCS_DTLS_EXT.1)
FCS_DTLS_EXT.1.1 The OS shall implement the DTLS protocol in accordance with [DTLS 1.0 (RFC
4347), DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347)].
FCS_DTLS_EXT.1.2 The OS shall implement the requirements in TLS (FCS_TLSC_EXT.1) for the
DTLS implementation, except where variations are allowed according to DTLS
1.2 (RFC 6347).
5.1.2.2 Cryptographic Support for WLAN Client EP
5.1.2.2.1 Cryptographic Key Generation for WPA2 Connections (FCS_CKM.1(WLAN))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.1(WLAN) corresponds to FCS_CKM.1/WLAN in the WLAN Client EP.
FCS_CKM.1.1(WLAN) The TSF shall generate symmetric cryptographic keys in accordance with a
specified cryptographic key generation algorithm PRF-384 and [PRF-704] and
specified cryptographic key sizes 128 bits and [256 bits] using a Random Bit
Generator as specified in FCS_RBG_EXT.1 that meet the following: IEEE
802.11-2012 and [IEEE 802.11ac-2014].
5.1.2.2.2 Cryptographic Key Distribution for GTK (FCS_CKM.2(WLAN))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.2(WLAN) corresponds to FCS_CKM.2/WLAN in the WLAN Client EP.
FCS_CKM.2.1(WLAN) The TSF shall decrypt Group Temporal Key in accordance with a specified
cryptographic key distribution method AES Key Wrap in an EAPOL-Key frame
that meets the following: RFC 3394 for AES Key Wrap, 802.11-2012 for the
packet format and timing considerations and does not expose the
cryptographic keys.
5.1.2.2.3 Extended: Extensible Authentication Protocol-Transport Layer Security
(FCS_TLSC_EXT.1(WLAN))14
Application Note: FCS_TLCS_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FCS_TLCS_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN Client
EP.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.1(WLAN) The TSF shall implement [TLS 1.0 (RFC 2246), TLS 1.1 (RFC 4346), TLS 1.2
(RFC 5246)] in support of the EAP-TLS protocol as specified in RFC 5216
supporting the following ciphersuites: [
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA as defined in RFC 5246
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA as defined in RFC 5246
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5246
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_ SHA256 as defined in RFC 5246
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in
RFC 5289
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in
RFC 5430
14
This extended package requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 492.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 41 of 164
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 as defined in
RFC 5430
].
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.2(WLAN) The TSF shall generate random values used in the EAP-TLS exchange using
the RBG specified in FCS_RBG_EXT.1
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.3(WLAN) The TSF shall use X509 v3 certificates as specified in FIA_X509_EXT.1.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.4(WLAN) The TSF shall verify that the server certificate presented includes the
Server Authentication purpose (id-kp 1 with OID 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1) in the
extendedKeyUsage field.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.5(WLAN) The TSF shall allow an authorized administrator to configure the list of
CAs that are allowed to sign authentication server certificates that are
accepted by the TOE.
5.1.2.2.4 Extended: TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.2(WLAN))
Application Note: FCS_TLSC_EXT.2(WLAN) corresponds to FCS_TLSC _EXT.2/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.2.1(WLAN) The TSF shall present the Supported Elliptic Curves Extension in the Client
Hello with the following NIST curves: [secp256r1, secp384r1,
secp521r1].15
5.1.2.3 Cryptographic Support for IPsec Client EP
5.1.2.3.1 Cryptographic Key Generation (FCS_CKM.1 (VPN))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.1(VPN) corresponds to FCS_CKM.1/VPN in the IPsec extended package.
FCS_CKM.1.1(VPN) The [OS] shall generate asymmetric cryptographic keys used for IKE peer
authentication in accordance with: [
• FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature Standard (DSS)”, Appendix B.3 for
RSA schemes;
• FIPS PUB 186-4, “Digital Signature Standard (DSS)”, Appendix B.4 for
ECDSA schemes and implementing “NIST curves”, P-256, P-384, and
[no other curves]]
and specified cryptographic key sizes equivalent to, or greater than, a
symmetric key strength of 112 bits.
5.1.2.3.2 Cryptographic Key Storage (FCS_CKM_EXT.2)
FCS_CKM_EXT.2.1 The [OS] shall store persistent secrets and private keys when not in use in OS-
provided key storage.
5.1.2.3.3 IPsec (FCS_IPSC_EXT.1)
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.1 The [TOE] shall implement the IPsec architecture as specified in RFC 4301.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.2 The [TOE] shall implement [tunnel mode, transport mode].
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.3 The [TOE] shall have a nominal, final entry in the SPD that matches anything
that is otherwise unmatched, and discards it.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 42 of 164
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.4 The [TOE] shall implement the IPsec protocol ESP as defined by RFC 4303 using
the cryptographic algorithms AES-GCM-128, AESGCM-256 as specified in RFC
4106, [AES-CBC-128, AES-CBC-256 (both specified by RFC 3602) together with
a Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)-based HMAC].
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.5 The [TOE] shall implement the protocol: [
• IKEv1, using Main Mode for Phase I exchanges, as defined in RFCs
2407, 2408, 2409, RFC 4109, [RFC 4304 for extended sequence
numbers], [RFC 4868 for hash functions], and [no support for
XAUTH];
• IKEv2 as defined in RFCs 7296 (with mandatory support for NAT
traversal as specified in section 2.23), 4307, and [RFC 4868 for hash
functions]].
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.6 The [TOE] shall ensure the encrypted payload in the [IKEv1, IKEv2] protocol
uses the cryptographic algorithms AES-CBC-128, AES-CBC-256 as specified in
RFC 6379 and [no other algorithm].
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.7 The [TOE] shall ensure that [IKEv2 SA lifetimes can be configured by [VPN
Gateway] based on [number of packets/number of bytes, length of time],
IKEv1 SA lifetimes can be configured by an [an Administrator, VPN Gateway]
based on [number of packets/number of bytes, length of time]]. If length of
time is used, it must include at least one option that is 24 hours or less for
Phase 1 SAs and 8 hours or less for Phase 2 SAs.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.8 The [TOE] shall ensure that all IKE protocols implement DH groups 14 (2048-bit
MODP), 19 (256-bit Random ECP), 20 (384-bit Random ECP), and [no other DH
groups].
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.9 The [TOE] shall generate the secret value x used in the IKE Diffie-Hellman key
exchange (“x” in gx mod p) using the random bit generator specified in
FCS_RBG_EXT.1, and having a length of at least [224, 256, 384] bits.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.10 The [TOE] shall generate nonces used in IKE exchanges in a manner such that
the probability that a specific nonce value will be repeated during the life a
specific IPsec SA is less than 1 in 2^[256].
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.11 The [TOE] shall ensure that all IKE protocols perform peer authentication using
a [RSA, ECDSA] that use X.509v3 certificates that conform to RFC 4945 and
[Pre-shared Keys].
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.12
16
The [TOE] shall not establish an SA if the [IP address, Fully Qualified Domain
Name (FQDN), user FQDN, Distinguished Name (DN)] and [no other reference
identifier type] contained in a certificate does not match the expected value(s)
for the entity attempting to establish a connection.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.13
17
The [TOE] shall not establish an SA if the presented identifier does not match
the configured reference identifier of the peer.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.14 The [TOE, VPN Gateway] shall be able to ensure by default that the strength
of the symmetric algorithm (in terms of the number of bits in the key)
negotiated to protect the [IKEv1 Phase 1, IKEv2 IKE_SA] connection is greater
than or equal to the strength of the symmetric algorithm (in terms of the
number of bits in the key) negotiated to protect the [IKEv1 Phase 2, IKEv2
CHILD_SA] connection.
16
This extended package requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 378.
17
Ibid.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 43 of 164
5.1.3 User Data Protection (FDP)
5.1.3.1 User Data Protection for GP OS PP
5.1.3.1.1 Access Controls for Protecting User Data (FDP_ACF_EXT.1)
FDP_ACF_EXT.1.1 The OS shall implement access controls which can prohibit unprivileged users
from accessing files and directories owned by other users.
5.1.3.1.2 Information Flow Control (FDP_IFC_EXT.1)
FDP_IFC_EXT.1.1 The OS shall [
• Provide an interface which allows a VPN client to protect all IP traffic
using IPsec
] with the exception of IP traffic required to establish the VPN connection and
[no other traffic].
5.1.3.2 User Data Protection for IPsec Client EP
5.1.3.2.1 Subset Information Flow Control (FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC))
Application Note: FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FDP_IFC_EXT.1 in the IPsec EP.
FDP_IFC_EXT.1.1
(IPSEC)
The TSF shall ensure that all IP traffic (other than IP traffic required to
establish the VPN connection) flow through the IPsec VPN client.
5.1.3.2.2 Full Residual Information Protection (FDP_RIP.2)
FDP_RIP.2.1 The [TOE] shall enforce that any previous information content of a resource is
made unavailable upon the [allocation of the resource to] all objects.
5.1.4 Identification and Authentication (FIA)
5.1.4.1 Identification and Authentication for GP OS PP
5.1.4.1.1 Authentication Failure Handling (FIA_AFL.1)
FIA_AFL.1.1 The OS shall detect when [an administrator configurable positive integer
within a [range of 1 - 999]
] unsuccessful authentication attempts occur related to events with [
• authentication based on user name and password,
• authentication based on user name and a PIN that releases an
asymmetric key stored in OE-protected storage
].
FIA_AFL.1.2 When the defined number of unsuccessful authentication attempts for an
account has been met, the OS shall: [Account Lockout].
5.1.4.1.2 Multiple Authentication Mechanisms (FIA_UAU.5)
FIA_UAU.5.1 The OS shall provide the following authentication mechanisms:
[
• Authentication based on user name and password,
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 44 of 164
• authentication based on user name and a PIN that releases an
asymmetric key stored in OE-protected storage18
•
] to support user authentication.
FIA_UAU.5.2 The OS shall authenticate any user’s claimed identity according to the
[authentication based on username and password is performed for TOE-
originated requests and with credentials stored by the OS for Windows
Hello, smart card and virtual smart card].
5.1.4.1.3 X.509 Certification Validation (FIA_X509_EXT.1)
FIA_X509_EXT.1.1 The OS shall implement functionality to validate certificates in accordance
with the following rules:
• RFC 5280 certificate validation and certificate path validation.
• The certificate path must terminate with a trusted CA certificate.
• The OS shall validate a certificate path by ensuring the presence of the
basicConstraints extension and that the CA flag is set to TRUE for all
CA certificates.
• The OS shall validate the revocation status of the certificate using [the
Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) as specified in RFC 2560, a
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) as specified in RFC 5759, an OCSP TLS
Status Request Extension (i.e., OCSP stapling) as specified in RFC
6066].
• The OS shall validate the extendedKeyUsage field according to the
following rules:
o Certificates used for trusted updates and executable code
integrity verification shall have the Code Signing purpose (id-
kp 3 with OID 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.3) in the extendedKeyUsage field.
o Server certificates presented for TLS shall have the Server
Authentication purpose (id-kp 1 with OID 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1) in
the extendedKeyUsage field.
o Client certificates presented for TLS shall have the Client
Authentication purpose (id-kp 2 with OID 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.2) in
the extendedKeyUsage field.
o S/MIME certificates presented for email encryption and
signature shall have the Email Protection purpose (id-kp 4 with
OID 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.4) in the extendedKeyUsage field.
o OCSP certificates presented for OCSP responses shall have the
OCSP Signing purpose (id-kp 9 with OID 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.9) in
the extendedKeyUsage field.
FIA_X509_EXT.1.2 The OS shall only treat a certificate as a CA certificate if the basicConstraints
extension is present and the CA flag is set to TRUE.
5.1.4.1.4 X.509 Certificate Authentication (FIA_X509_EXT.2)
FIA_X509_EXT.2.1 The OS shall use X.509v3 certificates as defined by RFC 5280 to support
authentication for TLS and [HTTPS] connections.
18
PIN-based authentications is for Windows 10, smart card authentication is for Windows 10 and Windows Server
only.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 45 of 164
5.1.4.2 Identification and Authentication for WLAN Client EP
5.1.4.2.1 Extended: Port Access Entity Authentication (FIA_PAE_EXT.1)
FIA_PAE_EXT.1.1 The TSF shall conform to IEEE Standard 802.1X for a Port Access Entity (PAE) in
the “Supplicant” role.
5.1.4.2.2 Extended: X.509 Certificate Validation (FIA_X509_EXT.1(WLAN))19
Application Note: FIA_X509_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FIA_X509_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
FIA_X509_EXT.1.1(WLAN) The TSF shall validate certificates for EAP-TLS in accordance with the
following rules:
• RFC 5280 certificate validation and certificate path validation
• The certificate path must terminate with a certificate in the Trust
Anchor Database
• The TSF shall validate a certificate path by ensuring the presence
of the basicConstraints extension and that the CA flag is set to
TRUE for all CA certificates
• The TSF shall validate the extendedKeyUsage field according to
the following rules:
o Server certificates presented for TLS shall have the Server
Authentication purpose (id-kp 1 with OID
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1) in the extendedKeyUsage field
o Client certificates presented for TLS shall have the Client
Authentication purpose (id-kp 2 with OID
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.2) in the extendedKeyUsage field.
FIA_X509_EXT.1.2(WLAN) The TSF shall only treat a certificate as a CA certificate if the
basicConstraints extension is present and the CA flag is set to TRUE.
5.1.4.2.3 Extended: X.509 Certificate Authentication (EAP-TLS) (FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN))
Application Note: FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN) corresponds to FIA_X509_EXT.2/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
FIA_X509_EXT.2.1(WLAN) The TSF shall use X.509v3 certificates as defined by RFC 5280 to support
authentication for EAP-TLS exchanges.
FIA_X509_EXT.2.2(WLAN) When the TSF cannot establish a connection to determine the validity of
a certificate, the TSF shall [allow the administrator to choose whether to
accept the certificate in these cases, allow the user to choose whether
to accept the certificate in these cases, not accept the certificate].
5.1.4.2.4 Extended: Certificate Storage and Management (FIA_X509_EXT.4)
FIA_X509_EXT.4.1 The TSF shall store and protect certificate(s) from unauthorized deletion and
modification.
FIA_X509_EXT.4.2 The TSF shall provide the capability for authorized administrators to load
X.509v3 certificates into the TOE for use by the security functions specified in
this the WLAN Client EP.
19
This extended package requirement was added as part of NIAP Technical Decision 439.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 46 of 164
5.1.4.3 Identification and Authentication for IPsec Client EP
5.1.4.3.1 Pre-Shared Key Composition (FIA_PSK_EXT.1)
FIA_PSK_EXT.1.1 The [TOE] shall be able to use pre-shared keys for IPsec.
FIA _PSK_EXT.1.2 The [TOE] shall be able to accept text-based pre-shared keys that:
• are 22 characters and [not more than 256 characters];
• composed of any combination of upper and lower case letters,
numbers, and special characters (that include: “!”, “@”, “#”, “$”, “%”,
“^”, “&”, “*”, “(“, “)”, and [no other special characters]).
FIA _PSK_EXT.1.3 The [TOE] shall condition the text-based pre-shared keys by using [[No
additional conditioning]], [perform no other conditioning].
5.1.4.3.2 X.509 Certificate Use and Management (FIA_X509_EXT.3)
FIA_X509_EXT.3.1 The TSF shall use X.509v3 certificates as defined by RFC 5280 to support
authentication for IPsec exchanges, and [digital signatures for
FPT_TUD_EXT.1, integrity checks for FPT_TST_EXT.1].
FIA_X509_EXT.3.2 When a connection to determine the validity of a certificate cannot be
established, the [VPN client] shall [not accept the certificate].
FIA_X509_EXT.3.3 The [OS] shall not establish an SA if a certificate or certificate path is deemed
invalid.
5.1.5 Security Management (FMT)
5.1.5.1 Security Management for GP OS PP
5.1.5.1.1 Management of Security Functions Behavior (FMT_MOF_EXT.1)
FMT_MOF_EXT.1.1 The OS shall restrict the ability to perform the function indicated in the
"Administrator" column in FMT_SMF_EXT.1.1 to the administrator.
5.1.5.1.2 Management of Security Functions Behavior (FMT_SMF_EXT.1)
FMT_SMF_EXT.1.1 The OS shall be capable of performing the following management functions:
Management Function Administrator User
Enable/disable [screen lock, session
timeout]
X O
Configure [screen lock, session]
inactivity timeout
X O
Configure local audit storage capacity O O
Configure minimum password Length O O
Configure minimum number of
special characters in password
O O
Configure minimum number of
numeric characters in password
O O
Configure minimum number of
uppercase characters in password
O O
Configure minimum number of
lowercase characters in password
O O
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 47 of 164
Configure lockout policy for
unsuccessful authentication attempts
through [timeouts between
attempts, limiting number of
attempts during a time period]
O O
Configure host-based firewall O O
Configure name/address of directory
server to bind with20
O O
Configure name/address of remote
management server from which to
receive management settings
O O
Configure name/address of
audit/logging server to which to send
audit/logging records
O O
Configure audit rules O O
Configure name/address of network
time server
O O
Enable/disable automatic software
update
O O
Configure Wi-Fi interface O O
Enable/disable Bluetooth interface O O
Enable/disable [local area network
interface, configure USB interfaces]
O O
[manage Windows Diagnostics
settings, Configure remote
connection inactivity timeout]
O O
Table 18 TOE Security Management Functions
5.1.5.2 Security Management for WLAN Client EP
5.1.5.2.1 Extended: Specification of Management Functions (FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN))21
Application Note: FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FMT_SMF_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
FMT_SMF_EXT.1.1(WLAN) The TSF shall be capable of performing the following management
functions:
• configure security policy for each wireless network:
o [specify the CA(s) from which the TSF will accept WLAN
authentication server certificate(s), specify the FQDN(s)
of acceptable WLAN authentication server
certificate(s)]
o security type
o authentication protocol
o client credentials to be used for authentication;
20
For Windows 10 Pro, Windows 10 Enterprise, and Windows Server.
21
This extended package requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 470.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 48 of 164
• (optional) specify wireless networks (SSIDs) to which the TSF
may connect;
• (optional) enable/disable certificate revocation list checking;
• (optional) disable ad hoc wireless client-to-client connection
capability;
• (optional) disable wireless network bridging capability (for
example, bridging a connection between the WLAN and cellular
radios on a smartphone so it can function as a hotspot);
• (optional) disable roaming capability;
• (optional) enable/disable IEEE 802.1X pre-authentication;
• (optional) enable/disable and configure PMK caching:
o set the amount of time (in minutes) for which PMK
entries are cached;
set the maximum number of PMK entries that can be
cached.
5.1.5.3 Security Management for IPsec Client EP
5.1.5.3.1 Specification of Management Functions (VPN) (FMT_SMF.1(VPN))
Application Note: FMT_SMF.1(VPN) corresponds to FMT_SMF.1/VPN in the IPsec EP.
FMT_SMF.1.1(VPN) The TSF shall be capable of performing the following management
functions: [
• Specify VPN gateways to use for connections,
• Specify IPsec VPN Clients to use for connections,
• Specify IPsec-capable network devices to use for connections],
• Specify client credentials to be used for connections,
• Configure the reference identifier of the peer
• [no other actions]].
5.1.6 Protection of the TSF (FPT)
5.1.6.1 Protection of the TSF for GP OS PP
5.1.6.1.1 Access Controls (FPT_ACF_EXT.1)
FPT_ACF_EXT.1.1 The OS shall implement access controls which prohibit unprivileged users from
modifying:
• Kernel and its drivers/modules
• Security audit logs
• Shared libraries
• System executables
• System configuration files
• [none]
FPT_ACF_EXT.1.2 The OS shall implement access controls which prohibit unprivileged users from
reading:
• Security audit logs
• System-wide credential repositories
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 49 of 164
• [none]
5.1.6.1.2 Address Space Layout Randomization (FPT_ASLR_EXT.1)
FPT_ASLR_EXT.1.1 The OS shall always randomize process address space memory locations with
[8 bits of entropy for 32-bit applications and at least 17 bits of entropy for
64-bit applications] bits of entropy except for [none].
5.1.6.1.3 Stack Buffer Overflow Protection (FPT_SBOP_EXT.1)
FPT_SBOP_EXT.1.1 The OS shall [employ stack-based buffer overflow protections].
5.1.6.1.4 Software Restriction Policies (FPT_SRP_EXT.1)
FPT_SRP_EXT.1.1 The OS shall restrict execution to only programs which match an
administrator-specified [
• File path,
• File digital signature,
• Version,22
• Hash
].
5.1.6.1.5 Boot Integrity (FPT_TST_EXT.1)
FPT_TST_EXT.1.1 The OS shall verify the integrity of the bootchain up through the OS kernel and
[operating system executable code and application executable code] prior to
its execution through the use of [a digital signature using a hardware-
protected asymmetric key, a hardware-protected hash].23
5.1.6.1.6 Trusted Update (FPT_TUD_EXT.1)
FPT_TUD_EXT.1.1 The OS shall provide the ability to check for updates to the OS software itself
and shall use a digital signature scheme specified in FCS_COP.1(3 SIGN) to
validate the authenticity of the response.
FPT_TUD_EXT.1.2 The OS shall [cryptographically verify] updates to itself using a digital
signature prior to installation using schemes specified in FCS_COP.1(3 SIGN).24,
25
5.1.6.1.7 Trusted Update for Application Software (FPT_TUD_EXT.2)
FPT_TUD_EXT.2.1 The OS shall provide the ability to check for updates to application software
and shall use a digital signature scheme specified in FCS_COP.1(3 SIGN) to
validate the authenticity of the response.26
FPT_TUD_EXT.2.2 The OS shall cryptographically verify the integrity of updates to applications
using a digital signature specified by FCS_COP.1(3 SIGN) prior to installation.
22
Windows 10 Enterprise and Windows Server can restrict program execution based on a version using AppLocker
and Device Guard; Windows 10 Pro and Windows 10 Home editions cannot.
23
Windows can also run on computers that do not have a TPM, which is the mechanism that provides the
hardware-based protection for boot integrity.
24
This protection profile requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 463.
25
This protection profile requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 386.
26
This protection profile requirement was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 463.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 50 of 164
5.1.6.2 Protection of the TSF for WLAN Client EP
5.1.6.2.1 Extended: TSF Cryptographic Functionality Testing (FPT_TST_EXT.1 (WLAN))
Application Note: FPT_TST_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FPT_TST_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT EP.
FPT_TST_EXT.1.1(WLAN) The [TOE] shall run a suite of self-tests during initial start-up (on power on)
to demonstrate the correct operation of the TSF.
FPT_TST_EXT.1.2(WLAN) The [TOE] shall provide the capability to verify the integrity of stored TSF
executable code when it is loaded for execution through the use of the
TSF-provided cryptographic services.
5.1.6.3 Protection of the TSF for IPsec Client EP
5.1.6.3.1 Self-Test (FPT_TST_EXT.1 (IPSEC))
Application Note: FPT_TST_EXT.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FPT_TST_EXT.1 in the IPsec EP.
FPT_TST_EXT.1.1(IPSEC) The [TOE] shall run a suite of self-tests during initial start-up (on power on)
to demonstrate the correct operation of the TSF.
FPT_TST_EXT.1.2(IPSEC) The [TOE] shall provide the capability to verify the integrity of stored TSF
executable code when it is loaded for execution through the use of the
[FCS_COP.1(SIGN) cryptographic services provided by the operating
system].
5.1.7 TOE Access (FTA)
5.1.7.1 TOE Access for GP OS PP
5.1.7.1.1 Default TOE Access Banners (FTA_TAB.1)
FTA_TAB.1.1 Before establishing a user session, the OS shall display an advisory warning
message regarding unauthorized use of the OS.
5.1.7.2 TOE Access for WLAN Client EP
5.1.7.2.1 Extended: Wireless Network Access (FTA_WSE_EXT.1)
FTA_WSE_EXT.1.1 The TSF shall be able to attempt connections only to wireless networks
specified as acceptable networks as configured by the administrator in
FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN).1/WLAN.
5.1.8 Trusted Path / Channels (FTP)
5.1.8.1 Trusted Path / Channels for GP OS PP
5.1.8.1.1 Trusted Path (FTP_TRP.1)
FTP_TRP.1.1 The OS shall provide a communications path between itself and [local,
remote] users that is logically distinct from other communications paths and
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 51 of 164
provides assured identification of its endpoints and protection of the
communicated data from modification and disclosure.27
FTP_TRP.1.2 The OS shall permit [the TSF, local users, remote users] to initiate
communication via the trusted path.
FTP_TRP.1.3 The OS shall require use of the trusted path for all remote administrative
actions.
5.1.8.1.2 Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1(TLS))
FTP_ITC_EXT.1.1(TLS) The OS shall use [
• TLS as conforming to FCS_TLSC_EXT.1
] to provide a trusted communications channel between itself and authorized
IT entities supporting the following capabilities: [authentication server, [CRL
checking, web traffic]] that is logically distinct from other communication
channels and provides assured identification of its end points and protection
of the channel data from disclosure and detection of modification of the
channel data.
5.1.8.1.3 Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1(DTLS))
FTP_ITC_EXT.1.1(DTLS) The OS shall use [
• DTLS as conforming to FCS_DTLS_EXT.1,
] to provide a trusted communications channel between itself and
authorized IT entities supporting the following capabilities: [web traffic,
datagram-based application protocols] that is logically distinct from other
communication channels and provides assured identification of its end
points and protection of the channel data from disclosure and detection of
modification of the channel data.
5.1.8.2 Trusted Path / Channels for WLAN Client EP
5.1.8.2.1 Extended: Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1 (WLAN))
Application Note: FTP_ITC_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FTP_ITC _EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT EP.
FTP_ITC_EXT.1.1(WLAN) The TSF shall use 802.11-2012, 802.1X, and EAP-TLS to provide a trusted
communication channel between itself and a wireless access point that is
logically distinct from other communication channels, provides assured
identification of its end points, protects channel data from disclosure, and
detects modification of the channel data.
FTP_ITC_EXT.1.2(WLAN) The TSF shall initiate communication via the trusted channel for wireless
access point connections.
5.1.8.3 Trusted Path / Channels for IPsec Client EP
5.1.8.3.1 Inter-TSF Trusted Channel (FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC))
Application Note: FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FTP_ITC.1 in the IPsec EP.
FTP_ITC.1.1(IPSEC) The [VPN client, OS] shall use IPsec to provide a trusted communication
channel between itself and [a remote VPN gateway, a remote VPN client,
27
This protection profile requirement was modified as part of NIAP Technical Decision 208.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 52 of 164
a remote IPsec-capable network device] that is logically distinct from
other communication channels and provides assured identification of its
end points and protection of the channel data from disclosure and
detection of modification of the channel data.
FTP_ITC.1.2(IPSEC) The [OS] shall permit the TSF to initiate communication via the trusted
channel.
FTP_ITC.1.3(IPSEC) The [OS] shall initiate communication via the trusted channel for all traffic
traversing that connection.
5.2 TOE Security Assurance Requirements
5.2.1 CC Part 3 Assurance Requirements
The following table is the collection of CC Part 3 assurance requirements from the General Purpose
Operating Systems Protection Profile.
Table 19 TOE Security Assurance Requirements
Requirement Class Requirement Component
Security Target (ASE) ST Introduction (ASE_INT.1)
Conformance Claims (ASE_CCL.1)
Security Objectives (ASE_OBJ.2)
Extended Components Definition (ASE_ECD.1)
Stated Security Requirements (ASE_REQ.2)
Security Problem Definition (ASE_SPD.1)
TOE Summary Specification (ASE_TSS.1)
Design (ADV) Basic Functional Specification (ADV_FSP.1)
Guidance (AGD) Operational User Guidance (AGD_OPE.1)
Preparative Procedures (AGD_PRE.1)
Lifecycle (ALC) Labeling of the TOE (ALC_CMC.1)
TOE CM Coverage (ALC_CMS.1)
Timely Security Updates (ALC_TSU_EXT.1)
Testing (ATE) Independent Testing – Conformance (ATE_IND.1)
Vulnerability
Assessment (AVA)
Vulnerability Survey (AVA_VAN.1)
5.2.1.1 Timely Security Updates (ALC_TSU_EXT.1)
Developer action elements:
ALC_TSU_EXT.1.1D The developer shall provide a description in the TSS of how timely security updates
are made to the TOE.
ALC_TSU_EXT.1.2D The developer shall provide a description in the TSS of how users are notified when
updates change security properties or the configuration of the product.
Content and presentation elements:
ALC_TSU_EXT.1.1C The description shall include the process for creating and deploying security updates
for the TOE software.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 53 of 164
ALC_TSU_EXT.1.2C The description shall include the mechanisms publicly available for reporting security
issues pertaining to the TOE. The reporting mechanism could include web sites, email addresses, as well
as a means to protect the sensitive nature of the report (e.g., public keys that could be used to encrypt
the details of a proof-of-concept exploit).
Evaluator action elements:
ALC_TSU_EXT.1.1E The evaluator shall confirm that the information provided meets all the
requirements for content and presentation of evidence.
Assurance Activity: The evaluator will verify that the TSS contains a description of the timely security
update process used by the developer to create and deploy security updates. The evaluator will verify
that this description addresses the entire application. The evaluator will also verify that, in addition to
the OS developer’s process, any third-party processes are also addressed in the description. The
evaluator will also verify that each mechanism for deployment of security updates is described.
The evaluator will verify that, for each deployment mechanism described for the update process, the
TSS lists a time between public disclosure of a vulnerability and public availability of the security update
to the OS patching this vulnerability, to include any third-party or carrier delays in deployment. The
evaluator will verify that this time is expressed in a number or range of days.
The evaluator will verify that this description includes the publicly available mechanisms (including
either an email address or website) for reporting security issues related to the OS. The evaluator shall
verify that the description of this mechanism includes a method for protecting the report either using a
public key for encrypting email or a trusted channel for a website.
5.2.2 General Purpose OS PP Assurance Activities
This section copies the assurance activities from the protection profile in order to ease reading and
comparisons between the protection profile and the security target.
5.2.2.1 Security Audit (FAU)
FAU_GEN.1.1
The evaluator will check the administrative guide and ensure that it lists all of the auditable events. The
evaluator will check to make sure that every audit event type selected in the ST is included. The
evaluator will test the OS's ability to correctly generate audit records by having the TOE generate audit
records for the events listed in the ST. This should include all instance types of an event specified. When
verifying the test results, the evaluator will ensure the audit records generated during testing match the
format specified in the administrative guide, and that the fields in each audit record have the proper
entries.
FAU_GEN.1.2
The evaluator will check the administrative guide and ensure that it provides a format for audit records.
Each audit record format type must be covered, along with a brief description of each field. The
evaluator will ensure that the fields contains the information required. The evaluator shall test the OS's
ability to correctly generate audit records by having the TOE generate audit records for the events listed
in the ST. The evaluator will ensure the audit records generated during testing match the format
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 54 of 164
specified in the administrative guide, and that the fields in each audit record provide the required
information.
5.2.2.2 Cryptographic Support (FCS)
5.2.2.2.1 Cryptographic Key Generation (FCS_CKM.1)
The evaluator will verify the implementation of RSA Key Generation by the OS using the Key Generation
test. This test verifies the ability of the TSF to correctly produce values for the key components including
the public verification exponent e, the private prime factors p and q, the public modulus n and the
calculation of the private signature exponent d. Key Pair generation specifies 5 ways (or methods) to
generate the primes p and q.
These include:
1. Random Primes:
o Provable primes
o Probable primes
2. Primes with Conditions:
o Primes p1, p2, q1,q2, p and q shall all be provable primes
o Primes p1, p2, q1, and q2 shall be provable primes and p and q shall be probable primes
o Primes p1, p2, q1,q2, p and q shall all be probable primes
To test the key generation method for the Random Provable primes method and for all the Primes with
Conditions methods, the evaluator must seed the TSF key generation routine with sufficient data to
deterministically generate the RSA key pair. This includes the random seed(s), the public exponent of
the RSA key, and the desired key length. For each key length supported, the evaluator shall have the TSF
generate 25 key pairs. The evaluator will verify the correctness of the TSF's implementation by
comparing values generated by the TSF with those generated from a known good implementation.
If possible, the Random Probable primes method should also be verified against a known good
implementation as described above. Otherwise, the evaluator will have the TSF generate 10 keys pairs
for each supported key length nlen and verify:
• n = p⋅q,
• p and q are probably prime according to Miller-Rabin tests,
• GCD(p-1,e) = 1,
• GCD(q-1,e) = 1,
• 216
≤ e ≤ 2256
and e is an odd integer,
• |p-q| > 2nlen/2 - 100
,
• p ≥ 2nlen/2 -1/2
,
• q ≥ 2nlen/2 -1/2
,
• 2(nlen/2)
< d < LCM(p-1,q-1),
• e⋅d = 1 mod LCM(p-1,q-1).
Key Generation for Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC)
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 55 of 164
FIPS 186-4 ECC Key Generation Test
For each supported NIST curve, i.e., P-256, P-384 and P-521, the evaluator will require the
implementation under test (IUT) to generate 10 private/public key pairs. The private key shall be
generated using an approved random bit generator (RBG). To determine correctness, the evaluator will
submit the generated key pairs to the public key verification (PKV) function of a known good
implementation.
FIPS 186-4 Public Key Verification (PKV) Test
For each supported NIST curve, i.e., P-256, P-384 and P-521, the evaluator will generate 10
private/public key pairs using the key generation function of a known good implementation and modify
five of the public key values so that they are incorrect, leaving five values unchanged (i.e., correct). The
evaluator will obtain in response a set of 10 PASS/FAIL values.
Key Generation for Finite-Field Cryptography (FFC)
The evaluator will verify the implementation of the Parameters Generation and the Key Generation for
FFC by the TOE using the Parameter Generation and Key Generation test. This test verifies the ability of
the TSF to correctly produce values for the field prime p, the cryptographic prime q (dividing p-1), the
cryptographic group generator g, and the calculation of the private key x and public key y.
The Parameter generation specifies 2 ways (or methods) to generate the cryptographic prime q and the
field prime p:
• Cryptographic and Field Primes:
o Primes q and p shall both be provable primes
o Primes q and field prime p shall both be probable primes
and two ways to generate the cryptographic group generator g:
• Cryptographic Group Generator:
o Generator g constructed through a verifiable process
o Generator g constructed through an unverifiable process
The Key generation specifies 2 ways to generate the private key x:
• Private Key:
o len(q) bit output of RBG where 1 ≤ x ≤ q-1
o len(q) + 64 bit output of RBG, followed by a mod q-1 operation where 1 ≤ x ≤ q-1
The security strength of the RBG must be at least that of the security offered by the FFC parameter set.
To test the cryptographic and field prime generation method for the provable primes method and/or
the group generator g for a verifiable process, the evaluator must seed the TSF parameter generation
routine with sufficient data to deterministically generate the parameter set. For each key length
supported, the evaluator will have the TSF generate 25 parameter sets and key pairs. The evaluator will
verify the correctness of the TSF's implementation by comparing values generated by the TSF with those
generated from a known good implementation. Verification must also confirm:
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 56 of 164
• g != 0,1
• q divides p-1
• gq
mod p = 1
• gx
mod p = y
for each FFC parameter set and key pair.
5.2.2.2.2 Cryptographic Key Establishment (FCS_CKM.2)
The evaluator will ensure that the supported key establishment schemes correspond to the key
generation schemes identified in FCS_CKM.1.1. If the ST specifies more than one scheme, the evaluator
will examine the TSS to verify that it identifies the usage for each scheme.
The evaluator will verify that the AGD guidance instructs the administrator how to configure the OS to
use the selected key establishment scheme(s).
Evaluation Activity Note: The following tests require the developer to provide access to a test platform
that provides the evaluator with tools that are typically not found on factory products.
Key Establishment Schemes
The evaluator will verify the implementation of the key establishment schemes supported by the OS
using the applicable tests below.
SP800-56A Key Establishment Schemes
The evaluator will verify the OS's implementation of SP800-56A key agreement schemes using the
following Function and Validity tests. These validation tests for each key agreement scheme verify that
the OS has implemented the components of the key agreement scheme according to the specifications
in the Recommendation. These components include the calculation of the discrete logarithm
cryptography (DLC) primitives (the shared secret value Z) and the calculation of the derived keying
material (DKM) via the Key Derivation Function (KDF). If key confirmation is supported, the evaluator will
also verify that the components of key confirmation have been implemented correctly, using the test
procedures described below. This includes the parsing of the DKM, the generation of MAC data and the
calculation of MAC tag.
Function Test
The Function test verifies the ability of the OS to implement the key agreement schemes
correctly. To conduct this test the evaluator will generate or obtain test vectors from a known
good implementation of the OS's supported schemes. For each supported key agreement
scheme-key agreement role combination, KDF type, and, if supported, key confirmation role-
key confirmation type combination, the tester shall generate 10 sets of test vectors. The data
set consists of the NIST approved curve (ECC) per 10 sets of public keys. These keys are static,
ephemeral or both depending on the scheme being tested.
The evaluator will obtain the DKM, the corresponding OS's public keys (static and/or
ephemeral), the MAC tag(s), and any inputs used in the KDF, such as the Other Information field
OI and OS id fields.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 57 of 164
If the OS does not use a KDF defined in SP 800-56A, the evaluator will obtain only the public keys
and the hashed value of the shared secret.
The evaluator will verify the correctness of the TSF's implementation of a given scheme by using
a known good implementation to calculate the shared secret value, derive the keying material
DKM, and compare hashes or MAC tags generated from these values.
If key confirmation is supported, the OS shall perform the above for each implemented
approved MAC algorithm.
Validity Test
The Validity test verifies the ability of the OS to recognize another party's valid and invalid key
agreement results with or without key confirmation. To conduct this test, the evaluator will
obtain a list of the supporting cryptographic functions included in the SP800-56A key agreement
implementation to determine which errors the OS should be able to recognize. The evaluator
generates a set of 30 test vectors consisting of data sets including domain parameter values or
NIST approved curves, the evaluator's public keys, the OS's public/private key pairs, MAC tag,
and any inputs used in the KDF, such as the other info and OS id fields.
The evaluator will inject an error in some of the test vectors to test that the OS recognizes
invalid key agreement results caused by the following fields being incorrect: the shared secret
value Z, the DKM, the other information field OI, the data to be MAC'd, or the generated MAC
tag. If the OS contains the full or partial (only ECC) public key validation, the evaluator will also
individually inject errors in both parties' static public keys, both parties' ephemeral public keys
and the OS's static private key to assure the OS detects errors in the public key validation
function and/or the partial key validation function (in ECC only). At least two of the test vectors
shall remain unmodified and therefore should result in valid key agreement results (they should
pass).
The OS shall use these modified test vectors to emulate the key agreement scheme using the
corresponding parameters. The evaluator will compare the OS's results with the results using a
known good implementation verifying that the OS detects these errors.
SP800-56B Key Establishment Schemes
The evaluator will verify that the TSS describes whether the OS acts as a sender, a recipient, or both for
RSA-based key establishment schemes.
If the OS acts as a sender, the following assurance activity shall be performed to ensure the proper
operation of every OS supported combination of RSA-based key establishment scheme:
To conduct this test the evaluator will generate or obtain test vectors from a known good
implementation of the OS's supported schemes. For each combination of supported key
establishment scheme and its options (with or without key confirmation if supported, for each
supported key confirmation MAC function if key confirmation is supported, and for each
supported mask generation function if KTSOAEP is supported), the tester shall generate 10 sets
of test vectors. Each test vector shall include the RSA public key, the plaintext keying material,
any additional input parameters if applicable, the MAC key and MAC tag if key confirmation is
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 58 of 164
incorporated, and the outputted ciphertext. For each test vector, the evaluator shall perform a
key establishment encryption operation on the OS with the same inputs (in cases where key
confirmation is incorporated, the test shall use the MAC key from the test vector instead of the
randomly generated MAC key used in normal operation) and ensure that the outputted
ciphertext is equivalent to the ciphertext in the test vector.
If the OS acts as a receiver, the following evaluation activities shall be performed to ensure the proper
operation of every OS supported combination of RSA-based key establishment scheme:
To conduct this test the evaluator will generate or obtain test vectors from a known good
implementation of the OS's supported schemes. For each combination of supported key
establishment scheme and its options (with our without key confirmation if supported, for each
supported key confirmation MAC function if key confirmation is supported, and for each
supported mask generation function if KTSOAEP is supported), the tester shall generate 10 sets
of test vectors. Each test vector shall include the RSA private key, the plaintext keying material,
any additional input parameters if applicable, the MAC tag in cases where key confirmation is
incorporated, and the outputted ciphertext. For each test vector, the evaluator will perform the
key establishment decryption operation on the OS and ensure that the outputted plaintext
keying material is equivalent to the plaintext keying material in the test vector. In cases where
key confirmation is incorporated, the evaluator will perform the key confirmation steps and
ensure that the outputted MAC tag is equivalent to the MAC tag in the test vector.
The evaluator will ensure that the TSS describes how the OS handles decryption errors. In accordance
with NIST Special Publication 800-56B, the OS must not reveal the particular error that occurred, either
through the contents of any outputted or logged error message or through timing variations. If KTS-
OAEP is supported, the evaluator will create separate contrived ciphertext values that trigger each of
the three decryption error checks described in NIST Special Publication 800-56B section 7.2.2.3, ensure
that each decryption attempt results in an error, and ensure that any outputted or logged error message
is identical for each. If KTS-KEM-KWS is supported, the evaluator will create separate contrived
ciphertext values that trigger each of the three decryption error checks described in NIST Special
Publication 800-56B section 7.2.3.3, ensure that each decryption attempt results in an error, and ensure
that any outputted or logged error message is identical for each.
5.2.2.2.3 Cryptographic Key Destruction (FCS_CKM_EXT.4)28
TSS
The evaluator examines the TSS to ensure it describes how the keys are managed in volatile memory.
This description includes details of how each identified key is introduced into volatile memory (e.g. by
derivation from user input, or by unwrapping a wrapped key stored in non-volatile memory) and how
they are overwritten.
The evaluator will check to ensure the TSS lists each type of key that is stored in in non-volatile memory,
and identifies how the TOE interacts with the underlying platform to manage keys (e.g., store, retrieve,
destroy). The description includes details on the method of how the TOE interacts with the platform,
28
This protection profile assurance activity was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 365.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 59 of 164
including an identification and description of the interfaces it uses to manage keys (e.g., file system APIs,
platform key store APIs).
If the ST makes use of the open assignment and fills in the type of pattern that is used, the evaluator
examines the TSS to ensure it describes how that pattern is obtained and used. The evaluator will verify
that the pattern does not contain any CSPs.
The evaluator will check that the TSS identifies any configurations or circumstances that may not strictly
conform to the key destruction requirement.
If the selection “destruction of all key encrypting keys protecting target key according to
FCS_CKM_EXT.4.1, where none of the KEKs protecting the target key are derived” is included the
evaluator shall examine the TOE’s keychain in the TSS and identify each instance when a key is
destroyed by this method. In each instance the evaluator shall verify all keys capable of decrypting the
target key are destroyed in accordance with a specified key destruction method in FCS_CKM_EXT.4.1
The evaluator shall verify that all of the keys capable of decrypting the target key are not able to be
derived to reestablish the keychain after their destruction.
Operational Guidance
There are a variety of concerns that may prevent or delay key destruction in some cases. The evaluator
will check that the guidance documentation identifies configurations or circumstances that may not
strictly conform to the key destruction requirement, and that this description is consistent with the
relevant parts of the TSS and any other relevant Required Supplementary Information. The evaluator
will check that the guidance documentation provides guidance on situations where key destruction may
be delayed at the physical layer and how such situations can be avoided or mitigated if possible.
Some examples of what is expected to be in the documentation are provided here.
When the TOE does not have full access to the physical memory, it is possible that the storage may be
implementing wear-leveling and garbage collection. This may create additional copies of the key that are
logically inaccessible but persist physically. In this case, to mitigate this the drive should support the
TRIM command and implements garbage collection to destroy these persistent copies when not actively
engaged in other tasks.
Drive vendors implement garbage collection in a variety of different ways, as such there is a variable
amount of time until data is truly removed from these solutions. There is a risk that data may persist for
a longer amount of time if it is contained in a block with other data not ready for erasure. To reduce this
risk, the operating system and file system of the OE should support TRIM, instructing the non-volatile
memory to erase copies via garbage collection upon their deletion. If a RAID array is being used, only
set-ups that support TRIM are utilized. If the drive is connected via PCI-Express, the operating system
supports TRIM over that channel.
The drive should be healthy and contains minimal corrupted data and should be end-of-lifed before a
significant amount of damage to drive health occurs, this minimizes the risk that small amounts of
potentially recoverable data may remain in damaged areas of the drive.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 60 of 164
Tests
• Test 1: Applied to each key held as in volatile memory and subject to destruction by overwrite
by the TOE (whether or not the value is subsequently encrypted for storage in volatile or non-
volatile memory). In the case where the only selection made for the destruction method key
was removal of power, then this test is unnecessary. The evaluator will:
1. Record the value of the key in the TOE subject to clearing.
2. Cause the TOE to perform a normal cryptographic processing with the key from Step #1.
3. Cause the TOE to clear the key.
4. Cause the TOE to stop the execution but not exit.
5. Cause the TOE to dump the entire memory of the TOE into a binary file.
6. Search the content of the binary file created in Step #5 for instances of the known key
value from Step #1.
Steps 1-6 ensure that the complete key does not exist anywhere in volatile memory. If a copy is
found, then the test fails.
• Test 2: Applied to each key help in non-volatile memory and subject to destruction by the TOE.
The evaluator will use special tools (as needed), provided by the TOE developer if necessary, to
ensure the tests function as intended.
1. Identify the purpose of the key and what access should fail when it is deleted. (e.g. the
data encryption key being deleted would cause data decryption to fail.)
2. Cause the TOE to clear the key.
3. Have the TOE attempt the functionality that the cleared key would be necessary for.
The test succeeds if step 3 fails.
Tests 3 and 4 do not apply for the selection instructing the underlying platform to destroy the
representation of the key, as the TOE has no visibility into the inner workings and completely relies on
the underlying platform.
• Test 3: The following tests are used to determine the TOE is able to request the platform to
overwrite the key with a TOE supplied pattern.
Applied to each key held in non-volatile memory and subject to destruction by overwrite by the TOE.
The evaluator will use a tool that provides a logical view of the media (e.g., MBR file system):
1. Record the value of the key in the TOE subject to clearing.
2. Cause the TOE to perform a normal cryptographic processing with the key from Step #1.
3. Cause the TOE to clear the key.
4. Search the logical view that the key was stored in for instances of the known key value from
Step #1. If a copy is found, then the test fails.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 61 of 164
• Test 4: Applied to each key held as non-volatile memory and subject to destruction by overwrite
by the TOE. The evaluator will use a tool that provides a logical view of the media:
1. Record the logical storage location of the key in the TOE subject to clearing.
2. Cause the TOE to perform a normal cryptographic processing with the key from Step #1.
3. Cause the TOE to clear the key.
4. Read the logical storage location in Step #1 of non-volatile memory to ensure the
appropriate pattern is utilized.
The test succeeds if correct pattern is used to overwrite the key in the memory location. If the
pattern is not found the test fails.
5.2.2.2.4 Cryptographic Operation for Encryption / Decryption (FCS_COP.1(SYM))
The evaluator will verify that the AGD documents contains instructions required to configure the OS to
use the required modes and key sizes. The evaluator will execute all instructions as specified to
configure the OS to the appropriate state. The evaluator will perform all of the following tests for each
algorithm implemented by the OS and used to satisfy the requirements of this PP:
AES-CBC Known Answer Tests
There are four Known Answer Tests (KATs), described below. In all KATs, the plaintext, ciphertext, and IV
values shall be 128-bit blocks. The results from each test may either be obtained by the evaluator
directly or by supplying the inputs to the implementer and receiving the results in response. To
determine correctness, the evaluator will compare the resulting values to those obtained by submitting
the same inputs to a known good implementation.
• KAT-1. To test the encrypt functionality of AES-CBC, the evaluator will supply a set of 10
plaintext values and obtain the ciphertext value that results from AES-CBC encryption of the
given plaintext using a key value of all zeros and an IV of all zeros. Five plaintext values shall be
encrypted with a 128-bit all-zeros key, and the other five shall be encrypted with a 256-bit all-
zeros key. To test the decrypt functionality of AES-CBC, the evaluator will perform the same test
as for encrypt, using 10 ciphertext values as input and AES-CBC decryption.
• KAT-2. To test the encrypt functionality of AES-CBC, the evaluator will supply a set of 10 key
values and obtain the ciphertext value that results from AES-CBC encryption of an all-zeros
plaintext using the given key value and an IV of all zeros. Five of the keys shall be 128bit keys,
and the other five shall be 256-bit keys. To test the decrypt functionality of AES-CBC, the
evaluator will perform the same test as for encrypt, using an all-zero ciphertext value as input
and AES-CBC decryption.
• KAT-3. To test the encrypt functionality of AES-CBC, the evaluator will supply the two sets of key
values described below and obtain the ciphertext value that results from AES encryption of an
all-zeros plaintext using the given key value and an IV of all zeros. The first set of keys shall have
128 128-bit keys, and the second set shall have 256 256-bit keys. Key i in each set shall have the
leftmost i bits be ones and the rightmost N-i bits be zeros, for i in [1,N]. To test the decrypt
functionality of AES-CBC, the evaluator will supply the two sets of key and ciphertext value pairs
described below and obtain the plaintext value that results from AES-CBC decryption of the
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 62 of 164
given ciphertext using the given key and an IV of all zeros. The first set of key/ciphertext pairs
shall have 128 128-bit key/ciphertext pairs, and the second set of key/ciphertext pairs shall have
256 256-bit key/ciphertext pairs. Key i in each set shall have the leftmost i bits be ones and the
rightmost N-i bits be zeros, for i in [1,N]. The ciphertext value in each pair shall be the value that
results in an all-zeros plaintext when decrypted with its corresponding key.
• KAT-4. To test the encrypt functionality of AES-CBC, the evaluator will supply the set of 128
plaintext values described below and obtain the two ciphertext values that result from AES-CBC
encryption of the given plaintext using a 128-bit key value of all zeros with an IV of all zeros and
using a 256-bit key value of all zeros with an IV of all zeros, respectively. Plaintext value i in each
set shall have the leftmost i bits be ones and the rightmost 128-i bits be zeros, for i in [1,128].
To test the decrypt functionality of AES-CBC, the evaluator will perform the same test as for encrypt,
using ciphertext values of the same form as the plaintext in the encrypt test as input and AES-CBC
decryption.
AES-CBC Multi-Block Message Test
The evaluator will test the encrypt functionality by encrypting an i-block message where 1 < i ≤ 10. The
evaluator will choose a key, an IV and plaintext message of length i blocks and encrypt the message,
using the mode to be tested, with the chosen key and IV. The ciphertext shall be compared to the result
of encrypting the same plaintext message with the same key and IV using a known good
implementation. The evaluator will also test the decrypt functionality for each mode by decrypting an i-
block message where 1 < i ≤10. The evaluator will choose a key, an IV and a ciphertext message of length
i blocks and decrypt the message, using the mode to be tested, with the chosen key and IV. The
plaintext shall be compared to the result of decrypting the same ciphertext message with the same key
and IV using a known good implementation.
AES-CBC Monte Carlo Tests
The evaluator will test the encrypt functionality using a set of 200 plaintext, IV, and key 3- tuples. 100 of
these shall use 128 bit keys, and 100 shall use 256 bit keys. The plaintext and IV values shall be 128-bit
blocks. For each 3-tuple, 1000 iterations shall be run as follows:
# Input: PT, IV, Key
for i = 1 to 1000:
if i == 1:
CT[1] = AES-CBC-Encrypt(Key, IV, PT)
PT = IV
else:
CT[i] = AES-CBC-Encrypt(Key, PT)
PT = CT[i-1]
The ciphertext computed in the 1000th iteration (i.e., CT[1000]) is the result for that trial. This result
shall be compared to the result of running 1000 iterations with the same values using a known good
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 63 of 164
implementation. The evaluator will test the decrypt functionality using the same test as for encrypt,
exchanging CT and PT and replacing AES-CBC-Encrypt with AESCBC-Decrypt.
AES-GCM Monte Carlo Tests
The evaluator will test the authenticated encrypt functionality of AES-GCM for each combination of the
following input parameter lengths:
• 128 bit and 256 bit keys
• Two plaintext lengths. One of the plaintext lengths shall be a non-zero integer multiple of 128
bits, if supported. The other plaintext length shall not be an integer multiple of 128 bits, if
supported.
• Three AAD lengths. One AAD length shall be 0, if supported. One AAD length shall be a non-zero
integer multiple of 128 bits, if supported. One AAD length shall not be an integer multiple of 128
bits, if supported.
• Two IV lengths. If 96 bit IV is supported, 96 bits shall be one of the two IV lengths tested.
The evaluator will test the encrypt functionality using a set of 10 key, plaintext, AAD, and IV tuples for
each combination of parameter lengths above and obtain the ciphertext value and tag that results from
AES-GCM authenticated encrypt. Each supported tag length shall be tested at least once per set of 10.
The IV value may be supplied by the evaluator or the implementation being tested, as long as it is
known.
The evaluator will test the decrypt functionality using a set of 10 key, ciphertext, tag, AAD, and IV 5-
tuples for each combination of parameter lengths above and obtain a Pass/Fail result on authentication
and the decrypted plaintext if Pass. The set shall include five tuples that Pass and five that Fail.
The results from each test may either be obtained by the evaluator directly or by supplying the inputs to
the implementer and receiving the results in response. To determine correctness, the evaluator will
compare the resulting values to those obtained by submitting the same inputs to a known good
implementation.
AES-CCM Tests
The evaluator will test the generation-encryption and decryption-verification functionality of AES-CCM
for the following input parameter and tag lengths:
• 128 bit and 256 bit keys
• Two payload lengths. One payload length shall be the shortest supported payload length,
greater than or equal to zero bytes. The other payload length shall be the longest supported
payload length, less than or equal to 32 bytes (256 bits).
• Two or three associated data lengths. One associated data length shall be 0, if supported. One
associated data length shall be the shortest supported payload length, greater than or equal to
zero bytes. One associated data length shall be the longest supported payload length, less than
or equal to 32 bytes (256 bits). If the implementation supports an associated data length of 2 16
bytes, an associated data length of 216 bytes shall be tested.
• Nonce lengths. All supported nonce lengths between 7 and 13 bytes, inclusive, shall be tested.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 64 of 164
• Tag lengths. All supported tag lengths of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 bytes shall be tested.
To test the generation-encryption functionality of AES-CCM, the evaluator will perform the following
four tests:
• Test 1: For EACH supported key and associated data length and ANY supported payload, nonce
and tag length, the evaluator will supply one key value, one nonce value and 10 pairs of
associated data and payload values and obtain the resulting ciphertext.
• Test 2: For EACH supported key and payload length and ANY supported associated data, nonce
and tag length, the evaluator will supply one key value, one nonce value and 10 pairs of
associated data and payload values and obtain the resulting ciphertext.
• Test 3: For EACH supported key and nonce length and ANY supported associated data, payload
and tag length, the evaluator will supply one key value and 10 associated data, payload and
nonce value 3-tuples and obtain the resulting ciphertext.
• Test 4: For EACH supported key and tag length and ANY supported associated data, payload and
nonce length, the evaluator will supply one key value, one nonce value and 10 pairs of
associated data and payload values and obtain the resulting ciphertext.
To determine correctness in each of the above tests, the evaluator will compare the ciphertext with the
result of generation-encryption of the same inputs with a known good implementation.
To test the decryption-verification functionality of AES-CCM, for EACH combination of supported
associated data length, payload length, nonce length and tag length, the evaluator shall supply a key
value and 15 nonce, associated data and ciphertext 3-tuples and obtain either a FAIL result or a PASS
result with the decrypted payload. The evaluator will supply 10 tuples that should FAIL and 5 that should
PASS per set of 15.
Additionally, the evaluator will use tests from the IEEE 802.11-02/362r6 document "Proposed Test
vectors for IEEE 802.11 TGi", dated September 10, 2002, Section 2.1 AESCCMP Encapsulation Example
and Section 2.2 Additional AES CCMP Test Vectors to further verify the IEEE 802.11-2007
implementation of AES-CCMP.
AES-GCM Test
The evaluator will test the authenticated encrypt functionality of AES-GCM for each combination of the
following input parameter lengths:
• 128 bit and 256 bit keys
• Two plaintext lengths. One of the plaintext lengths shall be a non-zero integer multiple of 128
bits, if supported. The other plaintext length shall not be an integer multiple of 128 bits, if
supported.
• Three AAD lengths. One AAD length shall be 0, if supported. One AAD length shall be a non-zero
integer multiple of 128 bits, if supported. One AAD length shall not be an integer multiple of 128
bits, if supported.
• Two IV lengths. If 96 bit IV is supported, 96 bits shall be one of the two IV lengths tested.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 65 of 164
The evaluator will test the encrypt functionality using a set of 10 key, plaintext, AAD, and IV tuples for
each combination of parameter lengths above and obtain the ciphertext value and tag that results from
AES-GCM authenticated encrypt. Each supported tag length shall be tested at least once per set of 10.
The IV value may be supplied by the evaluator or the implementation being tested, as long as it is
known.
The evaluator will test the decrypt functionality using a set of 10 key, ciphertext, tag, AAD, and IV 5-
tuples for each combination of parameter lengths above and obtain a Pass/Fail result on authentication
and the decrypted plaintext if Pass. The set shall include five tuples that Pass and five that Fail.
The results from each test may either be obtained by the evaluator directly or by supplying the inputs to
the implementer and receiving the results in response. To determine correctness, the evaluator will
compare the resulting values to those obtained by submitting the same inputs to a known good
implementation.
XTS-AES Test
The evaluator will test the encrypt functionality of XTS-AES for each combination of the following input
parameter lengths:
• 256 bit (for AES-128) and 512 bit (for AES-256) keys
• Three data unit (i.e., plaintext) lengths. One of the data unit lengths shall be a nonzero integer
multiple of 128 bits, if supported. One of the data unit lengths shall be an integer multiple of
128 bits, if supported. The third data unit length shall be either the longest supported data unit
length or 216 bits, whichever is smaller.
using a set of 100 (key, plaintext and 128-bit random tweak value) 3-tuples and obtain the ciphertext
that results from XTS-AES encrypt.
The evaluator may supply a data unit sequence number instead of the tweak value if the
implementation supports it. The data unit sequence number is a base-10 number ranging between 0
and 255 that implementations convert to a tweak value internally.
The evaluator will test the decrypt functionality of XTS-AES using the same test as for encrypt, replacing
plaintext values with ciphertext values and XTS-AES encrypt with XTSAES decrypt.
AES Key Wrap (AES-KW) and Key Wrap with Padding (AES-KWP) Test
The evaluator will test the authenticated encryption functionality of AES-KW for EACH combination of
the following input parameter lengths:
• 128 and 256 bit key encryption keys (KEKs)
• Three plaintext lengths. One of the plaintext lengths shall be two semi-blocks (128 bits). One of
the plaintext lengths shall be three semi-blocks (192 bits). The third data unit length shall be the
longest supported plaintext length less than or equal to 64 semi-blocks (4096 bits).
using a set of 100 key and plaintext pairs and obtain the ciphertext that results from AES-KW
authenticated encryption. To determine correctness, the evaluator will use the AES-KW authenticated-
encryption function of a known good implementation.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 66 of 164
The evaluator will test the authenticated-decryption functionality of AES-KW using the same test as for
authenticated-encryption, replacing plaintext values with ciphertext values and AES-KW authenticated-
encryption with AES-KW authenticated-decryption.
The evaluator will test the authenticated-encryption functionality of AES-KWP using the same test as for
AES-KW authenticated-encryption with the following change in the three plaintext lengths: One
plaintext length shall be one octet.
• One plaintext length shall be 20 octets (160 bits).
• One plaintext length shall be the longest supported plaintext length less than or equal to 512
octets (4096 bits).
The evaluator will test the authenticated-decryption functionality of AESKWP using the same test as for
AES-KWP authenticated-encryption, replacing plaintext values with ciphertext values and AES-KWP
authenticated-encryption with AES-KWP authenticated-decryption.
5.2.2.2.5 Cryptographic Operation for Hashing (FCS_COP.1(HASH))
The evaluator will check that the association of the hash function with other application cryptographic
functions (for example, the digital signature verification function) is documented in the TSS.
The TSF hashing functions can be implemented in one of two modes. The first mode is the byte-oriented
mode. In this mode the TSF only hashes messages that are an integral number of bytes in length; i.e.,
the length (in bits) of the message to be hashed is divisible by 8. The second mode is the bit-oriented
mode. In this mode the TSF hashes messages of arbitrary length. As there are different tests for each
mode, an indication is given in the following sections for the bit-oriented vs. the byte-oriented test
macs. The evaluator will perform all of the following tests for each hash algorithm implemented by the
TSF and used to satisfy the requirements of this PP.
The following tests require the developer to provide access to a test application that provides the
evaluator with tools that are typically not found in the production application.
• Test 1: Short Messages Test (Bit oriented Mode) - The evaluator will generate an input set
consisting of m+1 messages, where m is the block length of the hash algorithm. The length of
the messages range sequentially from 0 to m bits. The message text shall be pseudo-randomly
generated. The evaluator will compute the message digest for each of the messages and ensure
that the correct result is produced when the messages are provided to the TSF.
• Test 2: Short Messages Test (Byte oriented Mode) - The evaluator will generate an input set
consisting of m/8+1 messages, where m is the block length of the hash algorithm. The length of
the messages range sequentially from 0 to m/8 bytes, with each message being an integral
number of bytes. The message text shall be pseudo-randomly generated. The evaluator will
compute the message digest for each of the messages and ensure that the correct result is
produced when the messages are provided to the TSF.
• Test 3: Selected Long Messages Test (Bit oriented Mode) - The evaluator will generate an input
set consisting of m messages, where m is the block length of the hash algorithm. The length of
the ith
message is 512 + 99⋅i, where 1 ≤ i ≤ m. The message text shall be pseudo-randomly
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 67 of 164
generated. The evaluator will compute the message digest for each of the messages and ensure
that the correct result is produced when the messages are provided to the TSF.
• Test 4: Selected Long Messages Test (Byte oriented Mode) - The evaluator will generate an input
set consisting of m/8 messages, where m is the block length of the hash algorithm. The length of
the ith
message is 512 + 8⋅99⋅i, where 1 ≤ i ≤ m/8. The message text shall be pseudo-randomly
generated. The evaluator will compute the message digest for each of the messages and ensure
that the correct result is produced when the messages are provided to the TSF.
• Test 5: Pseudo-randomly Generated Messages Test - This test is for byte-oriented
implementations only. The evaluator will randomly generate a seed that is n bits long, where n
is the length of the message digest produced by the hash function to be tested. The evaluator
will then formulate a set of 100 messages and associated digests by following the algorithm
provided in Figure 1 of [SHAVS]. The evaluator will then ensure that the correct result is
produced when the messages are provided to the TSF.
5.2.2.2.6 Cryptographic Operation for Signing (FCS_COP.1(SIGN))
The evaluator will perform the following activities based on the selections in the ST.
The following tests require the developer to provide access to a test application that provides the
evaluator with tools that are typically not found in the production application.
ECDSA Algorithm Tests
• Test 1: ECDSA FIPS 186-4 Signature Generation Test. For each supported NIST curve (i.e., P-256,
P-384 and P-521) and SHA function pair, the evaluator will generate 10 1024-bit long messages
and obtain for each message a public key and the resulting signature values R and S. To
determine correctness, the evaluator will use the signature verification function of a known
good implementation.
• Test 2: ECDSA FIPS 186-4 Signature Verification Test. For each supported NIST curve (i.e., P-256,
P-384 and P-521) and SHA function pair, the evaluator will generate a set of 10 1024-bit
message, public key and signature tuples and modify one of the values (message, public key or
signature) in five of the 10 tuples. The evaluator will verify that 5 responses indicate success and
5 responses indicate failure.
RSA Signature Algorithm Tests
• Test 1: Signature Generation Test. The evaluator will verify the implementation of RSA Signature
Generation by the OS using the Signature Generation Test. To conduct this test the evaluator
must generate or obtain 10 messages from a trusted reference implementation for each
modulus size/SHA combination supported by the TSF. The evaluator will have the OS use its
private key and modulus value to sign these messages. The evaluator will verify the correctness
of the TSF's signature using a known good implementation and the associated public keys to
verify the signatures.
• Test 2: Signature Verification Test. The evaluator will perform the Signature Verification test to
verify the ability of the OS to recognize another party's valid and invalid signatures. The
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 68 of 164
evaluator will inject errors into the test vectors produced during the Signature Verification Test
by introducing errors in some of the public keys, e, messages, IR format, and/or signatures. The
evaluator will verify that the OS returns failure when validating each signature.
5.2.2.2.7 Cryptographic Operation for Keyed Hash Algorithms (FCS_COP.1(HMAC))
The evaluator will perform the following activities based on the selections in the ST.
For each of the supported parameter sets, the evaluator will compose 15 sets of test data. Each set shall
consist of a key and message data. The evaluator will have the OS generate HMAC tags for these sets of
test data. The resulting MAC tags shall be compared against the result of generating HMAC tags with the
same key and IV using a known-good implementation
5.2.2.2.8 Random Bit Generation (FCS_RBG_EXT.1)
FCS_RBG_EXT.1.1
The evaluator will perform the following tests:
The evaluator will perform 15 trials for the RNG implementation. If the RNG is configurable, the
evaluator will perform 15 trials for each configuration. The evaluator will also confirm that the
operational guidance contains appropriate instructions for configuring the RNG functionality.
If the RNG has prediction resistance enabled, each trial consists of (1) instantiate DRBG, (2) generate the
first block of random bits (3) generate a second block of random bits (4) un-instantiate. The evaluator
verifies that the second block of random bits is the expected value. The evaluator will generate eight
input values for each trial. The first is a count (0 – 14). The next three are entropy input, nonce, and
personalization string for the instantiate operation. The next two are additional input and entropy input
for the first call to generate. The final two are additional input and entropy input for the second call to
generate. These values are randomly generated. "generate one block of random bits" means to
generate random bits with number of returned bits equal to the Output Block Length (as defined in NIST
SP 800-90A).
If the RNG does not have prediction resistance, each trial consists of (1) instantiate DRBG, (2) generate
the first block of random bits (3) reseed, (4) generate a second block of random bits (5) un-instantiate.
The evaluator verifies that the second block of random bits is the expected value. The evaluator will
generate eight input values for each trial. The first is a count (0 – 14). The next three are entropy input,
nonce, and personalization string for the instantiate operation. The fifth value is additional input to the
first call to generate. The sixth and seventh are additional input and entropy input to the call to reseed.
The final value is additional input to the second generate call.
The following list contains more information on some of the input values to be generated/selected by
the evaluator.
• Entropy input: The length of the entropy input value must equal the seed length.
• Nonce: If a nonce is supported (CTR_DRBG with no Derivation Function does not use a nonce),
the nonce bit length is one-half the seed length.
• Personalization string: The length of the personalization string must be less than or equal to
seed length. If the implementation only supports one personalization string length, then the
same length can be used for both values. If more than one string length is support, the evaluator
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 69 of 164
will use personalization strings of two different lengths. If the implementation does not use a
personalization string, no value needs to be supplied.
• Additional input: The additional input bit lengths have the same defaults and restrictions as the
personalization string lengths.
FCS_RBG_EXT.1.2
Documentation shall be produced - and the evaluator will perform the activities - in accordance with
Appendix E and the Clarification to the Entropy Documentation and Assessment Annex. In the future,
specific statistical testing (in line with NIST SP 800-90B) will be required to verify the entropy estimates.
5.2.2.2.9 Storage of Sensitive Data (FCS_STO_EXT.1)
The evaluator will check the TSS to ensure that it lists all persistent sensitive data for which the OS
provides a storage capability. For each of these items, the evaluator will confirm that the TSS lists for
what purpose it can be used, and how it is stored. The evaluator will confirm that cryptographic
operations used to protect the data occur as specified in FCS_COP.1(1).
The evaluator will also consult the developer documentation to verify that an interface exists for
applications to securely store credentials.
5.2.2.2.10 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.1)
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.1
The evaluator will check the description of the implementation of this protocol in the TSS to ensure that
the cipher suites supported are specified. The evaluator will check the TSS to ensure that the cipher
suites specified include those listed for this component. The evaluator will also check the operational
guidance to ensure that it contains instructions on configuring the OS so that TLS conforms to the
description in the TSS. The evaluator will also perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator will establish a TLS connection using each of the cipher suites specified by
the requirement. This connection may be established as part of the establishment of a higher-
level protocol, e.g., as part of an EAP session. It is sufficient to observe the successful
negotiation of a cipher suite to satisfy the intent of the test; it is not necessary to examine the
characteristics of the encrypted traffic in an attempt to discern the cipher suite being used (for
example, that the cryptographic algorithm is 128-bit AES and not 256bit AES).
• Test 2: The evaluator will attempt to establish the connection using a server with a server
certificate that contains the Server Authentication purpose in the extendedKeyUsage field and
verify that a connection is established. The evaluator will then verify that the client rejects an
otherwise valid server certificate that lacks the Server Authentication purpose in the
extendedKeyUsage field and a connection is not established. Ideally, the two certificates should
be identical except for the extendedKeyUsage field.
• Test 3: The evaluator will send a server certificate in the TLS connection that does not match the
server-selected cipher suite (for example, send a ECDSA certificate while using the
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA cipher suite or send a RSA certificate while using one of the
ECDSA cipher suites.) The evaluator will verify that the OS disconnects after receiving the
server's Certificate handshake message.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 70 of 164
• Test 4: The evaluator will configure the server to select the TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL cipher
suite and verify that the client denies the connection.
• Test 5: The evaluator will perform the following modifications to the traffic:
o Test 5.1: Change the TLS version selected by the server in the Server Hello to a non-
supported TLS version (for example 1.3 represented by the two bytes 03 04) and verify
that the client rejects the connection.
o Test 5.2: Modify at least one byte in the server's nonce in the Server Hello handshake
message, and verify that the client rejects the Server Key Exchange handshake message
(if using a DHE or ECDHE cipher suite) or that the server denies the client's Finished
handshake message.
o Test 5.3: Modify the server's selected cipher suite in the Server Hello handshake
message to be a cipher suite not presented in the Client Hello handshake message. The
evaluator will verify that the client rejects the connection after receiving the Server
Hello.
o Test 5.4: If an ECDHE or DHE ciphersuite is selected, modify the signature block in the
Server's Key Exchange handshake message, and verify that the client rejects the
connection after receiving the Server Key Exchange message.
o Test 5.5: Modify a byte in the Server Finished handshake message, and verify that the
client sends a fatal alert upon receipt and does not send any application data.
o Test 5.6: Send a garbled message from the Server after the Server has issued the Change
Cipher Spec message and verify that the client denies the connection.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.2
The evaluator will ensure that the TSS describes the client's method of establishing all reference
identifiers from the application-configured reference identifier, including which types of reference
identifiers are supported (e.g. Common Name, DNS Name, URI Name, Service Name, or other
application-specific Subject Alternative Names) and whether IP addresses and wildcards are supported.
The evaluator will ensure that this description identifies whether and the manner in which certificate
pinning is supported or used by the OS.
The evaluator will verify that the AGD guidance includes instructions for setting the reference identifier
to be used for the purposes of certificate validation in TLS.
The evaluator will configure the reference identifier according to the AGD guidance and perform the
following tests during a TLS connection:
• Test 1: The evaluator will present a server certificate that does not contain an identifier in either
the Subject Alternative Name (SAN) or Common Name (CN) that matches the reference
identifier. The evaluator will verify that the connection fails.
• Test 2: The evaluator will present a server certificate that contains a CN that matches the
reference identifier, contains the SAN extension, but does not contain an identifier in the SAN
that matches the reference identifier. The evaluator shall verify that the connection fails. The
evaluator will repeat this test for each supported SAN type.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 71 of 164
• Test 3: [conditional] If the TOE does not mandate the presence of the SAN extension, the
evaluator will present a server certificate that contains a CN that matches the reference
identifier and does not contain the SAN extension. The evaluator will verify that the connection
succeeds. If the TOE mandates the presence of the SAN extension, this test shall be omitted.
• Test 4: The evaluator will present a server certificate that contains a CN that does not match the
reference identifier but does contain an identifier in the SAN that matches. The evaluator will
verify that the connection succeeds.
• Test 5: The evaluator will perform the following wildcard tests with each supported type of
reference identifier:
o Test 5.1: The evaluator will present a server certificate containing a wildcard that is not
in the left-most label of the presented identifier (e.g. foo.*.example.com) and verify that
the connection fails.
o Test 5.2: The evaluator will present a server certificate containing a wildcard in the left-
most label but not preceding the public suffix (e.g. *.example.com). The evaluator will
configure the reference identifier with a single left-most label (e.g. foo.example.com)
and verify that the connection succeeds. The evaluator will configure the reference
identifier without a leftmost label as in the certificate (e.g. example.com) and verify that
the connection fails. The evaluator will configure the reference identifier with two left-
most labels (e.g. bar.foo.example.com) and verify that the connection fails.
o Test 5.3: The evaluator will present a server certificate containing a wildcard in the left-
most label immediately preceding the public suffix (e.g. *.com). The evaluator will
configure the reference identifier with a single left-most label (e.g. foo.com) and verify
that the connection fails. The evaluator will configure the reference identifier with two
left-most labels (e.g. bar.foo.com) and verify that the connection fails.
• Test 6: [conditional] If URI or Service name reference identifiers are supported, the evaluator
will configure the DNS name and the service identifier. The evaluator will present a server
certificate containing the correct DNS name and service identifier in the URIName or SRVName
fields of the SAN and verify that the connection succeeds. The evaluator will repeat this test
with the wrong service identifier (but correct DNS name) and verify that the connection fails.
• Test 7: [conditional] If pinned certificates are supported the evaluator will present a certificate
that does not match the pinned certificate and verify that the connection fails.
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.3
The evaluator will use TLS as a function to verify that the validation rules in FIA_X509_EXT.1.1 are
adhered to and shall perform the following additional test:
• Test 1: The evaluator will demonstrate that a peer using a certificate without a valid certification
path results in an authenticate failure. Using the administrative guidance, the evaluator will then
load the trusted CA certificate(s) needed to validate the peer's certificate, and demonstrate that
the connection succeeds. The evaluator then shall delete one of the CA certificates, and show
that the connection fails.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 72 of 164
• Test 2: The evaluator will demonstrate that a peer using a certificate which has been revoked
results in an authentication failure.
• Test 3: The evaluator will demonstrate that a peer using a certificate which has passed its
expiration date results in an authentication failure.
• Test 4: the evaluator will demonstrate that a peer using a certificate which does not have a valid
identifier shall result in an authentication failure.
5.2.2.2.11 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.2)
The evaluator will verify that TSS describes the supported Elliptic Curves Extension and whether the
required behavior is performed by default or may be configured. If the TSS indicates that the supported
Elliptic Curves Extension must be configured to meet the requirement, the evaluator will verify that AGD
guidance includes configuration of the supported Elliptic Curves Extension.
The evaluator will also perform the following test: The evaluator will configure a server to perform
ECDHE key exchange using each of the TOE's supported curves and shall verify that the TOE successfully
connects to the server.
5.2.2.2.12 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.3)
The evaluator will verify that TSS describes the signature_algorithm extension and whether the required
behavior is performed by default or may be configured. If the TSS indicates that the signature_algorithm
extension must be configured to meet the requirement, the evaluator will verify that AGD guidance
includes configuration of the signature_algorithm extension.
The evaluator will also perform the following test: The evaluator will configure the server to send a
certificate in the TLS connection that is not supported according to the Client's HashAlgorithm
enumeration within the signature_algorithms extension (for example, send a certificate with a SHA-1
signature). The evaluator will verify that the OS disconnects after receiving the server's Certificate
handshake message.
5.2.2.2.13 TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.4)
The evaluator will ensure that the TSS description required per FIA_X509_EXT.2.1 includes the use of
client-side certificates for TLS mutual authentication.
The evaluator will verify that the AGD guidance required per FIA_X509_EXT.2.1 includes instructions for
configuring the client-side certificates for TLS mutual authentication.
The evaluator will also perform the following test:
• Test 1: The evaluator will establish a connection to a peer server that is not configured for
mutual authentication (i.e. does not send Server's Certificate Request (type 13) message). The
evaluator observes negotiation of a TLS channel and confirms that the TOE did not send Client's
Certificate message (type 11) during handshake.
• Test 2: The evaluator will establish a connection to a peer server with a shared trusted root that
is configured for mutual authentication (i.e. it sends Server's Certificate Request (type 13)
message). The evaluator observes negotiation of a TLS channel and confirms that the TOE
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 73 of 164
responds with a non-empty Client's Certificate message (type 11) and Certificate Verify (type 15)
messages.
5.2.2.2.14 DTLS Implementation (FCS_DTLS_EXT.1)
FCS_DTLS_EXT.1.1
Test 1: The evaluator will attempt to establish a connection with a DTLS server, observe the traffic with a
packet analyzer, and verify that the connection succeeds and that the traffic is identified as DTLS.
Other tests are performed in conjunction with the evaluation activity listed for FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.
FCS_DTLS_EXT.1.2
The evaluator will perform the assurance activities listed for FCS_TLSC_EXT.1.
5.2.2.3 User Data Protection (FDP)
5.2.2.3.1 Access Controls for Protecting User Data (FDP_ACF_EXT.1)
The evaluator will confirm that the TSS comprehensively describes the access control policy enforced by
the OS. The description must include the rules by which accesses to particular files and directories are
determined for particular users. The evaluator will inspect the TSS to ensure that it describes the access
control rules in such detail that given any possible scenario between a user and a file governed by the
OS the access control decision is unambiguous.
The evaluator will create two new standard user accounts on the system and conduct the following
tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator will authenticate to the system as the first user and create a file within
that user's home directory. The evaluator will then log off the system and log in as the second
user. The evaluator will then attempt to read the file created in the first user's home directory.
The evaluator will ensure that the read attempt is denied.
• Test 2: The evaluator will authenticate to the system as the first user and create a file within
that user's home directory. The evaluator will then log off the system and log in as the second
user. The evaluator will then attempt to modify the file created in the first user's home
directory. The evaluator will ensure that the modification is denied.
• Test 3: The evaluator will authenticate to the system as the first user and create a file within
that user's user directory. The evaluator will then log off the system and log in as the second
user. The evaluator will then attempt to delete the file created in the first user's home directory.
The evaluator will ensure that the deletion is denied.
• Test 4: The evaluator will authenticate to the system as the first user. The evaluator will attempt
to create a file in the second user's home directory. The evaluator will ensure that the creation
of the file is denied.
• Test 5: The evaluator will authenticate to the system as the first user and attempt to modify the
file created in the first user's home directory. The evaluator will ensure that the modification of
the file is accepted.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 74 of 164
• Test 6: The evaluator will authenticate to the system as the first user and attempt to delete the
file created in the first user's directory. The evaluator will ensure that the deletion of the file is
accepted.
5.2.2.3.2 Information Flow Control (FDP_IFC_EXT.1)
The evaluator will verify that the TSS section of the ST describes the routing of IP traffic when a VPN
client is enabled. The evaluator will ensure that the description indicates which traffic does not go
through the VPN and which traffic does, and that a configuration exists for each in which only the traffic
identified by the ST author as necessary for establishing the VPN connection (IKE traffic and perhaps
HTTPS or DNS traffic) is not encapsulated by the VPN protocol (IPsec). The evaluator will perform the
following test:
• Test 1:
o Step 1: The evaluator will enable a network connection. The evaluator will sniff packets
while performing running applications that use the network such as web browsers and
email clients. The evaluator will verify that the sniffer captures the traffic generated by
these actions, turn off the sniffing tool, and save the session data.
o Step 2: The evaluator will configure an IPsec VPN client that supports the routing
specified in this requirement. The evaluator will turn on the sniffing tool, establish the
VPN connection, and perform the same actions with the device as performed in the first
step. The evaluator will verify that the sniffing tool captures traffic generated by these
actions, turn off the sniffing tool, and save the session data.
o Step 3: The evaluator will examine the traffic from both step one and step two to verify
that all non-excepted Data Plane traffic in Step 2 is encapsulated by IPsec. The evaluator
will examine the Security Parameter Index (SPI) value present in the encapsulated
packets captured in Step 2 from the TOE to the Gateway and shall verify this value is the
same for all actions used to generate traffic through the VPN. Note that it is expected
that the SPI value for packets from the Gateway to the TOE is different than the SPI
value for packets from the TOE to the Gateway.
o Step 4: The evaluator will perform a ping on the TOE host on the local network and
verify that no packets sent are captured with the sniffer. The evaluator will attempt to
send packets to the TOE outside the VPN tunnel (i.e. not through the VPN gateway),
including from the local network, and verify that the TOE discards them.
5.2.2.4 Identification and Authentication (FIA)
5.2.2.4.1 Authentication Failure Handling (FIA_AFL.1)
FIA_AFL.1.1
The evaluator will set an administrator-configurable threshold for failed attempts, or note the ST-
specified assignment. The evaluator will then (per selection) repeatedly attempt to authenticate with an
incorrect password, PIN, or certificate until the number of attempts reaches the threshold. Note that the
authentication attempts and lockouts must also be logged as specified in FAU_GEN.1.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 75 of 164
FIA_AFL.1.2
• Test 1: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate repeatedly to the system with a known bad
password. Once the defined number of failed authentication attempts has been reached the
evaluator will ensure that the account that was being used for testing has had the actions
detailed in the assignment list above applied to it. The evaluator will ensure that an event has
been logged to the security event log detailing that the account has had these actions applied.
• Test 2: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate repeatedly to the system with a known bad
certificate. Once the defined number of failed authentication attempts has been reached the
evaluator will ensure that the account that was being used for testing has had the actions
detailed in the assignment list above applied to it. The evaluator will ensure that an event has
been logged to the security event log detailing that the account has had these actions applied.
• Test 3: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate repeatedly to the system using both a bad
password and a bad certificate. Once the defined number of failed authentication attempts has
been reached the evaluator will ensure that the account that was being used for testing has had
the actions detailed in the assignment list above applied to it. The evaluator will ensure that an
event has been logged to the security event log detailing that the account has had these actions
applied.
5.2.2.4.2 Multiple Authentication Mechanisms (FIA_UAU.5)
FIA_UAU.5.1
If user name and password authentication is selected, the evaluator will configure the OS with a known
user name and password and conduct the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate to the OS using the known user name and
password. The evaluator will ensure that the authentication attempt is successful.
• Test 2: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate to the OS using the known user name but an
incorrect password. The evaluator will ensure that the authentication attempt is unsuccessful.
If user name and PIN that releases an asymmetric key is selected, the evaluator will examine the TSS for
guidance on supported protected storage and will then configure the TOE or OE to establish a PIN which
enables release of the asymmetric key from the protected storage (such as a TPM, a hardware token, or
isolated execution environment) with which the OS can interface. The evaluator will then conduct the
following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate to the OS using the known user name and
PIN. The evaluator will ensure that the authentication attempt is successful.
• Test 2: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate to the OS using the known user name but an
incorrect PIN. The evaluator will ensure that the authentication attempt is unsuccessful.
If X.509 certificate authentication is selected, the evaluator will generate an X.509v3 certificate for a
user with the Client Authentication Enhanced Key Usage field set. The evaluator will provision the OS for
authentication with the X.509v3 certificate. The evaluator will ensure that the certificates are validated
by the OS as per FIA_X509_EXT.1.1 and then conduct the following tests:
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 76 of 164
• Test 1: The evaluator will attempt to authenticate to the OS using the X.509v3 certificate. The
evaluator will ensure that the authentication attempt is successful.
• Test 2: The evaluator will generate a second certificate identical to the first except for the public
key and any values derived from the public key. The evaluator will attempt to authenticate to
the OS with this certificate. The evaluator will ensure that the authentication attempt is
unsuccessful.
FIA_UAU.5.2
The evaluator will ensure that the TSS describes each mechanism provided to support user
authentication and the rules describing how the authentication mechanism(s) provide authentication.
The evaluator will verify that configuration guidance for each authentication mechanism is addressed in
the AGD guidance.
• Test 1: For each authentication mechanism selected, the evaluator will enable that mechanism
and verify that it can be used to authenticate the user at the specified authentication factor
interfaces.
• Test 2: For each authentication mechanism rule, the evaluator will ensure that the
authentication mechanism(s) behave as documented in the TSS.
5.2.2.4.3 X.509 Certification Validation (FIA_X509_EXT.1)
FIA_X509_EXT.1.1
The evaluator will ensure the TSS describes where the check of validity of the certificates takes place.
The evaluator ensures the TSS also provides a description of the certificate path validation algorithm.
The tests described must be performed in conjunction with the other certificate services evaluation
activities, including the functions in FIA_X509_EXT.2.1. The tests for the extendedKeyUsage rules are
performed in conjunction with the uses that require those rules. The evaluator will create a chain of at
least four certificates: the node certificate to be tested, two Intermediate CAs, and the self-signed Root
CA.
• Test 1: The evaluator will demonstrate that validating a certificate without a valid certification
path results in the function failing. The evaluator will then load a certificate or certificates as
trusted CAs needed to validate the certificate to be used in the function, and demonstrate that
the function succeeds. The evaluator shall then delete one of the certificates, and show that the
function fails.
• Test 2: The evaluator will demonstrate that validating an expired certificate results in the
function failing.
• Test 3: The evaluator will test that the OS can properly handle revoked certificates-–conditional
on whether CRL, OCSP, or OCSP stapling is selected; if multiple methods are selected, then a test
shall be performed for each method. The evaluator will test revocation of the node certificate
and revocation of the intermediate CA certificate (i.e. the intermediate CA certificate should be
revoked by the root CA). The evaluator will ensure that a valid certificate is used, and that the
validation function succeeds. The evaluator then attempts the test with a certificate that has
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 77 of 164
been revoked (for each method chosen in the selection) to ensure when the certificate is no
longer valid that the validation function fails.
• Test 4: If either OCSP option is selected, the evaluator will configure the OCSP server or use a
man-in-the-middle tool to present a certificate that does not have the OCSP signing purpose and
verify that validation of the OCSP response fails. If CRL is selected, the evaluator will configure
the CA to sign a CRL with a certificate that does not have the cRLsign key usage bit set, and
verify that validation of the CRL fails.
• Test 5: The evaluator will modify any byte in the first eight bytes of the certificate and
demonstrate that the certificate fails to validate. (The certificate should fail to parse correctly.)
• Test 6: The evaluator will modify any byte in the last byte of the certificate and demonstrate
that the certificate fails to validate. (The signature on the certificate should not validate.)
• Test 7: The evaluator will modify any byte in the public key of the certificate and demonstrate
that the certificate fails to validate. (The signature on the certificate should not validate.)
FIA_X509_EXT.1.2
The tests described must be performed in conjunction with the other certificate services assurance
activities, including the functions in FIA_X509_EXT.2.1. The evaluator will create a chain of at least four
certificates: the node certificate to be tested, two Intermediate CAs, and the self-signed Root CA.
• Test 1: The evaluator will construct a certificate path, such that the certificate of the CA issuing
the OS's certificate does not contain the basicConstraints extension. The validation of the
certificate path fails.
• Test 2: The evaluator will construct a certificate path, such that the certificate of the CA issuing
the OS's certificate has the CA flag in the basicConstraints extension not set. The validation of
the certificate path fails.
• Test 3: The evaluator will construct a certificate path, such that the certificate of the CA issuing
the OS's certificate has the CA flag in the basicConstraints extension set to TRUE. The validation
of the certificate path succeeds.
5.2.2.4.4 X.509 Certificate Authentication (FIA_X509_EXT.2)
The evaluator will acquire or develop an application that uses the OS TLS mechanism with an X.509v3
certificate. The evaluator will then run the application and ensure that the provided certificate is used to
authenticate the connection.
The evaluator will repeat the activity for any other selections listed.
5.2.2.5 Security Management (FMT)
5.2.2.5.1 Management of Security Functions Behavior (FMT_MOF_EXT.1)
The evaluator will verify that the TSS describes those management functions that are restricted to
Administrators, including how the user is prevented from performing those functions, or not able to use
any interfaces that allow access to that function.
• Test 1: For each function that is indicated as restricted to the administrator, the evaluation shall
perform the function as an administrator, as specified in the Operational Guidance, and
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 78 of 164
determine that it has the expected effect as outlined by the Operational Guidance and the SFR.
The evaluator will then perform the function (or otherwise attempt to access the function) as a
non-administrator and observe that they are unable to invoke that functionality.
5.2.2.5.2 Specification of Management Functions (FMT_SMF_EXT.1)
The evaluator will verify that every management function captured in the ST is described in the
operational guidance and that the description contains the information required to perform the
management duties associated with the management function. The evaluator will test the OS's ability to
provide the management functions by configuring the operating system and testing each option
selected from above. The evaluator is expected to test these functions in all the ways in which the ST
and guidance documentation state the configuration can be managed.
5.2.2.6 Protection of the TSF (FPT)
5.2.2.6.1 Access Controls (FPT_ACF_EXT.1)
FPT_ACF_EXT.1.1
The evaluator will confirm that the TSS specifies the locations of kernel drivers/modules, security audit
logs, shared libraries, system executables, and system configuration files. Every file does not need to be
individually identified, but the system's conventions for storing and protecting such files must be
specified. The evaluator will create an unprivileged user account. Using this account, the evaluator will
ensure that the following tests result in a negative outcome (i.e., the action results in the OS denying the
evaluator permission to complete the action):
• Test 1: The evaluator will attempt to modify all kernel drivers and modules.
• Test 2: The evaluator will attempt to modify all security audit logs generated by the logging
subsystem.
• Test 3: The evaluator will attempt to modify all shared libraries that are used throughout the
system.
• Test 4: The evaluator will attempt to modify all system executables.
• Test 5: The evaluator will attempt to modify all system configuration files. Test 6: The evaluator
will attempt to modify any additional components selected.
FPT_ACF_EXT.1.2
The evaluator will create an unprivileged user account. Using this account, the evaluator will ensure that
the following tests result in a negative outcome (i.e., the action results in the OS denying the evaluator
permission to complete the action):
• Test 1: The evaluator will attempt to read security audit logs generated by the auditing
subsystem
• Test 2: The evaluator will attempt to read system-wide credential repositories
• Test 3: The evaluator will attempt to read any other object specified in the assignment.
5.2.2.6.2 Address Space Layout Randomization (FPT_ASLR_EXT.1)
The evaluator will select 3 executables included with the TSF. If the TSF includes a web browser it must
be selected. If the TSF includes a mail client it must be selected. For each of these apps, the evaluator
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 79 of 164
will launch the same executables on two separate instances of the OS on identical hardware and
compare all memory mapping locations. The evaluator will ensure that no memory mappings are placed
in the same location. If the rare chance occurs that two mappings are the same for a single executable
and not the same for the other two, the evaluator will repeat the test with that executable to verify that
in the second test the mappings are different. This test can also be completed on the same hardware
and rebooting between application launches.
5.2.2.6.3 Stack Buffer Overflow Protection (FPT_SBOP_EXT.1)
For stack-based OSes, the evaluator will determine that the TSS contains a description of stack-based
buffer overflow protections used by the OS. These are referred to by a variety of terms, such as stack
cookie, stack guard, and stack canaries. The TSS must include a rationale for any binaries that are not
protected in this manner. The evaluator will also preform the following test:
• Test 1: The evaluator will inventory the kernel, libraries, and application binaries to determine
those that do not implement stack-based buffer overflow protections. This list should match up
with the list provided in the TSS.
For OSes that store parameters/variables separately from control flow values, the evaluator will verify
that the TSS describes what data structures control values, parameters, and variables are stored. The
evaluator will also ensure that the TSS includes a description of the safeguards that ensure parameters
and variables do not intermix with control flow values.
5.2.2.6.4 Software Restriction Policies (FPT_SRP_EXT.1)
For each selection specified in the ST, the evaluator will ensure that the corresponding tests result in a
negative outcome (i.e., the action results in the OS denying the evaluator permission to complete the
action):
• Test 1: The evaluator will configure the OS to only allow code execution from the core OS
directories. The evaluator will then attempt to execute code from a directory that is in the
allowed list. The evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has been
executed.
• Test 2: The evaluator will configure the OS to only allow code execution from the core OS
directories. The evaluator will then attempt to execute code from a directory that is not in the
allowed list. The evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has not been
executed.
• Test 3: The evaluator will configure the OS to only allow code that has been signed by the OS
vendor to execute. The evaluator will then attempt to execute code signed by the OS vendor.
The evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has been executed.
• Test 4: The evaluator will configure the OS to only allow code that has been signed by the OS
vendor to execute. The evaluator will then attempt to execute code signed by another digital
authority. The evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has not been
executed.
• Test 5: The evaluator will configure the OS to allow execution of a specific application based on
version. The evaluator will then attempt to execute the same version of the application. The
evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has been executed.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 80 of 164
• Test 6: The evaluator will configure the OS to allow execution of a specific application based on
version. The evaluator will then attempt to execute an older version of the application. The
evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has not been executed.
• Test 7: The evaluator will configure the OS to allow execution based on the hash of the
application executable. The evaluator will then attempt to execute the application with the
matching hash. The evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has been
executed.
• Test 8: The evaluator will configure the OS to allow execution based on the hash of the
application executable. The evaluator will modify the application in such a way that the
application hash is changed. The evaluator will then attempt to execute the application with the
matching hash. The evaluator will ensure that the code they attempted to execute has not been
executed.
5.2.2.6.5 Boot Integrity (FPT_TST_EXT.1)
The evaluator will verify that the TSS section of the ST includes a comprehensive description of the boot
procedures, including a description of the entire bootchain, for the TSF. The evaluator will ensure that
the OS cryptographically verifies each piece of software it loads in the bootchain to include bootloaders
and the kernel. Software loaded for execution directly by the platform (e.g. first-stage bootloaders) is
out of scope. For each additional category of executable code verified before execution, the evaluator
will verify that the description in the TSS describes how that software is cryptographically verified.
The evaluator will verify that the TSS contains a description of the protection afforded to the mechanism
performing the cryptographic verification.
The evaluator will perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator will perform actions to cause TSF software to load and observe that the
integrity mechanism does not flag any executables as containing integrity errors and that the OS
properly boots.
• Test 2: The evaluator will modify a TSF executable that is part of the bootchain verified by the
TSF (i.e. Not the first-stage bootloader) and attempt to boot. The evaluator will ensure that an
integrity violation is triggered and the OS does not boot (Care must be taken so that the
integrity violation is determined to be the cause of the failure to load the module, and not the
fact that in such a way to invalidate the structure of the module.).
• Test 3: If the ST author indicates that the integrity verification is performed using a public key,
the evaluator will verify that the update mechanism includes a certificate validation according to
FIA_X509_EXT.1.
5.2.2.6.6 Trusted Update (FPT_TUD_EXT.1)
FPT_TUD_EXT.1.1
The evaluator will check for an update using procedures described in the documentation and verify that
the OS provides a list of available updates. Testing this capability may require installing and temporarily
placing the system into a configuration in conflict with secure configuration guidance which specifies
automatic update. The evaluator is also to ensure that the response to this query is authentic by using a
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 81 of 164
digital signature scheme specified in FCS_COP.1(3 SIGN). The digital signature verification may be
performed as part of a network protocol. If the signature verification is not performed as part of a
trusted channel, the evaluator shall send a query response with a bad signature and verify that the
signature verification fails. The evaluator shall then send a query response with a good signature and
verify that the signature verification is successful.
FPT_TUD_EXT.1.2
For the following tests, the evaluator will initiate the download of an update and capture the update
prior to installation. The download could originate from the vendor's website, an enterprise-hosted
update repository, or another system (e.g. network peer). All supported origins for the update must be
indicated in the TSS and evaluated.
• Test 1: The evaluator will ensure that the update has a digital signature belonging to the vendor
prior to its installation. The evaluator will modify the downloaded update in such a way that the
digital signature is no longer valid. The evaluator will then attempt to install the modified
update. The evaluator will ensure that the OS does not install the modified update.
• Test 2: The evaluator will ensure that the update has a digital signature belonging to the vendor.
The evaluator will then attempt to install the update (or permit installation to continue). The
evaluator will ensure that the OS successfully installs the update.
5.2.2.6.7 Trusted Update for Application Software (FPT_TUD_EXT.2)
FPT_TUD_EXT.2.1
The evaluator will check for updates to application software using procedures described in the
documentation and verify that the OS provides a list of available updates. Testing this capability may
require temporarily placing the system into a configuration in conflict with secure configuration
guidance which specifies automatic update. The evaluator is also to ensure that the response to this
query is authentic by using a digital signature scheme specified in FCS_COP.1(3 SIGN). The digital
signature verification may be performed as part of a network protocol. If the signature verification is not
performed as part of a trusted channel, the evaluator shall send a query response with a bad signature
and verify that the signature verification fails. The evaluator shall then send a query response with a
good signature and verify that the signature verification is successful
FPT_TUD_EXT.2.2
The evaluator will initiate an update to an application. This may vary depending on the application, but it
could be through the application vendor's website, a commercial app store, or another system. All
origins supported by the OS must be indicated in the TSS and evaluated. However, this only includes
those mechanisms for which the OS is providing a trusted installation and update functionality. It does
not include user or administrator-driven download and installation of arbitrary files.
• Test 1: The evaluator will ensure that the update has a digital signature which chains to the OS
vendor or another trusted root managed through the OS. The evaluator will modify the
downloaded update in such a way that the digital signature is no longer valid. The evaluator will
then attempt to install the modified update. The evaluator will ensure that the OS does not
install the modified update.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 82 of 164
• Test 2: The evaluator will ensure that the update has a digital signature belonging to the OS
vendor or another trusted root managed through the OS. The evaluator will then attempt to
install the update. The evaluator will ensure that the OS successfully installs the update.
5.2.2.7 TOE Access (FTA)
5.2.2.7.1 Default TOE Access Banners (FTA_TAB.1)
The evaluator will configure the OS, per instructions in the OS manual, to display the advisory warning
message "TEST TEST Warning Message TEST TEST". The evaluator will then log out and confirm that the
advisory message is displayed before logging in can occur.
5.2.2.8 Trusted Path / Channels (FTP)
5.2.2.8.1 Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1)
The evaluator will configure the OS to communicate with another trusted IT product as identified in the
second selection. The evaluator will monitor network traffic while the OS performs communication with
each of the servers identified in the second selection. The evaluator will ensure that for each session a
trusted channel was established in conformance with the protocols identified in the first selection.
5.2.2.8.2 Trusted Path (FTP_TRP.1)
The evaluator will examine the TSS to determine that the methods of remote OS administration are
indicated, along with how those communications are protected. The evaluator will also confirm that all
protocols listed in the TSS in support of OS administration are consistent with those specified in the
requirement, and are included in the requirements in the ST. The evaluator will confirm that the
operational guidance contains instructions for establishing the remote administrative sessions for each
supported method. The evaluator will also perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator will ensure that communications using each remote administration
method is tested during the course of the evaluation, setting up the connections as described in
the operational guidance and ensuring that communication is successful.
• Test 2: For each method of remote administration supported, the evaluator will follow the
operational guidance to ensure that there is no available interface that can be used by a remote
user to establish a remote administrative sessions without invoking the trusted path.
• Test 3: The evaluator will ensure, for each method of remote administration, the channel data is
not sent in plaintext.
• Test 4: The evaluator will ensure, for each method of remote administration, modification of the
channel data is detected by the OS.
5.2.3 WLAN Client EP Assurance Activities
This section copies the assurance activities from the WLAN Client extended package in order to ease
reading and comparisons between the extended package and the security target s.
5.2.3.1 Security Audit (FAU)
5.2.3.1.1 Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1 (WLAN))
Design / TSS
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 83 of 164
There are no TSS assurance activities for this SFR.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check the operational guidance and ensure that it lists all of the auditable events and
provides a format for audit records. Each audit record format type must be covered, along with a brief
description of each field The evaluator shall check to make sure that every audit event type mandated
by the EP is described and that the description of the fields contains the information required in
FAU_GEN.1.2, and the additional information specified in Table 2.
The evaluator shall in particular ensure that the operational guidance is clear in relation to the contents
for failed cryptographic events. In Table 2, information detailing the cryptographic mode of operation
and a name or identifier for the object being encrypted is required. The evaluator shall ensure that
name or identifier is sufficient to allow an administrator reviewing the audit log to determine the
context of the cryptographic operation (for example, performed during a key negotiation exchange,
performed when encrypting data for transit) as well as the non-TOE endpoint of the connection for
cryptographic failures relating to communications with other IT systems.
The evaluator shall also make a determination of the administrative actions that are relevant in the
context of this EP. The TOE may contain functionality that is not evaluated in the context of this EP
because the functionality is not specified in an SFR. This functionality may have administrative aspects
that are described in the operational guidance. Since such administrative actions will not be performed
in an evaluated configuration of the TOE, the evaluator shall examine the operational guidance and
make a determination of which administrative commands, including subcommands, scripts, and
configuration files, are related to the configuration (including enabling or disabling) of the mechanisms
implemented in the TOE that are necessary to enforce the requirements specified in the EP, which thus
form the set of “all administrative actions”. The evaluator may perform this activity as part of the
activities associated with ensuring the AGD_OPE guidance satisfies the requirements.
Tests
The evaluator shall test the TOE’s ability to correctly generate audit records by having the TOE generate
audit records in accordance with the assurance activities associated with the functional requirements in
this EP. When verifying the test results, the evaluator shall ensure the audit records generated during
testing match the format specified in the administrative guide, and that the fields in each audit record
have the proper entries.
Note that the testing here can be accomplished in conjunction with the testing of the security
mechanisms directly. For example, testing performed to ensure that the administrative guidance
provided is correct verifies that AGD_OPE.1 is satisfied and should address the invocation of the
administrative actions that are needed to verify the audit records are generated as expected.
5.2.3.2 Cryptographic Support (FCS)
5.2.3.2.1 Cryptographic Key Generation for WPA2 Connections (FCS_CKM.1(WLAN))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.1(WLAN) corresponds to FCS_CKM.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT EP.
Design / TSS
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 84 of 164
The evaluator shall verify that the TSS describes how the primitives defined and implemented by this EP
are used by the TOE in establishing and maintaining secure connectivity to the wireless clients . The TSS
shall also provide a description of the developer’s method(s) of assuring that their implementation
conforms to the cryptographic standards; this includes not only testing done by the developing
organization, but also any third-party testing that is performed.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD assurance activities for this SFR.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator shall configure the access point so the crypto-period of the session key is 1
hour. The evaluator shall successfully connect the TOE to the access point and maintain the
connection for a length of time that is greater than the configured crypto-period. The evaluator
shall use a packet capture tool to determine that after the configured crypto-period, a re-
negotiation is initiated to establish a new session key. Finally, the evaluator shall determine that
the renegotiation has been successful and the client continues communication with the access
point.
• Test 2: The evaluator shall perform the following test using a packet sniffing tool to collect
frames between the TOE and a wireless LAN access point:
Step 1: The evaluator shall configure the access point to an unused channel and configure the
WLAN sniffer to sniff only on that channel (i.e., lock the sniffer on the selected channel). The
sniffer should also be configured to filter on the MAC address of the TOE and/or access point.
Step 2: The evaluator shall configure the TOE to communicate with a WLAN access point using
IEEE 802.11-2012 and a 256-bit (64 hex values 0-f) pre-shared key. The pre-shared key is only
used for testing.
Step 3: The evaluator shall start the sniffing tool, initiate a connection between the TOE and the
access point, and allow the TOE to authenticate, associate, and successfully complete the 4 way
handshake with the client.
Step 4: The evaluator shall set a timer for 1 minute, at the end of which the evaluator shall
disconnect the TOE from the wireless network and stop the sniffer.
Step 5: The evaluator shall identify the 4-way handshake frames (denoted EAPOL-key in
Wireshark captures) and derive the PTK from the 4-way handshake frames and preshared key as
specified in IEEE 802.11-2012.
Step 6: The evaluator shall select the first data frame from the captured packets that was sent
between the TOE and access point after the 4-way handshake successfully completed, and
without the frame control value 0x4208 (the first 2 bytes are 08 42). The evaluator shall use the
PTK to decrypt the data portion of the packet as specified in IEEE 802.11-2012, and shall verify
that the decrypted data contains ASCII-readable text.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 85 of 164
Step 7: The evaluator shall repeat Step 6 for the next 2 data frames between the TOE and access
point and without frame control value 0x4208.
5.2.3.2.2 Cryptographic Key Distribution for GTK (FCS_CKM.2(WLAN))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.2(WLAN) corresponds to FCS_CKM.2/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT EP.
Design / TSS
The evaluator shall check the TSS to ensure that it describes how the GTK is unwrapped prior to being
installed for use on the TOE using the AES implementation specified in this EP.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD assurance activities for this SFR.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following test using a packet sniffing tool to collect frames between the
TOE and a wireless access point (which may be performed in conjunction with the assurance activity for
FCS_CKM.1.1/WLAN).
Step 1: The evaluator shall configure the access point to an unused channel and configure the WLAN
sniffer to sniff only on that channel (i.e., lock the sniffer on the selected channel). The sniffer should also
be configured to filter on the MAC address of the TOE and/or access point.
Step 2: The evaluator shall configure the TOE to communicate with the access point using IEEE 802.11-
2012 and a 256-bit (64 hex values 0-f) pre-shared key, setting up the connections as described in the
operational guidance. The pre-shared key is only used for testing.
Step 3: The evaluator shall start the sniffing tool, initiate a connection between the TOE and access
point, and allow the TOE to authenticate, associate, and successfully complete the 4-way handshake
with the TOE.
Step 4: The evaluator shall set a timer for 1 minute, at the end of which the evaluator shall disconnect
the TOE from the access point and stop the sniffer.
Step 5: The evaluator shall identify the 4-way handshake frames (denoted EAPOL-key in Wireshark
captures) and derive the PTK and GTK from the 4-way handshake frames and pre- shared key as
specified in IEEE 802.11-2012.
Step 6: The evaluator shall select the first data frame from the captured packets that was sent between
the TOE and access point after the 4-way handshake successfully completed, and with the frame control
value 0x4208 (the first 2 bytes are 08 42). The evaluator shall use the GTK to decrypt the data portion of
the selected packet as specified in IEEE 802.11-2012, and shall verify that the decrypted data contains
ASCII-readable text.
Step 7: The evaluator shall repeat Step 6 for the next 2 data frames with frame control value 0x4208.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 86 of 164
5.2.3.2.3 Extended: Extensible Authentication Protocol-Transport Layer Security
(FCS_TLSC_EXT.1(WLAN))
Application Note: FCS_TLSC_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FCS_TLSC _EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
Design / TSS
The evaluator shall check the description of the implementation of this protocol in the TSS to ensure
that the ciphersuites supported are specified. The evaluator shall check the TSS to ensure that the
ciphersuites specified include those listed for this component. The evaluator shall also check the
operational guidance to ensure that it contains instructions on configuring the TOE so that TLS conforms
to the description in the TSS. Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall also check the operational guidance to ensure that it contains instructions on
configuring the TOE so that TLS conforms to the description in the TSS (for instance, the set of
ciphersuites advertised by the TOE may have to be restricted to meet the requirements).
The evaluator shall check that the OPE guidance contains instructions for the administrator to configure
the list of Certificate Authorities that are allowed to sign certificates used by the authentication server
that will be accepted by the TOE in the EAP-TLS exchange, and instructions on how to specify the
algorithm suites that will be proposed and accepted by the TOE during the EAP-TLS exchange.
Tests
The evaluator shall write, or the ST author shall provide, an application for the purposes of testing TLS.
The evaluator shall also perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator shall establish a TLS connection using each of the ciphersuites specified by
the requirement. This connection may be established as part of the establishment of a higher-
level protocol, e.g., as part of an EAP session. It is sufficient to observe the successful
negotiation of a ciphersuite to satisfy the intent of the test; it is not necessary to examine the
characteristics of the encrypted traffic in an attempt to discern the ciphersuite being used (for
example, that the cryptographic algorithm is 128bit AES and not 256-bit AES).
• Test 2: The evaluator shall attempt to establish the connection using a server with a server
certificate that contains the Server Authentication purpose in the extendedKeyUsage field and
verify that a connection is established. The evaluator will then verify that the client rejects an
otherwise valid server certificate that lacks the Server Authentication purpose in the
extendedKeyUsage field and a connection is not established. Ideally, the two certificates should
be identical except for the extendedKeyUsage field.
• Test 3: The evaluator shall send a server certificate in the TLS connection that does not match
the server-selected ciphersuite (for example, send a ECDSA certificate while using the
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ciphersuite or send a RSA certificate while using one of the
ECDSA ciphersuites.) The evaluator shall verify that the TOE disconnects after receiving the
server’s Certificate handshake message.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 87 of 164
• Test 4: The evaluator shall configure the server to select the TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL
ciphersuite and verify that the client denies the connection.
• Test 5: The evaluator shall perform the following modifications to the traffic:
o Change the TLS version selected by the server in the Server Hello to a non-supported
TLS version (for example 1.3 represented by the two bytes 03 04) and verify that the
client rejects the connection.
o Modify at least one byte in the server’s nonce in the Server Hello handshake message,
and verify that the client rejects the Server Key Exchange handshake message (if using a
DHE or ECDHE ciphersuite) or that the server denies the client’s Finished handshake
message.
o Modify the server’s selected ciphersuite in the Server Hello handshake message to be a
ciphersuite not presented in the Client Hello handshake message. The evaluator shall
verify that the client rejects the connection after receiving the Server Hello.
o [conditional] If DHE or ECDHE cipher suites are supported, modify the signature block in
the Server’s Key Exchange handshake message, and verify that the client does not
complete the handshake and no application data flows. This test does not apply to
cipher suites using RSA key exchange. If a TOE only supports RSA key exchange in
conjunction with TLS, then this test shall be omitted.29
o Modify a byte in the Server Finished handshake message, and verify that the client
sends a fatal alert upon receipt and does not send any application data.
o Send a garbled message from the Server after the Server has issued the
ChangeCipherSpec message and verify that the client denies the connection.
5.2.3.2.4 Extended: TLS Client Protocol (FCS_TLSC_EXT.2(WLAN))
Design / TSS
The evaluator shall verify that the TSS describes the supported Elliptic Curves Extension and whether the
required behavior is performed by default or may be configured.
Operational Guidance
If the TSS indicates that the supported Elliptic Curves Extension must be configured to meet the
requirement, the evaluator shall verify that the operational guidance includes instructions on
configuration of the supported Elliptic Curves Extension.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following test:
• Test 1: The evaluator shall configure the server to perform an ECDHE key exchange message in
the TLS connection using a non-supported ECDHE curve (for example, P192) and shall verify that
the TSF disconnects after receiving the server’s Key Exchange handshake message.
29
This assurance activity was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 492.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 88 of 164
5.2.3.3 Identification and Authentication (FIA)
5.2.3.3.1 Extended: Port Access Entity Authentication (FIA_PAE_EXT.1)
Design / TSS
There are no TSS assurance activities for this SFR.
Operational Guidance
There are no guidance activities for this SFR.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator shall demonstrate that the TOE has no access to the test network. After
successfully authenticating with an authentication server through a wireless access system, the
evaluator shall demonstrate that the TOE does have access to the test network.
• Test 2: The evaluator shall demonstrate that the TOE has no access to the test network. The
evaluator shall attempt to authenticate using an invalid client certificate, such that the EAP-TLS
negotiation fails. This should result in the TOE still being unable to access the test network.
• Test 3: The evaluator shall demonstrate that the TOE has no access to the test network. The
evaluator shall attempt to authenticate using an invalid authentication server certificate, such
that the EAP-TLS negotiation fails. This should result in the TOE still being unable to access the
test network.
5.2.3.3.2 X.509 Certificate Validation (FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN))30
Application Note: FIA_X509_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FIA_X509_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
TSS
The evaluator shall ensure the TSS describes where the check of validity of the EAP-TLS certificates takes
place. The evaluator ensures the TSS also provides a description of the certificate path validation
algorithm.
Tests
The tests described must be performed in conjunction with the other Certificate Services assurance
activities. The tests for the extendedKeyUsage rules are performed in conjunction with the uses that
require those rules. The evaluator shall create a chain of at least four certificates: the node certificate to
be tested, two Intermediate CAs, and the self-signed Root CA.
• Test 1: The evaluator shall then load a certificate or certificates to the Trust Anchor Database
needed to validate the certificate to be used in the function (e.g. application validation), and
demonstrate that the function succeeds. The evaluator then shall delete one of the certificates,
and show that the function fails.
30
This extended package assurance activity was added as part of NIAP Technical Decision 439.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 89 of 164
• Test 2: The evaluator shall demonstrate that validating an expired certificate results in the
function failing.
• Test 3: The evaluator shall construct a certificate path, such that the certificate of the CA issuing
the TOE’s certificate does not contain the basicConstraints extension. The validation of the
certificate path fails.
• Test 4: The evaluator shall construct a certificate path, such that the certificate of the CA issuing
the TOE’s certificate has the cA flag in the basicConstraints extension not set. The validation of
the certificate path fails.
• Test 5: The evaluator shall modify any byte in the first eight bytes of the certificate and
demonstrate that the certificate fails to validate (the certificate will fail to parse correctly).
• Test 6: The evaluator shall modify any bit in the last byte of the signature algorithm of the
certificate and demonstrate that the certificate fails to validate (the signature on the certificate
will not validate).
• Test 7: The evaluator shall modify any byte in the public key of the certificate and demonstrate
that the certificate fails to validate (the signature on the certificate will not validate).
5.2.3.3.3 Extended: X.509 Certificate Authentication (EAP-TLS) (FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN))
Application Note: FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN) corresponds to FIA_X509_EXT.2/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
Design / TSS
The evaluator shall check the TSS to ensure that it describes how the TOE chooses which certificates to
use, and any necessary instructions in the administrative guidance for configuring the operating
environment so that the TOE can use the certificates.
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to confirm that it describes the behavior of the TOE when a
connection cannot be established during the validity check of a certificate used in establishing a trusted
channel. The evaluator shall verify that any distinctions between trusted channels are described. If the
requirement that the administrator is able to specify the default action, then the evaluator shall ensure
that the operational guidance contains instructions on how this configuration action is performed.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check the administrative guidance to ensure that it describes how the TOE chooses
which certificates to use, and any necessary instructions for configuring the operating environment so
that the TOE can use the certificates.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following test for each trusted channel:
Test: The evaluator shall demonstrate using a valid certificate that requires certificate validation
checking to be performed in at least some part by communicating with a non-TOE IT entity. The
evaluator shall then manipulate the environment so that the TOE is unable to verify the validity of the
certificate, and observe that the action selected in FIA_X509_EXT.2.2 is performed. If the selected action
is administrator-configurable, then the evaluator shall follow the operational guidance to determine
that all supported administrator-configurable options behave in their documented manner.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 90 of 164
5.2.3.3.4 Extended: Certificate Storage and Management (FIA_X509_EXT.4)
Design / TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to determine that it describes all certificate stores implemented
that contain certificates used to meet the requirements of this EP. This description shall contain
information pertaining to how certificates are loaded into the store, and how the store is protected from
unauthorized access.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD assurance activities for this requirement.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following tests for each function in the system that requires the use of
certificates:
Test 1: The evaluator shall demonstrate that using a certificate without a valid certification path results
in the function failing. The evaluator shall then load a certificate or certificates needed to validate the
certificate to be used in the function, and demonstrate that the function succeeds. The evaluator then
shall delete one of the certificates, and show that the function fails.
5.2.3.4 Security Management (FMT)
5.2.3.4.1 Extended: Specification of Management Functions (FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN))
Application Note: FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FMT_SMF_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT
EP.
Design / TSS
There are no TSS assurance activities for this SFR.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check to make sure that every management function mandated by the EP is
described in the operational guidance and that the description contains the information required to
perform the management duties associated with the management function.
Tests
The evaluator shall test the TOE’s ability to provide the management functions by configuring the TOE
and testing each option listed in the requirement above.
Note that the testing here may be accomplished in conjunction with the testing of other requirements,
such as FCS_TLSC_EXT and FTA_WSE_EXT.
5.2.3.5 Protection of the TSF (FPT)
5.2.3.5.1 Extended: TSF Cryptographic Functionality Testing (FPT_TST_EXT.1 (WLAN))
Application Note: FPT_TST_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FPT_TST_EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT EP.
Design / TSS
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 91 of 164
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to ensure that it details the self tests that are run by the TSF on
start-up; this description should include an outline of what the tests are actually doing (e.g., rather than
saying "memory is tested", a description similar to "memory is tested by writing a value to each memory
location and reading it back to ensure it is identical to what was written" shall be used). The evaluator
shall ensure that the TSS makes an argument that the tests are sufficient to demonstrate that the TSF is
operating correctly.
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to ensure that it describes how to verify the integrity of stored TSF
executable code when it is loaded for execution. The evaluator shall ensure that the TSS makes an
argument that the tests are sufficient to demonstrate that the integrity of stored TSF executable code
has not been compromised. The evaluator also ensures that the TSS (or the operational guidance)
describes the actions that take place for successful (e.g. hash verified) and unsuccessful (e.g., hash not
verified) cases.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall ensure that the TSS (or the operational guidance) describes the actions that take
place for successful (e.g. hash verified) and unsuccessful (e.g., hash not verified) cases.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluator performs the integrity check on a known good TSF executable and verifies
that the check is successful.
• Test 2: The evaluator modifies the TSF executable, performs the integrity check on the modified
TSF executable and verifies that the check fails.
5.2.3.6 TOE Access (FTA)
5.2.3.6.1 Extended: Wireless Network Access (FTA_WSE_EXT.1)31
Design / TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to determine that it defines SSIDs as the attribute to specify
acceptable networks.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall examine the operational guidance to determine that it contains guidance for
configuring the list of SSID that the WLAN Client is able to connect to.
Tests
The evaluator shall also perform the following test:
• Test 1: The evaluator configures the TOE to allow a connection to a wireless network with a
specific SSID. The evaluator also configures the test environment such that the allowed SSID and
an SSID that is not allowed are both “visible” to the TOE. The evaluator shall demonstrate that
31
This assurance activity was replaced as part of NIAP Technical Decision 470.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 92 of 164
they can successfully establish a session with the allowed SSID. The evaluator will then attempt
to establish a session with the disallowed SSID, and observe that the attempt fails.
5.2.3.7 Trusted Path / Channels (FTP)
5.2.3.7.1 Extended: Trusted Channel Communication (FTP_ITC_EXT.1 (WLAN))
Application Note: FTP_ITC_EXT.1(WLAN) corresponds to FTP_ITC _EXT.1/WLAN in the WLAN CLIENT EP.
Design / TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to determine that it describes the details of the TOE connecting to
an access point in terms of the cryptographic protocols specified in the requirement, along with TOE-
specific options or procedures that might not be reflected in the specification. The evaluator shall also
confirm that all protocols listed in the TSS are specified and included in the requirements in the ST.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall confirm that the operational guidance contains instructions for establishing the
connection to the access point, and that it contains recovery instructions should a connection be
unintentionally broken.
Tests
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
• Test 1: The evaluators shall ensure that the TOE is able to initiate communications with an
access point using the protocols specified in the requirement, setting up the connections as
described in the operational guidance and ensuring that communication is successful.
• Test 2: The evaluator shall ensure, for each communication channel with an authorized IT entity,
the channel data is not sent in plaintext.
• Test 3: The evaluator shall ensure, for each communication channel with an authorized IT entity,
modification of the channel data is detected by the TOE.
• Test 4: The evaluators shall physically interrupt the connection from the TOE to the access point
(e.g., moving the TOE host out of range of the access point, turning the access point off). The
evaluators shall ensure that subsequent communications are appropriately protected, at a
minimum in the case of any attempts to automatically resume the connection or connect to a
new access point.
Further assurance activities are associated with the specific protocols.
5.2.4 IPsec Client EP Assurance Activities
This section copies the assurance activities from the IPsec Client extended package in order to ease
reading and comparisons between the extended package and the security target.
5.2.4.1 Security Audit (FAU)
5.2.4.1.1 Audit Data Generation (FAU_GEN.1(IPSEC))
Application Note: FAU_GEN.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FAU_GEN.1 in the IPsec extended package.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 93 of 164
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to determine that it describes the auditable events and the
component that is responsible for each type of auditable event.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check the operational guidance and ensure that it lists all of the auditable events and
provides a format for audit records. Each audit record format type must be covered, along with a brief
description of each field. The evaluator shall check to make sure that every audit event type mandated
by the PP-Module is described and that the description of the fields contains the information required in
FAU_GEN.1.2, and the additional information specified in Table C-1 of the PP-Module.
In particular, the evaluator shall ensure that the operational guidance is clear in relation to the contents
for failed cryptographic events. In Table C-1 of the PP-Module, information detailing the cryptographic
mode of operation and a name or identifier for the object being encrypted is required. The evaluator
shall ensure that name or identifier is sufficient to allow an administrator reviewing the audit log to
determine the context of the cryptographic operation (for example, performed during a key negotiation
exchange, performed when encrypting data for transit) as well as the non-TOE endpoint of the
connection for cryptographic failures relating to communications with other IT systems.
The evaluator shall also make a determination of the administrative actions that are relevant in the
context of this PP-Module. The TOE may contain functionality that is not evaluated in the context of this
PP-Module because the functionality is not specified in an SFR. This functionality may have
administrative aspects that are described in the operational guidance. Since such administrative actions
will not be performed in an evaluated configuration of the TOE, the evaluator shall examine the
operational guidance and make a determination of which administrative commands, including
subcommands, scripts, and configuration files, are related to the configuration (including enabling or
disabling) of the mechanisms implemented in the TOE that are necessary to enforce the requirements
specified in the PP-Module, which thus form the set of “all administrative actions”. The evaluator may
perform this activity as part of the activities associated with ensuring the AGD_OPE guidance satisfies
the requirements.
Test
The evaluator shall test the TOE’s ability to correctly generate audit records by having the TOE generate
audit records in accordance with the Assurance Activities associated with the functional requirements in
this PP-Module. Additionally, the evaluator shall test that each administrative action applicable in the
context of this PP-Module is auditable. When verifying the test results, the evaluator shall ensure the
audit records generated during testing match the format specified in the administrative guide, and that
the fields in each audit record have the proper entries.
Note that the testing here can be accomplished in conjunction with the testing of the security
mechanisms directly. For example, testing performed to ensure that the administrative guidance
provided is correct verifies that AGD_OPE.1 is satisfied and should address the invocation of the
administrative actions that are needed to verify the audit records are generated as expected.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 94 of 164
5.2.4.1.2 Selective Audit (FAU_SEL.1)
TSS
There are no TSS Assurance Activities for this SFR.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall review the administrative guidance to ensure that the guidance itemizes all event
types, as well as describes all attributes that are to be selectable in accordance with the requirement, to
include those attributes listed in the assignment. The administrative guidance shall also contain
instructions on how to set the pre-selection, or how the VPN gateway will configure the client, as well as
explain the syntax (if present) for multi-value pre-selection. The administrative guidance shall also
identify those audit records that are always recorded, regardless of the selection criteria currently being
enforced.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
Test 1: For each attribute listed in the requirement, the evaluator shall devise a test to show that
selecting the attribute causes only audit events with that attribute (or those that are always recorded, as
identified in the administrative guidance) to be recorded.
Test 2 [conditional]: If the TSF supports specification of more complex audit pre-selection criteria (e.g.,
multiple attributes, logical expressions using attributes) then the evaluator shall devise tests showing
that this capability is correctly implemented. The evaluator shall also, in the test plan, provide a short
narrative justifying the set of tests as representative and sufficient to exercise the capability.
5.2.4.2 Cryptographic Support (FCS)
5.2.4.2.1 Cryptographic Key Generation (FCS_CKM.1 (IPSEC))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FCS_CKM.1(1) in the IPsec extended package.
Refer to the Assurance Activity for FCS_CKM.1(1) in the GPOS PP for evaluating this SFR.
5.2.4.2.2 Cryptographic Key Generation (FCS_CKM.1 (VPN))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.1(VPN) corresponds to FCS_CKM.1/VPN in the IPsec extended package.
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to verify that it describes how the key generation functionality is
invoked.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Test
There are no test Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 95 of 164
5.2.4.2.3 Cryptographic Key Establishment (FCS_CKM.2 (IPSEC))
Application Note: FCS_CKM.2(IPSEC) corresponds to FCS_CKM.2(1) in the IPsec extended package.
For all key establishment schemes that conform to NIST SP 800-56A or 800-56B, refer to the Assurance
Activity for FCS_CKM.2(1) in the GPOS PP.
If “Key establishment scheme using Diffie-Hellman group 14…” is selected, the evaluator shall ensure
that the TSS describes how the implementation meets RFC 3526 Section 3. The evaluator shall also verify
the correctness of the TSF’s implementation of Diffie-Hellman group 14 by using a known good
implementation for each protocol selected in FTP_ITC_EXT.1 and FTP_TRP.1 in the GPOS PP that uses
Diffie-Hellman group 14. Note that because a TOE that conforms to this PP-Module must implement
IPsec, the tested protocols shall include IPsec at minimum.
5.2.4.2.4 Cryptographic Key Storage (FCS_CKM_EXT.2)
TSS
Regardless of whether this requirement is met by the VPN client or the OS, the evaluator will check the
TSS to ensure that it lists each persistent secret (credential, secret key) and private key needed to meet
the requirements in the ST. For each of these items, the evaluator will confirm that the TSS lists for what
purpose it is used, and how it is stored.
The evaluator shall review the TSS for to determine that it makes a case that, for each item listed as
being manipulated by the VPN client, it is not written unencrypted to persistent memory, and that the
item is stored by the OS.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Test
There are no test Assurance Activities for this requirement.
5.2.4.2.5 IPsec (FCS_IPSC_EXT.1)
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.1
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS and determine that it describes how the IPsec capabilities are
implemented and how a packet is processed, e.g., what takes place at the platform and what takes place
within the client. The TSS will detail the relationship between the client and the underlying platform,
including which aspects are implemented by the client, and those that are provided by the underlying
platform. The TSS describes how the client interacts with the platforms network stack (e.g., does the
client insert itself within the stack via kernel mods, does the client simply invoke APIs to gain access to
network services).
If the SPD is implemented by the client, then the TSS describes how the SPD is implemented and the
rules for processing both inbound and outbound packets in terms of the IPsec policy. The TSS describes
the rules that are available and the resulting actions available after matching a rule. The TSS describes
how the available rules and actions form the SPD using terms defined in RFC 4301 such as BYPASS (e.g.,
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 96 of 164
no encryption), DISCARD (e.g., drop the packet), and PROTECT (e.g., encrypt the packet) actions defined
in RFC 4301.
As noted in section 4.4.1 of RFC 4301, the processing of entries in the SPD is non-trivial and the
evaluator shall determine that the description in the TSS is sufficient to determine which rules will be
applied given the rule structure implemented by the TOE. For example, if the TOE allows specification of
ranges, conditional rules, etc., the evaluator shall determine that the description of rule processing (for
both inbound and outbound packets) is sufficient to determine the action that will be applied, especially
in the case where two different rules may apply. This description shall cover both the initial packets
(that is, no SA is established on the interface or for that particular packet) as well as packets that are
part of an established SA. If the SPD is implemented by the underlying platform, then the TSS describes
how the client interacts with the platform to establish and populate the SPD, including the identification
of the platform's interfaces that are used by the client.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall examine the operational guidance to verify it describes how the SPD is created and
configured. If there is an administrative interface to the client, then the guidance describes how the
administrator specifies rules for processing a packet. The description includes all three cases - a rule that
ensures packets are encrypted/decrypted, dropped, and allowing a packet to flow in plaintext. The
evaluator shall determine that the description in the operational guidance is consistent with the
description in the TSS, and that the level of detail in the operational guidance is sufficient to allow the
administrator to set up the SPD in an unambiguous fashion. This includes a discussion of how ordering of
rules impacts the processing of an IP packet.
If the client is configured by an external application, such as the VPN gateway, then the operational
guidance should indicate this and provide a description of how the client is configured by the external
application. The description should contain information as to how the SPD is established and set up in an
unambiguous fashion. The description should also include what is configurable via the external
application, how ordering of entries may be expressed, as well as the impacts that ordering of entries
may have on the packet processing.
In either case, the evaluator ensures the description provided In the TSS is consistent with the
capabilities and description provided in the operational guidance.
Test
Depending on the implementation, the evaluator may be required to use a VPN gateway or some form
of application to configure the client and platform. For Test 2, the evaluator is required to choose an
application that allows for the configuration of the full set of capabilities of the VPN client (in
conjunction with the platform). For example, if the client provides a robust interface that allows for
specification of wildcards, subnets, etc., it is unacceptable for the evaluator to choose a VPN Gateway
that only allows for specifying a single fully qualified IP addresses in the rule.
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
Test 1: The evaluator shall configure an SPD on the client that is capable of the following: dropping a
packet, encrypting a packet, and allowing a packet to flow in plaintext. The selectors used in the
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 97 of 164
construction of the rule shall be different such that the evaluator can generate a packet and send
packets to the client with the appropriate fields (fields that are used by the rule - e.g., the IP addresses,
TCP/UDP ports) in the packet header. The evaluator performs both positive and negative test cases for
each type of rule. The evaluator observes via the audit trail, and packet captures that the TOE exhibited
the expected behavior: appropriate packets were dropped, allowed through without modification, was
encrypted by the IPsec implementation.
Test 2: The evaluator shall devise several tests that cover a variety of scenarios for packet processing.
These scenarios must exercise the range of possibilities for SPD entries and processing modes as
outlined in the TSS and operational guidance. Potential areas to cover include rules with overlapping
ranges and conflicting entries, inbound and outbound packets, and packets that establish SAs as well as
packets that belong to established SAs. The evaluator shall verify, via the audit trail and packet captures,
for each scenario that the expected behavior is exhibited, and is consistent with both the TSS and the
operational guidance.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.2
TSS
The evaluator shall check the TSS to ensure it states that the VPN can be established to operate in
tunnel mode and/or transport mode (as selected). The evaluator shall confirm that the operational
guidance contains instructions on how to configure the connection in each mode selected.
Operational Guidance
If both transport mode and tunnel mode are implemented, the evaluator shall review the operational
guidance to determine how the use of a given mode is specified.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following test(s) based on the selections chosen:
Test 1 [conditional]: If tunnel mode is selected, the evaluator uses the operational guidance to configure
the TOE/platform to operate in tunnel mode and also configures a VPN gateway to operate in tunnel
mode. The evaluator configures the TOE/platform and the VPN gateway to use any of the allowable
cryptographic algorithms, authentication methods, etc. to ensure an allowable SA can be negotiated.
The evaluator shall then initiate a connection from the client to connect to the VPN GW peer. The
evaluator observes (for example, in the audit trail and the captured packets) that a successful
connection was established using the tunnel mode.
Test 2 [conditional]: If transport mode is selected, the evaluator uses the operational guidance to
configure the TOE/platform to operate in transport mode and also configures an IPsec peer to accept
IPsec connections using transport mode. The evaluator configures the TOE/platform and the endpoint
device to use any of the allowed cryptographic algorithms, authentication methods, etc. to ensure an
allowable SA can be negotiated. The evaluator then initiates a connection from the TOE/platform to
connect to the remote endpoint. The evaluator observes (for example, in the audit trail and the
captured packets) that a successful connection was established using the transport mode.
Test 3 [conditional]: If both tunnel mode and transport mode are selected, the evaluator shall perform
both Test 1 and Test 2 above, demonstrating that the TOE can be configured to support both modes.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 98 of 164
Test 4 [conditional]: If both tunnel mode and transport mode are selected, the evaluator shall modify
the testing for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 to include the supported mode for SPD PROTECT entries to show that
they only apply to traffic that is transmitted or received using the indicated mode.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.3
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to verify that the TSS provides a description of how a packet is
processed against the SPD and that if no “rules” are found to match, that a final rule exists, either
implicitly or explicitly, that causes the network packet to be discarded.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator checks that the operational guidance provides instructions on how to construct or acquire
the SPD and uses the guidance to configure the TOE/platform for the following test.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following test:
Test 1: The evaluator shall configure the SPD such that it has entries that contain operations that
DISCARD, PROTECT, and (if applicable) BYPASS network packets. The evaluator may use the SPD that
was created for verification of FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.1. The evaluator shall construct a network packet that
matches a BYPASS entry and send that packet. The evaluator should observe that the network packet is
passed to the proper destination interface with no modification. The evaluator shall then modify a field
in the packet header; such that it no longer matches the evaluator-created entries (there may be a
“TOE/platform created” final entry that discards packets that do not match any previous entries). The
evaluator sends the packet, and observes that the packet was not permitted to flow to any of the TOE’s
interfaces.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.4
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to verify that the algorithms AES-GCM-128 and AES-GCM-256 are
implemented. If the ST author has selected either AES-CBC-128 or AES-CBC-256 in the requirement, then
the evaluator verifies the TSS describes these as well. In addition, the evaluator ensures that the SHA-
based HMAC algorithm conforms to the algorithms specified in FCS_COP.1(4) Cryptographic Operations
(for keyed-hash message authentication).
Operational Guidance
The evaluator checks the operational guidance to ensure it provides instructions on how the TOE is
configured to use the algorithms selected in this component and whether this is performed through
direct configuration, defined during initial installation, or defined by acquiring configuration settings
from an environmental component.
Test
Test 1: The evaluator shall configure the TOE/platform as indicated in the operational guidance
configuring the TOE/platform to using each of the AES-GCM-128, and AES-GCM-256 algorithms, and
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 99 of 164
attempt to establish a connection using ESP. If the ST Author has selected either AES-CBC-128 or AES-
CBC-256, the TOE/platform is configured to use those algorithms and the evaluator attempts to
establish a connection using ESP for those algorithms selected.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.532
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to verify that IKEv1 and/or IKEv2 are implemented. If IKEv1 is
implemented, the evaluator shall verify that the TSS indicates whether or not XAUTH is supported, and
that aggressive mode is not used for IKEv1 Phase 1 exchanges (i.e. only main mode is used) . It may be
that these are configurable options.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check the operational guidance to ensure it instructs the administrator how to
configure the TOE/platform to use IKEv1 and/or IKEv2 (as selected), and uses the guidance to configure
the TOE/platform to perform NAT traversal for the test below. If XAUTH is implemented, the evaluator
shall verify that the operational guidance provides instructions on how it is enabled or disabled.
If the TOE supports IKEv1, the evaluator shall verify that the operational guidance either asserts that
only main mode is used for Phase 1 exchanges, or provides instructions for disabling aggressive mode.
Test
Test 1: The evaluator shall configure the TOE/platform so that it will perform NAT traversal processing as
described in the TSS and RFC 7296, section 2.23. The evaluator shall initiate an IPsec connection and
determine that the NAT is successfully traversed. If the TOE/platform supports IKEv1 with or without
XAUTH, the evaluator shall verify that this test can be successfully repeated with XAUTH enabled and
disabled in the manner specified by the operational guidance. If the TOE/platform only supports IKEv1
with XAUTH, the evaluator shall verify that connections not using XAUTH are unsuccessful. If the
TOE/platform only supports IKEv1 without XAUTH, the evaluator shall verify that connections using
XAUTH are unsuccessful.
The evaluator shall configure the TOE/platform so that it will perform NAT traversal processing as
described in the TSS and RFC 7296, section 2.23. The evaluator shall initiate an IPsec connection and
determine that the NAT is successfully traversed. If XAUTH is supported, the evaluator shall verify that
this test can be repeated with XAUTH both enabled and disabled in the manner specified by the
operational guidance.
Test 2 [conditional]: If the TOE supports IKEv1, the evaluator shall perform any applicable operational
guidance steps to disable the use of aggressive mode and then attempt to establish a connection using
an IKEv1 Phase 1 connection in aggressive mode. This attempt should fail. The evaluator shall show that
the TOE/platform will reject a VPN gateway from initiating an IKEv1 Phase 1 connection in aggressive
mode. The evaluator should then show that main mode exchanges are supported.
32
This extended package assurance activity was modified as part of NIAP Technical Decision 379.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 100 of 164
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.6
TSS
The evaluator shall ensure the TSS identifies the algorithms used for encrypting the IKEv1 and/or IKEv2
payload, and that the algorithms AES-CBC-128, AES-CBC-256 are specified, and if others are chosen in
the selection of the requirement, those are included in the TSS discussion.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator checks the operational guidance to ensure it provides instructions on how the TOE is
configured to use the algorithms selected in this component and whether this is performed through
direct configuration, defined during initial installation, or defined by acquiring configuration settings
from an environmental component.
Test
The evaluator shall use the operational guidance to configure the TOE/platform (or to configure the
Operational Environment to have the TOE receive configuration) to perform the following test for each
ciphersuite selected:
Test 1: The evaluator shall configure the TOE/platform to use the ciphersuite under test to encrypt the
IKEv1 and/or IKEv2 payload and establish a connection with a peer device, which is configured to only
accept the payload encrypted using the indicated ciphersuite. The evaluator will confirm the algorithm
was that used in the negotiation. The evaluator will confirm that the connection is successful by
confirming that data can be passed through the connection once it is established. For example, the
evaluator may connect to a webpage on the remote network and verify that it can be reached.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.7
TSS
There are no TSS Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check the operational guidance to ensure it provides instructions on how the TOE
configures the values for SA lifetimes. In addition, the evaluator shall check that the guidance has the
option for either the Administrator or VPN Gateway to configure Phase 1 SAs if time-based limits are
supported. Currently there are no values mandated for the number of packets or number of bytes, the
evaluator shall simply check the operational guidance to ensure that this can be configured if selected in
the requirement.
Test
When testing this functionality, the evaluator needs to ensure that both sides are configured
appropriately. From the RFC “A difference between IKEv1 and IKEv2 is that in IKEv1 SA lifetimes were
negotiated. In IKEv2, each end of the SA is responsible for enforcing its own lifetime policy on the SA and
rekeying the SA when necessary. If the two ends have different lifetime policies, the end with the
shorter lifetime will end up always being the one to request the rekeying. If the two ends have the same
lifetime policies, it is possible that both will initiate a rekeying at the same time (which will result in
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 101 of 164
redundant SAs). To reduce the probability of this happening, the timing of rekeying requests SHOULD be
jittered.”
Each of the following tests shall be performed for each version of IKE selected in the FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.5
protocol selection:
Test 1 [conditional]: The evaluator shall configure a maximum lifetime in terms of the # of packets (or
bytes) allowed following the operational guidance. The evaluator shall establish an SA and determine
that once the allowed # of packets (or bytes) through this SA is exceeded, the connection is closed.
Test 2 [conditional]: The evaluator shall construct a test where a Phase 1 SA is established and
attempted to be maintained for more than 24 hours before it is renegotiated. The evaluator shall
observe that this SA is closed or renegotiated in 24 hours or less. If such an action requires that the TOE
be configured in a specific way, the evaluator shall implement tests demonstrating that the
configuration capability of the TOE works as documented in the operational guidance.
Test 3 [conditional]: The evaluator shall perform a test similar to Test 2 for Phase 2 SAs, except that the
lifetime will be 8 hours or less instead of 24 hours or less.
Test 4 [conditional]: If a fixed limit for IKEv1 SAs is supported, the evaluator shall establish an SA and
observe that the connection is closed after the fixed traffic and/or time value is reached.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.8
TSS
The evaluator shall check to ensure that the DH groups specified in the requirement are listed as being
supported in the TSS. If there is more than one DH group supported, the evaluator checks to ensure the
TSS describes how a particular DH group is specified/negotiated with a peer.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following test:
Test 1: For each supported DH group, the evaluator shall test to ensure that all supported IKE protocols
can be successfully completed using that particular DH group.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.9
TSS
The evaluator shall check to ensure that, for each DH group supported, the TSS describes the process for
generating "x" (as defined in FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.9) and each nonce. The evaluator shall verify that the TSS
indicates that the random number generated that meets the requirements in this EP is used, and that
the length of "x" and the nonces meet the stipulations in the requirement.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 102 of 164
Test
There are no test Assurance Activities for this requirement.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.10
Assurance Activities for this element are tested through Assurance Activities for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.9.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.1133
TSS
The evaluator ensures that the TSS identifies RSA and/or ECDSA as being used to perform peer
authentication.
If pre-shared keys are chosen in the selection, the evaluator shall check to ensure that the TSS describes
how pre-shared keys are established and used in authentication of IPsec connections. The description in
the TSS shall also indicate how pre-shared key establishment is accomplished for TOEs/platforms that
can generate a pre-shared key as well as TOEs/platforms that simply use a pre-shared key.
The evaluator shall ensure that the TSS describes how the TOE compares the peer’s presented identifier
to the reference identifier. This description shall include whether the certificate presented identifier is
compared to the ID payload presented identifier, which field(s) of the certificate are used as the
presented identifier (DN, Common Name, or SAN), and, if multiple fields are supported, the logical order
comparison. If the ST author assigned an additional identifier type, the TSS description shall also include
a description of that type and the method by which that type is compared to the peer’s presented
certificate.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check that the operational guidance describes how pre-shared keys are to be
generated and established.
The evaluator ensures the operational guidance describes how to set up the TOE/platform to use the
cryptographic algorithms RSA and/or ECDSA.
In order to construct the environment and configure the TOE/platform for the following tests, the
evaluator will ensure that the operational guidance also describes how to configure the TOE/platform to
connect to a trusted CA, and ensure a valid certificate for that CA is loaded into the TOE/platform as a
trusted CA.
The evaluator shall also ensure that the operational guidance includes the configuration of the reference
identifier(s) for the peer.
Test
For efficiency’s sake, the testing that is performed here has been combined with the testing for
FIA_X509_EXT.2.1 (for IPsec connections), FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.12, FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.13 and
FIA_X509_EXT.2.3. The following tests shall be repeated for each peer authentication protocol selected
in the FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.11 selection above:
33
This extended package assurance activity was modified as part of NIAP Technical Decision 379.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 103 of 164
Test 1: The evaluator shall have the TOE/platform generate a public-private key pair, and submit a CSR
(Certificate Signing Request) to a CA (trusted by both the TOE/platform and the peer VPN used to
establish a connection) for its signature. The values for the DN (Common Name, Organization,
Organizational Unit, and Country) will also be passed in the request. Alternatively, the evaluator may
import to the TOE/platform a previously generated private key and corresponding certificate.
Test 2: The evaluator shall configure the TOE to use a private key and associated certificate signed by a
trusted CA and shall establish an IPsec connection with the peer.
The evaluator shall use a certificate signed using the RSA or ECDSA algorithm to authenticate the remote
peer during the IKE exchange. This test ensures the remote peer has the certificate for the trusted CA
that signed the TOE’s certificate and it will do a bit-wise comparison on the DN. This bit-wise comparison
of the DN ensures that not only does the peer have a certificate signed by the trusted CA, but the
certificate is from the DN that is expected. The evaluator will configure the TOE/platform to associate a
certificate (e.g., a certificate map in some implementations) with a VPN connection. This is what the DN
is checked against.
Test 3: The evaluator shall test that the TOE/platform can properly handle revoked certificates –
conditional on whether CRL or OCSP is selected; if both are selected, and then a test is performed for
each method. For this draft of the PP-Module, the evaluator has to only test one up in the trust chain
(future drafts may require to ensure the validation is done up the entire chain). The evaluator shall
ensure that a valid certificate is used, and that the SA is established. The evaluator then attempts the
test with a certificate that will be revoked (for each method chosen in the selection) to ensure when the
certificate is no longer valid that the TOE/platform will not establish an SA.
Test 4 [conditional]: The evaluator shall test that given a signed certificate from a trusted CA, that when
the DN does not match – any of the four fields can be modified such that they do not match the
expected value, that an SA does not get established.
Test 5 [conditional]: The evaluator shall generate a pre-shared key and use it, as indicated in the
operational guidance, to establish an IPsec connection with the VPN GW peer. If the generation of the
pre-shared key is supported, the evaluator shall ensure that establishment of the key is carried out for
an instance of the TOE/platform generating the key as well as an instance of the TOE/platform merely
taking in and using the key.
For each supported identifier type (excluding DNs), the evaluator shall repeat the following tests:
Test 6: For each field of the certificate supported for comparison, the evaluator shall configure the
peer’s reference identifier on the TOE (per the administrative guidance) to match the field in the peer’s
presented certificate and shall verify that the IKE authentication succeeds.
Test 7: For each field of the certificate support for comparison, the evaluator shall configure the peer’s
reference identifier on the TOE (per the administrative guidance) to not match the field in the peer’s
presented certificate and shall verify that the IKE authentication fails.
The following tests are conditional:
Test 8 [conditional]: If, according to the TSS, the TOE supports both Common Name and SAN certificate
fields and uses the preferred logic outlined in the Application Note, the tests above with the Common
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 104 of 164
Name field shall be performed using peer certificates with no SAN extension. Additionally, the evaluator
shall configure the peer’s reference identifier on the TOE to not match the SAN in the peer’s presented
certificate but to match the Common Name in the peer’s presented certificate, and verify that the IKE
authentication fails.
Test 9 [conditional]: If the TOE supports DN identifier types, the evaluator shall configure the peer’s
reference identifier on the TOE (per the administrative guidance) to match the subject DN in the peer’s
presented certificate and shall verify that the IKE authentication succeeds. To demonstrate a bit-wise
comparison of the DN, the evaluator shall change a single bit in the DN (preferably, in an Object
Identifier (OID) in the DN) and verify that the IKE authentication fails. To demonstrate a comparison of
DN values, the evaluator shall change any one of the four DN values and verify that the IKE
authentication fails.
Test 10 [conditional]: If the TOE supports both IPv4 and IPv6 and supports IP address identifier types,
the evaluator must repeat test 1 and 2 with both IPv4 address identifiers and IPv6 identifiers.
Additionally, the evaluator shall verify that the TOE verifies that the IP header matches the identifiers by
setting the presented identifiers and the reference identifier with the same IP address that differs from
the actual IP address of the peer in the IP headers and verifying that the IKE authentication fails.
Test 11 [conditional]: If, according to the TSS, the TOE performs comparisons between the peer’s ID
payload and the peer’s certificate, the evaluator shall repeat the following test for each combination of
supported identifier types and supported certificate fields (as above). The evaluator shall configure the
peer to present a different ID payload than the field in the peer’s presented certificate and verify that
the TOE fails to authenticate the IKE peer.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.12
Assurance Activities for this element are tested through Assurance Activities for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.11.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.13
Assurance Activities for this element are tested through Assurance Activities for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.11.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.14
TSS
The evaluator shall check that the TSS describes the potential strengths (in terms of the number of bits
in the symmetric key) of the algorithms that are allowed for the IKE and ESP exchanges. The TSS shall
also describe the checks that are done when negotiating IKEv1 Phase 2 and/or IKEv2 CHILD_SA suites to
ensure that the strength (in terms of the number of bits of key in the symmetric algorithm) of the
negotiated algorithm is less than or equal to that of the IKE SA this is protecting the negotiation.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Test
The evaluator follows the guidance to configure the TOE/platform to perform the following tests.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 105 of 164
Test 1: This test shall be performed for each version of IKE supported. The evaluator shall successfully
negotiate an IPsec connection using each of the supported algorithms and hash functions identified in
the requirements.
Test 2 [conditional]: This test shall be performed for each version of IKE supported. The evaluator shall
attempt to establish an SA for ESP that selects an encryption algorithm with more strength than that
being used for the IKE SA (i.e., symmetric algorithm with a key size larger than that being used for the
IKE SA). Such attempts should fail.
Test 3: This test shall be performed for each version of IKE supported. The evaluator shall attempt to
establish an IKE SA using an algorithm that is not one of the supported algorithms and hash functions
identified in the requirements. Such an attempt should fail.
Test 4: This test shall be performed for each version of IKE supported. The evaluator shall attempt to
establish an SA for ESP (assumes the proper parameters where used to establish the IKE SA) that selects
an encryption algorithm that is not identified in FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.4. Such an attempt should fail.
5.2.4.3 User Data Protection (FDP)
5.2.4.3.1 Subset Information Flow Control (FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC)
Application Note: FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FDP_IFC_EXT.1 in the IPsec EP.
TSS
The evaluator shall verify that the TSS section of the ST describes the routing of IP traffic through
processes on the TSF when a VPN client is enabled. The evaluator shall ensure that the description
indicates which traffic does not go through the VPN and which traffic does and that a configuration
exists for each baseband protocol in which only the traffic identified by the ST author as necessary for
establishing the VPN connection (IKE traffic and perhaps HTTPS or DNS traffic) is not encapsulated by
the VPN protocol (IPsec). The ST author shall also identify in the TSS section any differences in the
routing of IP traffic when using any supported baseband protocols (e.g. Wi-Fi or, LTE).
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall verify that the following is addressed by the documentation:
• The description above indicates that if a VPN client is enabled, all configurations route all IP
traffic (other than IP traffic required to establish the VPN connection) through the VPN client.
• The AGD guidance describes how the user and/or administrator can configure the TSF to meet
this requirement.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following test:
Step 1 - The evaluator shall use the platform to enable a network connection without using IPsec. The
evaluator shall use a packet sniffing tool between the platform and an Internet-connected network. The
evaluator shall turn on the sniffing tool and perform actions with the device such as navigating to
websites, using provided applications, accessing other Internet resources (Use Case 1), accessing
another VPN client (Use Case 2), or accessing an IPsec-capable network device (Use Case 3). The
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 106 of 164
evaluator shall verify that the sniffing tool captures the traffic generated by these actions, turn off the
sniffing tool, and save the session data.
Step 2 - The evaluator shall configure an IPsec VPN client that supports the routing specified in this
requirement, and if necessary, configure the device to perform the routing specified as described in the
AGD guidance. The evaluator shall turn on the sniffing tool, establish the VPN connection, and perform
the same actions with the device as performed in the first step. The evaluator shall verify that the
sniffing tool captures traffic generated by these actions, turn off the sniffing tool, and save the session
data.
Step 3 - The evaluator shall examine the traffic from both step one and step two to verify that all IP
traffic, aside from and after traffic necessary for establishing the VPN (such as IKE, DNS, and possibly
HTTPS), is encapsulated by IPsec.
Step 4 - The evaluator shall attempt to send packets to the TOE outside the VPN connection and shall
verify that the TOE discards them.
5.2.4.3.2 Full Residual Information Protection (FDP_RIP.2)
TSS
Requirement met by the platform
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to verify that it describes (for each supported platform) the extent
to which the client processes network packets and addresses the FDP_RIP.2 requirement.
Requirement met by the TOE
“Resources” in the context of this requirement are network packets being sent through (as opposed to
“to”, as is the case when a security administrator connects to the TOE) the TOE. The concern is that once
a network packet is sent, the buffer or memory area used by the packet still contains data from that
packet, and that if that buffer is re-used, those data might remain and make their way into a new
packet. The evaluator shall check to ensure that the TSS describes packet processing to the extent that
they can determine that no data will be reused when processing network packets. The evaluator shall
ensure that this description at a minimum describes how the previous data are zeroized/overwritten,
and at what point in the buffer processing this occurs.
Operational Guidance
There are no AGD Assurance Activities for this requirement.
Test
There are no test Assurance Activities for this requirement.
5.2.4.4 Identification & Authentication (FIA)
5.2.4.4.1 Pre-Shared Key Composition (FIA_PSK_EXT.1)
TSS
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 107 of 164
The evaluator shall also examine the TSS to ensure it describes the process by which the bit-based pre-
shared keys are generated (if the TOE supports this functionality), and confirm that this process uses the
RBG specified in FCS_RBG_EXT.1.
Requirement met by the platform
For each platform listed in the ST, the evaluator shall examine the ST of the platform to ensure that the
functions associated with pre-shared keys claimed in that platform's ST contains the same functions
specified in the VPN Client's ST. If the TOE does not perform any management or input of the pre-shared
keys then no further activity is required.
Requirement met by the TOE
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to ensure that it states that text-based pre-shared keys of 22
characters are supported. The evaluator shall also confirm that the TSS states the conditioning that
takes place to transform the text-based pre-shared key from the key sequence entered by the user (e.g.,
ASCII representation) to the bit string used by IPsec, and that this conditioning is consistent with the
FIA_PSK_EXT.1.3.
Operational Guidance
If the TOE supports bit-based pre-shared keys, the evaluator shall confirm the operational guidance
contains instructions for either entering bit-based pre- shared keys for each protocol identified in the
requirement, or generating a bit-based pre-shared key (or both). The evaluator shall also examine the
TSS to ensure it describes the process by which the bit-based pre-shared keys are generated (if the TOE
supports this functionality), and confirm that this process uses the RBG specified in FCS_RBG_EXT.1.
The evaluator shall check that any management functions related to pre-shared keys that are performed
by the TOE are specified in the operational guidance.
Requirement met by the TOE
The evaluator shall examine the operational guidance to determine that it provides guidance on the
composition of strong text-based pre-shared keys, and (if the selection indicates keys of various lengths
can be entered) that it provides information on the merits of shorter or longer pre-shared keys. The
guidance must specify the allowable characters for pre-shared keys, and that list must include, at
minimum, the same items contained in FIA_PSK_EXT.1.2.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
Test 1: The evaluator shall compose a pre-shared key of 22 characters that contains a combination of
the allowed characters in accordance with the operational guidance, and demonstrates that a successful
protocol negotiation can be performed with the key.
Test 2 [conditional]: If the TOE supports pre-shared keys of multiple lengths, the evaluator shall repeat
Test 1 using the minimum length; the maximum length; and invalid lengths that are below the minimum
length, above the maximum length, null length, empty length, or zero length. The minimum and
maximum length tests should be successful, and the invalid lengths must be rejected by the TOE.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 108 of 164
Test 3 [conditional]: If the TOE supports but does not generate bit-based pre-shared keys, the evaluator
shall obtain a bit-based pre-shared key of the appropriate length and enter it per the instructions in the
operational guidance. The evaluator shall then demonstrate that a successful protocol negotiation can
be performed with the key.
Test 4 [conditional]: If the TOE does generate bit-based pre-shared keys, the evaluator shall generate a
bit-based pre-shared key of the appropriate length and use it according to the instructions in the
operational guidance. The evaluator shall then demonstrate that a successful protocol negotiation can
be performed with the key.
5.2.4.4.2 X.509 Certificate Use and Management (FIA_X509_EXT.3)
The Assurance Activities below apply to FIA_X509_EXT.3.2. FIA_X509_EXT.3.1 is evaluated as part of
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 (and conditionally as part of FPT_TUD_EXT.1 and/or FPT_TST_EXT.1) and
FIA_X509_EXT.3.3 is evaluated as part of FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.11.
TSS
The evaluator shall check the TSS to ensure that it describes whether the VPN client or the OS
implements the certificate validation functionality, how the VPN client/OS chooses which certificates to
use, and any necessary instructions in the administrative guidance for configuring the OS so that desired
certificates can be used.
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to confirm that it describes the behavior of the client/OS when a
connection cannot be established during the validity check of a certificate used in establishing a trusted
channel.
Operational Guidance
If the requirement that the administrator is able to specify the default action, then the evaluator shall
ensure that the operational guidance contains instructions on how this configuration action is
performed.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following test regardless of whether the certificate validation
functionality is implemented by the VPN client or by the OS:
Test 1: The evaluator shall demonstrate that using a valid certificate that requires certificate validation
checking to be performed in at least some part by communicating with a non-TOE IT entity. The
evaluator shall then manipulate the environment so that the TOE is unable to verify the validity of the
certificate, and observe that the action selected in FIA_X509_EXT.3.2 is performed. If the selected action
is administrator-configurable, then the evaluator shall follow the operational guidance to determine
that all supported administrator-configurable options behave in their documented manner.
5.2.4.5 Security Management (FMT)
5.2.4.5.1 Specification of Management Functions (VPN) (FMT_SMF.1(VPN))
Application Note: FMT_SMF.1(VPN) corresponds to FMT_SMF.1/VPN in the IPsec EP.
TSS
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 109 of 164
The evaluator shall check to ensure the TSS describes the client credentials and how they are used by
the TOE.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall check to make sure that every management function mandated in the ST for this
requirement are described in the operational guidance and that the description contains the
information required to perform the management duties associated with each management function.
Test
The evaluator shall test the TOE’s ability to provide the management functions by configuring the TOE
according to the operational guidance and testing each management activity listed in the ST.
The evaluator shall ensure that all management functions claimed in the ST can be performed by
completing activities described in the AGD. Note that this may be performed in the course of completing
other testing.
5.2.4.6 Protection of the TSF (FPT)
5.2.4.6.1 Self-Test (FPT_TST_EXT.1 (IPSEC))
Application Note: FPT_TST_EXT.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FPT_TST_EXT.1 in the IPsec EP.
Except for where it is explicitly noted, the evaluator is expected to check the following information
regardless of whether the functionality is implemented by the TOE or by the TOE platform.
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to ensure that it details the self-tests that are run by the TSF on
start-up; this description should include an outline of what the tests are actually doing (e.g., rather than
saying "memory is tested", a description similar to "memory is tested by writing a value to each memory
location and reading it back to ensure it is identical to what was written" shall be used). The evaluator
shall ensure that the TSS makes an argument that the tests are sufficient to demonstrate that the TSF is
operating correctly. If some of the tests are performed by the TOE platform, the evaluator shall check
the TSS to ensure that those tests are identified, and that the ST for each platform contains a description
of those tests. Note that the tests that are required by this component are those that support security
functionality in this PP-Module, which may not correspond to the set of all self-tests contained in the
platform STs.
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to ensure that it describes how the integrity of stored TSF
executable code is cryptographically verified when it is loaded for execution. The evaluator shall ensure
that the TSS makes an argument that the tests are sufficient to demonstrate that the integrity of stored
TSF executable code has not been compromised. The evaluator shall check to ensure that the
cryptographic requirements listed are consistent with the description of the integrity verification
process.
The evaluator also ensures that the TSS (or the operational guidance) describes the actions that take
place for successful (e.g. hash verified) and unsuccessful (e.g., hash not verified) cases. For checks
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 110 of 164
implemented entirely by the platform, the evaluator ensures that the operational guidance for the TOE
references or includes the platform-specific guidance for each platform listed in the ST.
Operational Guidance
If not present in the TSS, the evaluator ensures that the operational guidance describes the actions that
take place for successful (e.g. hash verified) and unsuccessful (e.g., hash not verified) cases. For checks
implemented entirely by the platform, the evaluator ensures that the operational guidance for the TOE
references or includes the platform-specific guidance for each platform listed in the ST.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
Test 1: The evaluator performs the integrity check on a known good TSF executable and verifies that the
check is successful.
Test 2: The evaluator modifies the TSF executable, performs the integrity check on the modified TSF
executable and verifies that the check fails.
5.2.4.7 Trusted Path/Channels (FTP)
5.2.4.7.1 Inter-TSF Trusted Channel (FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC))
Application Note: FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC) corresponds to FTP_ITC.1 in the IPsec EP.
TSS
The evaluator shall examine the TSS to determine that it describes the details of the TOE connecting to a
VPN gateway and/or VPN client and/or IPsec-capable network device in terms of the cryptographic
protocols specified in the requirement, along with TOE-specific options or procedures that might not be
reflected in the specification. The evaluator shall also confirm that all protocols listed in the TSS are
specified and included in the requirements in the ST.
Operational Guidance
The evaluator shall confirm that the operational guidance contains instructions for establishing the
connection to a VPN gateway and/or VPN client and/or IPsec-capable network device, and that it
contains recovery instructions should a connection be unintentionally broken.
Test
The evaluator shall perform the following tests:
Test 1: The evaluators shall ensure that the TOE is able to initiate communications with a VPN gateway
and/or VPN client and/or IPsec-capable network device using the protocols specified in the requirement,
setting up the connections as described in the operational guidance and ensuring that communication is
successful.
Test 2: The evaluator shall ensure, for each communication channel with an IPsec peer, the channel data
is not sent in plaintext.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 111 of 164
Test 3: The evaluator shall ensure, for each communication channel with an IPsec peer, modification of
the channel data is detected by the TOE.
Test 4: The evaluators shall physically interrupt the connection from the TOE to the IPsec peer. The
evaluators shall ensure that subsequent communications are appropriately protected, at a minimum in
the case of any attempts to automatically resume the connection or connect to a new access point.
Further Assurance Activities are associated with requirements for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 112 of 164
6 TOE Summary Specification (TSS)
This chapter describes the Windows security functions that satisfy the security functional requirements
of the protection profile. The TOE also includes additional relevant security functions which are also
described in the following sections, as well as a mapping to the security functional requirements
satisfied by the TOE.
This section presents the TOE Security Functions (TSFs) and a mapping of security functions to Security
Functional Requirements (SFRs). The TOE performs the following security functions:
• Audit
• Cryptographic Support
• User Data Protection
• Identification and Authentication
• Security Management
• Protection of the TSF
• TOE Access
• Trusted Channels
6.1 Audit
The TOE Audit security function performs:
• Audit Collection
• Selective Audit
• Audit Log Overflow Protection
• Audit Log Restricted Access Protection
6.1.1 Audit Collection
The Windows Event Log service creates the security event log, which contains security relevant audit
records collected on a system, along with other event logs which are also registered by other audit entry
providers. The Local Security Authority (LSA) server collects audit events from all other parts of the TSF
and forwards them to the Windows Event Log service which will place the event into the log for the
appropriate provider. While there is no size limit for a single audit record, the authorized administrator
can specify a limit for the size of each event log. For each audit event, the Windows Event Log service
stores the following data in each audit entry:
Table 20 Standard Fields in a Windows Audit Entry
Field in Audit Entry Description
Date The date the event occurred.
Time The time the event occurred.
User The security identifier (SID) of that represents the user on whose
behalf the event occurred that represents the user.
Event ID A unique number within the audit category that identifies the
specific audit event.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 113 of 164
Source The Windows component that generated the audit event.
Outcome Indicates whether the security audit event recorded is the result
of a successful or failed attempt to perform the action.
Category The type of the event defined by the event source.
The LSA service defines the following categories for audit events in the security log:
• System,
• Logon / Logoff
• Object Access
• Directory Service Access
• Privilege Use
• Detailed Process Tracking
• Policy Change
• Account Management
• Account Logon
Each audit entry may also contain category-specific data that is contained in the body of the entry as
described below:
• For the System Category, the audit entry includes information relating to the system such as the
time the audit trail was cleared, start or shutdown of the audit function, and startup and
shutdown of Windows. Furthermore, the specific cryptographic operation is identified when
such operations are audited.
• For the Logon and Account Logon Category, the audit entry includes the reason the attempted
logon failed.
• For the Object Access and the Directory Service Access Category, the audit entry includes the
object name and the desired access requested.
• For the Privilege Use Category, the audit entry identifies the privilege.
• For the Detailed Process Tracking Category, the audit event includes the process identifier.
• For the Policy Change and Account Management Category, the audit event includes the new
values of the policy or account attributes.
• For the Account Logon Category, the audit event includes the logon type that indicates the
source of the logon attempt as one of the following types in the audit record:
o Interactive (local logon)
o Network (logon from the network)
o Service (logon as a service)
o Batch (logon as a batch job)
o Unlock (for Unlock screen saver)
o Network_ClearText (for anonymous authentication to IIS)
There are two places within the TSF where security audit events are collected. Inside the kernel, the
Security Reference Monitor (SRM), a part of the NT Executive, is responsible for generation of all audit
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 114 of 164
entries for the object access, privilege use, and detailed process tracking event categories. Windows
components can request the SRM to generate an audit record and supply all of the elements in the audit
record except for the system time, which the Executive provides. With one exception, audit events for
the other event categories are generated by various services that either co-exist in the LSA server or call,
with the SeAuditPrivilege privilege, the Authz Report Audit interfaces implemented in the LSA Policy
subcomponent. The exception is that the Event Log Service itself records an event record when the
security log is cleared and when the security log exceeds the warning level configured by the authorized
administrator.
The LSA server maintains an audit policy in its database that determines which categories of events are
actually collected. Defining and modifying the audit policy is restricted to the authorized administrator.
The authorized administrator can select events to be audited by selecting the category or categories to
be audited. An authorized administrator can individually select each category. Those services in the
security process determine the current audit policy via direct local function calls. The only other TSF
component that uses the audit policy is the SRM in order to record object access, privilege use, and
detailed tracking audit. LSA and the SRM share a private local connection port, which is used to pass the
audit policy to the SRM. When an authorized administrator changes the audit policy, the LSA updates its
database and notifies the SRM. The SRM receives a control flag indicating if auditing is enabled and a
data structure indicating that the events in particular categories to audit.
In addition to the system-wide audit policy configuration, it is possible to define a per-user audit policy
using auditpol.exe. This allows individual audit categories (of success or failure) to be enabled or
disabled on a per user basis.34
The per-user audit policy refines the system-wide audit policy with a
more precise definition of the audit policy for which events will be audited for a specific user.
Within each category, auditing can be performed based on success, failure, or both. For object access
events, auditing can be further controlled based on user/group identify and access rights using System
Access Control Lists (SACLs). SACLs are associated with objects and indicate whether or not auditing for
a specific object, or object attribute, is enabled.
6.1.2 SFR Summary
• FAU_GEN.1, FAU_GEN.1(IPSEC): The TOE audit collection is capable of generating audit events
for items identified in section 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.2. For each audit event the TSF records the date,
time, user Security Identifier (SID) or name, logon type (for logon audit records), event ID,
source, type, and category.
• FAU_SEL.1: The TSF provides the ability for the authorized administrator to select the events to
be audited based upon object identity, user identity, workstation (host identity), event type, and
success or failure of the event.
34
Windows will prevent a local administrator from disabling auditing for local administrator accounts. If an
administrator can bypass auditing, they can avoid accountability for such actions as exfiltrating files without
authorization.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 115 of 164
6.2 Cryptographic Support
6.2.1 Cryptographic Algorithms and Operations
The Cryptography API: Next Generation (CNG) API is designed to be extensible at many levels and
agnostic to cryptographic algorithm suites. Windows uses CNG exclusively for its own encryption needs
and provides public APIs for external developers. An important feature of CNG is its native
implementation of the Suite B algorithms, including algorithms for AES (128, 192, 256 key sizes)35
, the
SHA-1 and SHA-2 family (SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512) of hashing algorithms, elliptic curve Diffie
Hellman (ECDH), and elliptical curve DSA (ECDSA) over the NIST-standard prime curves P-256, P-384, and
P-521.
Protocols such as the Internet Key Exchange (IKE), and Transport Layer Security (TLS), make use of
elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) included in Suite B as well as hashing functions.
Deterministic random bit generation (DRBG) is implemented in accordance with NIST Special Publication
800-90. Windows generates random bits by taking the output of a cascade of two SP800-90 AES-256
counter mode based DRBGs in kernel-mode and four cascaded SP800-90 AES-256 DRBGs in user-mode;
programmatic callers can choose to obtain either 128 or 256 bits from the RBG which is seeded from the
Windows entropy pool. Windows has different entropy sources (deterministic and nondeterministic)
which produce entropy data that is used for random numbers generation. In particular, this entropy
data together with other data (such as the nonce) seed the DRBG algorithm. The entropy pool is
populated using the following values:
• An initial entropy value from a seed file provided to the Windows OS Loader at boot time (512
bits of entropy).36
• A calculated value based on the high-resolution CPU cycle counter which fires after every 1024
interrupts (a continuous source providing 16384 bits of entropy).
• Random values gathered periodically from the Trusted Platform Module (TPM), (320 bits of
entropy on boot, 384 bits thereafter on demand based on an OS timer).
• Random values gathered periodically by calling the RDRAND CPU instruction, (256 bits of
entropy).
The entropy data is obtained from the entropy sources in a raw format and is health-tested before using
it as input for the DRBG. The main source of entropy in the system is the CPU cycle counter which
continuously tracks hardware interrupts. This serves as a sufficient health test; if the computer were not
accumulating hardware and software interrupts it would not be running and therefore there would be
no need for any entropy to seed, or reseed, the random bit generator. In the same manner, a failure of
the TPM chip or the RDRAND instruction for the processor would be a critical error that halts the
computer, effectively serving as an on-demand self-test.37
In addition, when the user chooses to follow
35
Note that the 192-bit key size is not used by Windows but is available to developers.
36
The Windows OS Loader implements a SP 800-90 AES-CTR-DRBG and passes along 384 bits of entropy to the
kernel for CNG to be use during initialization. This DBRG uses the same algorithms to obtain entropy from the CPU
cycle counter, TPM, and RDRAND as described above.
37
In other words, the expected result from the CPU cycle counter, the RDRAND instruction, and the TPM RBG is an
apparently random value which will be used as an input to seed the RBG.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 116 of 164
the CC administrative guidance, which includes operating Windows in the FIPS validated mode, it will
run FIPS 140 AES-256 Counter Mode DBRG Known Answer Tests (instantiate, generate) on start-up.
Windows always runs the SP 800-90-mandated self-tests for AES-CTR-DRBG during a reseed when the
user chooses to operate Windows in the FIPS validated mode.38
Each entropy source is independent of the other sources and does not depend on time. The CPU cycle
counter inputs vary by environmental conditions such as data received on a network interface card, key
presses on a keyboard, mouse movement and clicks, and touch input.
The TSF defends against tampering of the random number generation (RNG) / pseudorandom number
generation (PRNG) sources by encapsulating its use in Kernel Security Device Driver. The interface for
the Windows random number generator is BCryptGenRandom.
The CNG provider for random number generation is the AES_CTR_DRBG, when Windows requires the
use of a salt it uses the Windows RBG.
The encryption and decryption operations are performed by independent modules, known as
Cryptographic Service Providers (CSPs). Windows generates symmetric keys (AES keys) using the FIPS
Approved random number generator.
In addition to encryption and decryption services, the TSF provides other cryptographic operations such
as hashing and digital signatures. Hashing is used by other FIPS Approved algorithms implemented in
Windows (the hashed message authentication code, RSA, DSA, and EC DSA signature services, Diffie-
Hellman and elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman key agreement, and random bit generation). When Windows
needs to establish an RSA-based shared secret key it can act both as a sender or recipient, any
decryption errors which occur during key establishment are presented to the user at a highly abstracted
level, such as a failure to connect.
6.2.2 Cryptographic Algorithm Validation
Table 21 Windows Cryptographic Algorithm Standards and Evaluation Methods
Cryptographic Operation Standard Requirement Evaluation
Method
Encryption/Decryption
FIPS 197 AES
FCS_COP.1(SYM)
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1364, #
C1365, # C1368
NIST SP 800-38A CBC
mode
# C1363, # C1368
NIST SP 800-38C CCM
mode
# C1363, # C1364
NIST SP 800-38E XTS
mode
# C1363
NIST SP 800-38F KW
mode
# C1365
38
Running Windows in FIPS validated mode is required according to the administrative guidance.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 117 of 164
NIST SP 800-38D GCM
mode
# C1363
Digital signature (key
generation)
FIPS 186-4 RSA FCS_CKM.1
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1366
Digital signature
(generation)
FIPS 186-4 RSA FCS_COP.1(SIGN)
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1366, #
C1368
Digital signature
(verification)
FIPS 186-4 RSA FCS_COP.1(SIGN)
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1366,
C1367, # C1368
Digital signature
(generation and
verification)
FIPS 186-4 DSA
Added as a prerequisite
of NIST CAVP KAS #
C1363
NIST CAVP # C1363
Digital signature (key
generation)
FIPS 186-4 ECDSA
FCS_CKM.1,
FCS_CKM.1(WLAN)
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1366, #
C1368
Digital signature (key
generation, signature
generation and
verification)
FIPS 186-4 ECDSA
FCS_CKM.1,
FCS_CKM.1(WLAN)
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1366
Hashing
FIPS 180-4 SHA-1 and
SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-
512
FCS_COP.1 (HASH) NIST CAVP # C1363
Keyed-Hash Message
Authentication Code
FIPS 198-2 HMAC FCS_COP.1(HMAC)
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1368
Random number
generation
NIST SP 800-90
CTR_DRBG
FCS_RBG_EXT.1
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1368
Key agreement NIST SP 800-56A ECDH FCS_CKM.2
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1368
Key establishment NIST SP 800-56B RSA
FCS_CKM.2,
FCS_CKM.2(WLAN)
NIST CVL # C1363,
# C1366, Tested by
the CC evaluation
lab39
Key-based key derivation SP800-108
NIST CAVP #
C1363, # C1365, #
C1368
IKEv1 SP800-135 FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 NIST CAVP # C1363
IKEv2 SP800-135 FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 NIST CAVP # C1363
TLS SP800-135
FCS_TLSC_EXT.1,
FCS_TLSC_EXT.2,
FCS_TLSC_EXT.2(WLAN)
FCS_TLSC_EXT.3,
FCS_TLSC_EXT.4,
FCS_DTLS_EXT.1
NIST CAVP # C1363
39
The test results are described in the evaluation and Assurance Activity Report.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 118 of 164
CNG includes a user-mode key isolation service designed specifically to host secret and private keys in a
protected process to mitigate tampering or access to sensitive key materials for user-mode processes.
CNG performs a key error detection check on each transfer of key (internal and intermediate transfers).
CNG prevents archiving of expired (private) signature keys and destroys non-persistent cryptographic
keys. Windows overwrites each intermediate storage area for plaintext key/critical cryptographic
security parameter (i.e., any storage, such as memory buffers for the key or plaintext password which
was typed by the user that is included in the path of such data). This overwriting is performed as follows:
• For volatile memory, the overwrite is a single direct overwrite consisting of zeros using the
RtlSecureZeroMemory function.
The following table describes the keys and secrets used for networking and data protection; when these
ephemeral keys or secrets are no longer needed for a network session, due to either normal end of the
session or abnormal termination, or after protecting sensitive data using DPAPI, they are deleted as
described above and in section 5.1.2.2.2. Note that the administrative guidance precludes hibernating
the computer and so these keys are not persisted into volatile storage
Table 22 Types of Keys Used by Windows
Key Description
Symmetric
encryption/decryption keys
Keys used for AES (FIPS 197) encryption/decryption for IPsec ESP,
TLS, Wi-Fi.
HMAC keys Keys used for HMAC-SHA1, HMAC-SHA256, HMAC-SHA384, and
HMAC-SHA512 (FIPS 198-1) as part of IPsec
Asymmetric ECDSA Public Keys Keys used for the verification of ECDSA digital signatures (FIPS 186-4)
for IPsec traffic and peer authentication.
Asymmetric ECDSA Private Keys Keys used for the calculation of ECDSA digital signatures (FIPS 186-4)
for IPsec traffic and peer authentication.
Asymmetric RSA Public Keys Keys used for the verification of RSA digital signatures (FIPS 186-4)
for IPsec, TLS, Wi-Fi and signed product updates.
Asymmetric RSA Private Keys Keys used for the calculation of RSA digital signatures (FIPS 186-4)
for IPsec, TLS, and Wi-Fi as well as TPM-based health attestations.
The key size can be 2048 or 3072 bits.
Asymmetric DSA Private Keys Keys used for the calculation of DSA digital signatures (FIPS 186-4)
for IPsec and TLS. The key size can be 2048 or 3072 bits.
Asymmetric DSA Public Keys Keys used for the verification of DSA digital signatures (FIPS 186-4)
for IPsec and TLS. The key size can be 2048 or 3072 bits.
DH Private and Public values Private and public values used for Diffie-Hellman key establishment
for TLS.
ECDH Private and Public values Private and public values used for EC Diffie-Hellman key
establishment for TLS.
DPAPI master secret 512-bit random value used by DPAPI
DPAPI master AES key 256-bit encryption key that protects the DPAPI master secret
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 119 of 164
DPAPI AES key 256-bit encryption key used by DPAPI
DRBG seed Seed for the main DRBG, zeroized during reseeding
6.2.3 Networking
6.2.3.1 TLS, HTTPS, DTLS, EAP-TLS
The TOE implements TLS to enable a trusted network path that is used for client and server
authentication, as well as HTTPS.
The following table summarizes the TLS RFCs implemented in Windows:
Table 23 TLS RFCs Implemented by Windows
RFC # Name How Used
2246 The TLS Protocol Version 1.0 Specifies requirements for TLS 1.0.
3268 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security
(TLS)
Specifies additional ciphersuites
implemented by Windows.
3546 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions Updates RFC 2246 with TLS 1.0 extensions
implemented by Windows.
4346 The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.1
Specifies requirements for TLS 1.1.
4366 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions Obsoletes RFC 3546 Requirements for TLS
1.1 extensions implemented by Windows.
4492 Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher
Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Specifies additional ciphersuites
implemented by Windows.
4681 TLS User Mapping Extension Extends TLS to include a User Principal
Name during the TLS handshake.
5246 The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.2
Obsoletes RFCs 3268, 4346, and 4366.
Specifies requirements for TLS 1.2.
5289 TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-
256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode
(GCM)
Specifies additional ciphersuites
implemented by Windows.
SSL3 The SSL Protocol Version 3 Specifies requirements for SSL3.
These protocols are described at:
• MS-TLSP Transport Layer Security (TLS) Profile
• RFC 2246 The TLS Protocol Version 1.0
• RFC 3268 -AES Ciphersuites for TLS
• RFC 3546 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions
• RFC 4366 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions
• RFC 4492 ECC Cipher Suites for TLS
• RFC 4681 TLS User Mapping Extension
• RFC 5246 - The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol, Version 1.2
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 120 of 164
• RFC 5289 - TLS ECC Suites with SHA-256384 and AES GCM
The Cipher Suites in Schannel article describes the complete set of TLS cipher suites implemented in
Windows (reference: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/desktop/aa374757(v=vs.85).aspx), of which the following are used in the evaluated
configuration:
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5246,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5288,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as defined in RFC 5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5289,
• TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 as defined in RFC 5289
When negotiating a TLS 1.2 elliptic curve cipher suite, Windows will include automatically as part of the
Client Hello message both its supported elliptic curves extension, i.e., secp256r1, secp384r1, and
secp521r1 as well as signature algorithm, i.e., SHA256, SHA384, and SHA512 based on the ciphersuites
selected by the administrator. By default, the curve secp521r1 is disabled. This curve can be enabled
adding its name in the ECC Curve Order file. In addition, the curve priority can be edited in this file.
On the other hand, by default the signature algorithms in the Client Hello message are: SHA1, SHA256,
SHA384 and SHA512. The signature algorithm extension is configurable by editing a registry key to meet
with the FCS_TLSC_EXT.3 requirement. Each Windows component that uses TLS checks that the
identifying information in the certificate matches what is expected, the component should reject the
connection, these checks include checking the expected Distinguished Name (DN), Subject Name (SN),
or Subject Alternative Name (SAN) attributes along with any applicable extended key usage identifiers.
The DN, and any Subject Alternative Name, in the certificate is checked against the identity of the
remote computer’s DNS entry or IP address to ensure that it matches as described at
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc783349(v=WS.10).aspx, and in particular the “Server
Certificate Message” section. The reference identifier in Windows for TLS is the DNS name or IP address
of the remote server, which is compared against the DNS name as presented identifier in the Subject
Alternative Name (SAN) or the Subject Name of the certificate. There is no configuration of the
reference identifier.
A certificate that uses a wildcard in the leftmost portion of the resource identifier (i.e., *.contoso.com)
can be accepted for authentication, otherwise the certificate will be deemed invalid. Windows does not
provide a general-purpose capability to “pin” TLS certificates.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 121 of 164
Windows implements HTTPS as described in RFC 2818 so that Windows Store and system applications
executing on the TOE can securely connect to external servers using HTTPS.40
6.2.3.2 Wireless Networking
Windows has native implementations of IEEE 802.11-2012 and IEEE 802.11ac-2013 to provide secure
wireless local area networking (Wi-Fi). Windows can use PRF-384 in WPA2 Wi-Fi sessions and generate
AES 128-bit keys or use PRF-704 to generate AES 256-bit keys, both utilize the Windows RBG. Windows
complies with the IEEE 802.11-2012 and IEEE 802.11ac-2013 standards and interoperates with other
devices that implement the standard. Computers running a Windows OS typically have Wi-Fi CERTIFIED
Interoperability Certificates from the Wi-Fi Alliance.
Windows implements key wrapping and unwrapping according to the NIST SP 800-38F specification (the
“KW” mode) and so unwraps the Wi-Fi Group Temporal Key (GTK) which was sent by the access point.
Because the GTK was protected by AES Key Wrap when it was delivered in an EAPOL-Key frame, the GTK
is not exposed to the network.
6.2.3.3 IPsec
The Windows IPsec implementation is an integral part of the Windows operating system ; it conforms to
RFC 4301, Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol. This is documented publicly in the Windows
protocol documentation at section 7.5.1 IPsec Overview and covers Windows 8, Windows RT, and Server
2012.41
Windows implements both RFCS 2409, Internet Key Exchange (IKEv1), and RFC 4306, Internet Key
Exchange version 2, (IKEv2).42
Windows IPsec supports both tunnel mode and transport mode and
provides an option for NAT transversal (reference: section 7.5.5, IPsec Encapsulations).43
The RAS VPN
interface uses tunnel mode only.
The Windows IPsec implementation includes a security policy database (SPD), which states how
Windows should process network packets. The SPD uses the traffic source, destination and transport
protocol to determine if a packet should be transmitted or received, blocked, or protected with IPsec,
(reference: 7.5.3, Security Policy Database Structure), based on firewall processing rules.44
These rules
are described in Understanding Firewall Rules and the “Managing IPsec and VPN Connections” section
of the Common Criteria Operational and Administrative Guidance for this evaluation. In order to prevent
unsolicited inbound traffic, an authorized administrator does not need to define a final catch-all rule
which will discard a network packet when no other rules in the SPD apply because Windows will discard
the packet. The security policy database also includes configuration settings to limit the time and
number of sessions before a new key needs to be generated.
Windows 10 implements AES-GCM-128, AES-GCM-256, AES-CBC-128, and AES-CBC-256 as encryption
algorithms for the encapsulating security payload (ESP) (reference: section 6, Appendix A, Product
40
The Windows Update client will not include the TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 ciphersuites in the available ciphersuites when establishing a TLS
session.
41
Also available as [MS-WSO], Windows System Overview, page 43 for offline reading.
42
[MS-IKEE], Internet Key Exchange Protocol Extensions, page 8.
43
[MS-WSO], page 45.
44
[MS-WPO], page 44.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 122 of 164
Behavior).45
. However only AES-CBC-128 and AES-CBC-256 can be used for IKEv1 and IKEv2 to protect
the encrypted payload. The resulting potential strength of the symmetric key will be 128 or 256 bits of
security depending on whether the IPsec VPN client and IPsec VPN server agreed to use a 128 or 256
AES symmetric key to protect the network traffic. Windows implements HMAC-SHA1, HMAC-SHA-256
and HMAC-SHA-38446
as authentication algorithms for key exchange as well as Diffie-Hellman Groups
14, 19, and 20 (reference: section 6, Appendix A, Product Behavior).47
The IPsec VPN client will propose
a cryptosuite to the IPsec VPN server; if the server responds with a cryptosuite that the client supports,
the client will use the server’s proposed cryptosuite instead. If the IPsec VPN client and server cannot
agree on a cryptosuite, either side may terminate the connection attempt.
In order to prevent security being reduced while transitioning from IKE Phase 1 / IKEv2 SA, an authorized
administrator must configure the IPsec VPN client such that algorithms with same strength are used for
both IKE Phase 1 and Phase 2 as well as for IKEv2 SA and IKEv2 Child SA.
Windows constructs nonces, which are 32-bit random values, as specified in RFC 2408, Internet Security
Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP) section 3.13.48
When a random number is needed
for either a nonce or for key agreement, Windows uses a FIPS-validated random bit generator. When
requested, the Windows random bit generator can generate 256 or 512 bits for the caller, the
probability of guessing a 256 bit value is 1 in 2256
and a 512 bit value is 1 in 2512
. When generating the
security value x used in the IKE Diffie-Hellman key exchange, gx
mod p, Windows uses a FIPS validated
random number generator to generate ‘x’ with length 224, 256, or 384 bits for DH groups 14, 19, and 20
respectively.49
See the TSS section for for the NIST CAVP validation numbers.
Windows implements peer authentication using 2048 bit RSA certificates,50
or ECDSA certificates using
the P-256 and P-384 curves for both IKEv1 and IKEv2.51
While Windows supports pre-shared IPsec keys, it is not recommended due to the potential use of weak
pre-shared keys.52
Windows simply uses the pre-shared key that was entered by the authorized
administrator, there is no additional processing on the input data.
Windows operating systems do not implement the IKEv1 aggressive mode option during a Phase 1 key
exchange.
Windows will validate certificates as described in section 6.4.1 by comparing the Common Name of the
certificate presented by the VPN gateway to the expected values for the IP address or Fully Qualified
Domain Name of the VPN gateway or the user FQDN.
Table 24 Windows 10 Implementation of IPsec RFCs
45
[MS-IKEE], pages 74 – 75.
46
Windows truncates the HMAC output as described in RFC 4868 for HMAC-SHA-256 and HMAC-SHA-384 and for
HMAC-SHA1-96 as described in RFC 2404.
47
Ibid.
48
[MS-IKEE], page 51.
49
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc962035.aspx.
50
[MS-IKEE], page 73.
51
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/905aa96a-4af7-44b0-8e8f-d2b6854a91e6.
52
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc782582(v=WS.10).aspx.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 123 of 164
RFC # Name How Used
2407 The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation for ISAKMP
Integral part of the Windows Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) implementation.
2408 Internet Security Association and Key
Management Protocol (ISAKMP)
Integral part of the Windows Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) implementation.
2409 The Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Integral part of the Windows Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) implementation.
2986 PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax
Specification; Version 1.7
Public key certification requests issued by
Windows.
4106 The Use of Galois/Counter Mode (GCM)
in IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload
(ESP)
Certain IPsec cryptosuites implemented
by Windows.
4109 Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange
version 1 (IKEv1)
Certain IPsec cryptosuites implemented
by Windows.
4301 Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol
Description of the general security
architecture for IPsec.
4303 IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Specifies the IP Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) implemented by Windows.
4304 Extended Sequence Number (ESN)
Addendum to IPsec Domain of
Interpretation (DOI) for Internet Security
Association and Key Management
Protocol (ISAKMP)
Specifies a sequence number high-order
extension that is implemented by
Windows.
4306 Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol Integral part of the Windows Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) implementation.
4307 Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)
Certain IPsec cryptosuites implemented
by Windows.
4868 Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384,
and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec
Certain IPsec cryptosuites implemented
by Windows.
4945 The Internet IP Security PKI Profile of
IKEv1/ISAKMP, IKEv2, and PKIX
Integral part of the Windows Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) implementation.
5280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile
Specifies PKI support implemented by
Windows.
5282 Using Authenticated Encryption
Algorithms with the Encrypted Payload
of the Internet Key Exchange version 2
(IKEv2) Protocol
Certain IPsec cryptosuites implemented
by Windows.
5996 Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)
Integral part of the Windows Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) implementation.
6379 Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec Certain IPsec cryptosuites implemented
by Windows.
6.2.4 Protecting Data with DPAPI
Windows provides the Data Protection API, DPAPI, which Windows components, first-party and third-
party applications can use to protect any persisted data which the developer deems to be sensitive.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 124 of 164
DPAPI will use AES CBC encryption with a key that is based in part on the user’s password to protect the
user data. When storing private keys and secrets associated with the user account, the encrypted data is
stored on the file system in a directory which is part of the user’s profile.
6.2.5 SFR Summary
• FCS_CKM.1,53
FCS_CKM.1(WLAN), FCS_CKM.1(IPSEC), FCS_CKM.1(VPN), FCS_CKM.2,54
FCS_CKM.2(WLAN), FCS_CKM.2(IPSEC), FCS_COP.1(SYM), FCS_COP.1(HASH), FCS_COP.1(SIGN),
FCS_COP.1(HMAC), FCS_RBG_EXT.1: See Table 21 Windows Cryptographic Algorithm
Standards and Evaluation Methods.
• FCS_CKM_EXT.2: Windows provides secure key storage for private (asymmetric) keys and other
data deemed by an authorized subject, such as the pre-shared key, to require secure storage
using DPAPI and the NTFS discretionary access control policy.55
• FCS_CKM_EXT.4: Windows overwrites critical cryptographic parameters immediately after that
data is no longer needed.
• FCS_STO_EXT.1: Windows provides the Data Protection API (DPAPI) for developers to encrypt
and decrypt sensitive data using the CryptProtectData and CryptUnprotectData interfaces.
• FCS_TLS_EXT.1, FCS_TLS_EXT.1(WLAN), FCS_TLS_EXT.2, FCS_TLS_EXT.2(WLAN),
FCS_TLS_EXT.3, FCS_TLS_EXT.4: Windows implements TLS 1.2 to provide server and mutual
authentication using X.509v3 certificates, confidentiality and integrity to upper-layer protocols
such as Extensible Authentication Protocol and HTTP.
• FCS_DTLS_EXT.1: The Windows implementation of DTLS 1.0 and DTLS 1.2 is based on underlying
SChannel component which implements TLS.
• FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1: Windows provides an IPsec implementation as described about in section
6.2.3.3.
6.3 User Data Protection
6.3.1 Discretionary Access Control
The executive component within the Windows kernel mediates access between subjects and user data
objects, also known as named objects. Subjects consist of processes with one or more threads running
on behalf of users. While the Windows Discretionary Access Control policy manages several different
kinds of named objects, the protection profile that is the basic for this evaluation focuses on the NTFS
File and NTFS Directory objects.
53
In the context of this evaluation, Windows will generate RSA and ECC key pairs as part of establishing a TLS
session.
54
In the context of this evaluation, Windows will generate RSA and ECC key pairs as part of establishing a TLS
session.
55
See https://www.niap-ccevs.org/st/st_vid10677-st.pdf and
http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/epfiles/st_windows10.pdf.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 125 of 164
6.3.1.1 Subject DAC Attributes
Windows security access tokens contain the security attributes for a subject. Tokens are associated with
processes and threads running on behalf of the user. Information in a security access token that is used
by DAC includes:
• The Security Identifier (SID) for the user account
• SIDs representing groups for which the user is a member
• Privileges assigned to the user
• An owner SID that identifies the SID to assign as owner for newly created objects
• A default Discretionary Access Control List (DACL) for newly created objects
• Token type which is either a primary or an impersonation token
• The impersonation level (for impersonation tokens)
• The integrity label SID
• An optional list of restricting SIDs
• The logon SID that identifies the logon session.
An administrator can change all of these except for the user account SID and logon SID.
A thread can be assigned an impersonation token that would be used instead of the process’ primary
token when making an access check and generating audit data. Hence, that thread is impersonating the
client that provided the impersonation token. Impersonation stops when the impersonation token is
removed from the thread or when the thread terminates.
An access token may also include a list of restricting SIDs which are used to limit access to objects.
Restricting SIDs are contained in restricted tokens, (which is a special form of a thread impersonation
token), and when configured serve to limit the corresponding process access to no more than that
available to the restricted SID.
Access decisions are made using the impersonation token of a thread if it exists, and otherwise the
thread’s process primary token (which always exists).
6.3.1.2 Object DAC Attributes
Security Descriptors (SDs) contain all of the security attributes associated with an object. All named
objects have an associated SD. The security attributes from a SD used for discretionary access control
are the object owner SID which specifies the owner of the security descriptor, the DACL present flag,
and the DACL itself, when present.
DACLs contain a list of Access Control Entries (ACEs). Each ACE specifies an ACE type, a SID representing
a user or group, and an access mask containing a set of access rights. Each ACE has inheritance
attributes associated with it that specify if the ACE applies to the associated object only, to its children
objects only, or to both its children objects and the associated object.
There are two types of ACEs that apply to discretionary access control:
• ALLOW ACES
o ACCESS_ALLOWED_ACE: used to grant access to a user or group of users.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 126 of 164
o ACCESS_ALLOWED_OBJECT_ACE: (for DS objects) used to grant access for a user or
group to a property or property set on the directory service object, or to limit the
ACE_inheritance to a specified type of child object. This ACE type is only supported for
directory service objects.
• DENY ACES
o ACCESS_DENIED_ACE: used to deny access to a user or group of users.
o ACCESS_DENIED_OBJECT_ACE: (for DS objects) used to deny access for a user or group
to a property or property set on the directory service object or to limit the
ACE_inheritance to a specified type of child object. This ACE type is only supported for
directory service objects.
In the ACE, an access mask contains object access rights granted (or denied) to the SID, representing a
user or group. An access mask is also used to specify the desired access to an object when accessing the
object and to identify granted access associated with an opened object. Each bit in an access mask
represents a particular access right. There are four categories of access rights: standard, specific,
special, and generic. Standard access rights apply to all object types. Specific access rights have
different semantic meanings depending on the type of object. Special access rights are used in desired
access masks to request special access or to ask for all allowable rights. Generic access rights are
convenient groupings of specific and standard access rights. Each object type provides its own mapping
between generic access rights and the standard and specific access rights.
For most objects, a subject requests access to the object (e.g., opens it) and receives a pointer to a
handle in return. The TSF associates a granted access mask with each opened handle. For kernel-mode
objects, handles are maintained in a kernel-mode handle table. There is one handle table per process;
each entry in the handle table identifies an opened object and the access rights granted to that object.
For user-mode TSF servers, the handle is a server-controlled context pointer associated with the
connection between the subject and the server. The server uses this context handle in the same
manner as with the kernel mode (i.e., to locate an opened object and it’s associated granted access
mask). In both cases (user and kernel-mode objects), the SRM makes all access control decisions.
The following table summarizes every DAC access right for each named object which were tested by the
evaluation lab:
Table 25 DAC Access Rights and Named Objects
Named Object Access Rights
NTFS Directory ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY
READ_CONTROL
WRITE_DAC
WRITE_OWNER
SYNCHRONIZE
FILE_LIST_DIRECTORY
FILE_ADD_FILE
FILE_ADD_SUBDIRECTORY
FILE_DELETE_CHILD
FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 127 of 164
Named Object Access Rights
FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES
FILE_DELETE_CHILD|FILE_ADD_FILE
DELETE
NTFS File ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY
READ_CONTROL
WRITE_DAC
WRITE_OWNER
SYNCHRONIZE
FILE_WRITE_DATA
FILE_READ_DATA
FILE_APPEND_DATA
FILE_WRITE_EA
FILE_EXECUTE
FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES
FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES
FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES.
FILE_WRITE_DATA and FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES.
DELETE
FILE_WRITE_DATA | FILE_READ_DATA
FILE_READ_DATA | FILE_EXECUTE
FILE_READ_DATA | FILE_EXECUTE | FILE_WRITE_DATA
FILE_WRITE_DATA | FILE_WRITE_EA | FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES
6.3.1.3 DAC Enforcement Algorithm
The TSF enforces the DAC policy to objects based on SIDs and privileges in the requestor’s token, the
desired access mask requested, and the object’s security descriptor.
Below is a summary of the algorithm used to determine whether a request to access a user data object
is allowed. In order for access to be granted, all access rights specified in the desired access mask must
be granted by one of the following steps. At the end of any step, if all of the requested access rights
have been granted then access is allowed. At the end of the algorithm, if any requested access right has
not been granted, then access is denied.
1. Privilege Check:
a. Check for SeSecurity privilege: This is required if ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY is in the
desired access mask. If ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY is requested and the requestor does
not have this privilege, access is denied. Otherwise ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY is
granted.
b. Check for SeTakeOwner privilege: If the desired mask has WRITE_OWNER access right,
and the privilege is found in the requestor’s token, then WRITE_OWNER access is
granted.
c. Check for SeBackupPrivilege: The Backup Files and Directories privilege allows a subject
process to read files and registry objects for backup operations regardless of their ACE in
the DACL. If the subject process has the SeBackupPrivilege privilege and the operation
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 128 of 164
requires the privilege, no further checking is performed and access is allowed.
Otherwise this check is irrelevant and the access check proceeds.
d. Check for SeRestorePrivilege: The Restore Files and Directories privilege allows a subject
process to write files and registry objects for restore operations regardless of their ACE
in the DACL. If the subject process has the SeRestorePrivilege privilege and the
operation requires the privilege no further checking is performed, and access is allowed.
Otherwise this check is irrelevant and the access check proceeds.
2. Owner Check:
a. If the DACL contains one or more ACEs with the OwnerRights SID, those entries, along
with all other applicable ACEs for the user, are used to determine the owner's rights.
b. Otherwise, check all the SIDs in the token to determine if there is a match with the
object owner. If so, the READ_CONTROL and WRITE_DAC rights are granted if
requested.
3. DACL not present:
a. All further access rights requested are granted.
4. DACL present but empty:
a. If any additional access rights are requested, access is denied.
5. Iteratively process each ACE in the order that they appear in the DACL as described below:
a. If the inheritance attributes of the ACE indicate the ACE is applicable only to children
objects of the associated object, the ACE is skipped.
b. If the SID in the ACE does not match any SID in the requestor’s access token, the ACE is
skipped.
c. If a SID match is found, and the access mask in the ACE matches an access in the desired
access mask:
i. Access Allowed ACE Types: If the ACE is of type
ACCESS_ALLOWED_OBJECT_ACE and the ACE includes a GUID representing a
property set or property associated with the object, then the access is granted
to the property set or specific property represented by the GUID (rather than to
the entire object). Otherwise the ACE grants access to the entire object.
ii. Access Denied ACE Type: If the ACE is of type ACCESS_DENIED_OBJECT_ACE and
the ACE includes a GUID representing a property set or property associated with
the object, then the access is denied to the property set or specific property
represented by the GUID. Otherwise the ACE denies access to the entire object.
If a requested access is specifically denied by an ACE, then the entire access
request fails.
6. If all accesses are granted but the requestor’s token has at least one restricting SID, the
complete access check is performed against the restricting SIDs. If this second access check does
not grant the desired access, then the entire access request fails.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 129 of 164
6.3.1.4 Default DAC Protection
The TSF provides a process ensuring a DACL is applied by default to all new objects. When new objects
are created, the appropriate DACL is constructed. The default DAC protections for DS objects and non-
DS objects are slightly different.
The TOE uses the following rules to set the DACL in the SDs for new named kernel objects:
• The object's DACL is the DACL from the SD specified by the creating process. The TOE merges
any inheritable ACEs into the DACL unless SE_DACL_PROTECTED is set in the SD control flags.
The TOE then sets the SE_DACL_PRESENT SD control flag. Note that a creating process can
explicitly provide a SD that includes no DACL. The result will be an object with no protections.
This is distinct from providing no SD which is described below.
• If the creating process does not specify a SD, the TOE builds the object's DACL from inheritable
ACEs in the parent object's DACL. The TOE then sets the SE_DACL_PRESENT SD control flag.
• If the parent object has no inheritable ACEs, the TOE uses its object manager subcomponent to
provide a default DACL. The TOE then sets the SE_DACL_PRESENT and SE_DACL_DEFAULTED SD
control flags.
• If the object manager does not provide a default DACL, the TOE uses the default DACL in the
subject's access token. The TOE then sets the SE_DACL_PRESENT and SE_DACL_DEFAULTED SD
control flags.
• The subject's access token always has a default DACL, which is set by the LSA subcomponent
when the token is created.
The method used to build a DACL for a new DS object is slightly different. There are two key differences,
which are as follows:
• The rules for creating a DACL distinguish between generic inheritable ACEs and object-specific
inheritable ACEs in the parent object's SD. Generic inheritable ACEs can be inherited by all types
of child objects. Object-specific inheritable ACEs can be inherited only by the type of child
object to which they apply.
• The AD schema definition for the object can include a SD. Each object class defined in the
schema has a defaultSecurityDescriptor attribute. If neither the creating process nor
inheritance from the parent object provides a DACL for a new AD object, the TOE uses the DACL
in the default SD specified by the schema.
The TOE uses the following rules to set the DACL in the security descriptor for new DS objects:
• The object's DACL is the DACL from the SD specified by the creating process. The TOE merges
any inheritable ACEs into the DACL unless SE_DACL_PROTECTED is set in the SD control flags.
The TOE then sets the SE_DACL_PRESENT SD control flag.
• If the creating process does not specify a SD, the TOE checks the parent object's DACL for
inheritable object-specific ACEs that apply to the type of object being created. If the parent
object has inheritable object-specific ACEs for the object type, the TOE builds the object's DACL
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 130 of 164
from inheritable ACEs, including both generic and object-specific ACEs. It then sets the
SE_DACL_PRESENT SD control flag.
• If the parent object has no inheritable object-specific ACEs for the type of object being created,
the TOE uses the default DACL from the AD schema for that object type. It then sets the
SE_DACL_PRESENT and SE_DACL_DEFAULTED SD control flags.
• If the AD schema does not specify a default DACL for the object type, the TOE uses the default
DACL in the subject's access token. It then sets the SE_DACL_PRESENT and
SE_DACL_DEFAULTED SD control flags.
• The subject's access token always has a default DACL, which is set by the LSA subcomponent
when the token is created.
All tokens are created with an appropriate default DACL, which can be applied to the new objects as
appropriate. The default DACL is restrictive in that it only allows the SYSTEM SID and the user SID that
created the object to have access. The SYSTEM SID is a special SID representing TSF trusted processes.
6.3.1.5 DAC Management
• The following are the four methods that DACL changes are controlled:
o Object owner: Has implicit WRITE_DAC access.
o Explicit DACL change access: A user granted explicit WRITE_DAC access on the DACL can
change the DACL.
o Take owner access: A user granted explicit WRITE_OWNER access on the DACL can take
ownership of the object and then use the owner’s implicit WRITE_DAC access.
o Take owner privilege: A user with SeTakeOwner privilege can take ownership of the
object and then user the owner’s implicit WRITE_DAC access.
6.3.1.6 Reference Mediation
Access to objects on the system is generally predicated on obtaining a handle to the object. Handles are
usually obtained as the result of opening or creating an object. In these cases, the TSF ensures that
access validation occurs before creating a new handle for a subject. Handles may also be inherited from
a parent process or directly copied (with appropriate access) from another subject. In all cases, before
creating a handle, the TSF ensures that that the security policy allows the subject to have the handle
(and thereby access) to the object. A handle always has a granted access mask associated with it. This
mask indicates, based on the security policy, which access rights to the object that the subject was
granted. On every attempt to use a handle, the TSF ensures that the action requested is allowed
according to the handle’s granted access mask. In a few cases, such as with DS, objects are directly
accessed by name without the intermediate step of obtaining a handle first. In these cases, the TSF
checks the request against the access policy directly (rather than checking for a granted access mask).
6.3.2 VPN Client
The Windows IPsec VPN client can be configured by the device local administrator. The administrator
can configure the IPsec VPN client that all IP traffic is routed through the IPsec tunnel except for:
• IKE traffic used to establish the VPN tunnel
• IPv4 ARP traffic for resolution of local network layer addresses and to establish a local address
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 131 of 164
• IPv6 NDP traffic for resolution of local network layer addresses and to establish a local address
The IPsec VPN is an end-to-end internetworking technology and so VPN sessions can be established over
physical network protocols such as wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) or local area network.
The components responsible for routing IP traffic through the VPN client:
• The IPv4 / IPv6 network stack in the kernel processes ingoing and outgoing network traffic.
• The IPsec and IKE and AuthIP Keying Modules service which hosts the IKE and Authenticated
Internet Protocol (AuthIP) keying modules. These keying modules are used for authentication
and key exchange in Internet Protocol security (IPsec).
• The Remote Access Service device driver in the kernel, which is used primarily for VPN
connections; known as the “RAS IPsec VPN” or “RAS VPN”.
• The IPsec Policy Agent service which enforces IPsec policies.
Universal Windows App developers can implement their own VPN client if authorized by Microsoft to
use the networkingVpnProvider capability, which includes setting the policy to lockdown networking
traffic as described above.56
6.3.3 Memory Management and Object Reuse
Windows ensures that any previous information content is unavailable upon allocation to subjects and
objects. The TSF ensures that resources processed by the kernel or are exported to user-mode
processes do not have residual information in the following ways:
• All objects are based on memory and disk storage. Memory allocated for objects, which includes
memory allocated for network packets, is either overwritten with all zeros or overwritten with
the provided data before being assigned to an object. Read/write pointers prevent reading
beyond the space used by the object. Only the exact value of what is most recently written can
be read and no more. For varying length objects, subsequent reads only return the exact value
that was set, even though the actual allocated size of the object may be greater than this.
Objects stored on disk are restricted to only disk space used for that object.
• Subject processes using the IPsec client have associated memory and an execution context. The
TSF ensures that the memory associated with subjects is either overwritten with all zeros or
overwritten with user data before allocation as described in the previous point for memory
allocated to objects. In addition, the execution context (processor registers) is initialized when
new threads within a process are created and restored when a thread context switch occurs.
• Network packets processed by IPsec are encrypted in place. In other words, the data to be
encrypted is not copied to a separate buffer and then encrypted. The encrypted network packet
is encrypted into the same buffer and overwrites the plaintext network packet. The buffers
allocated to hold network packets are allocated with enough space to accommodate padding
required for encryption. Each network packet is held in its own buffer. There is a list of buffers,
one for each packet. A buffer that holds a network packet is not reused for another network
56
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/windows.networking.vpn.aspx .
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 132 of 164
packet. After a buffer holding a network packet is no longer in use the memory allocated for the
buffer is freed and released back to the TSF.
The above, in combination, will ensure that the memory used for inbound and outbound network
packets does not contain data from previous use.
6.3.4 SFR Summary
• FDP_ACF_EXT.1: Windows provides a Discretionary Access Control policy to limit modification
and reading of objects by non-authorized users.
• FDP_IFC_EXT.1, FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC): Windows provides a VPN client and interfaces for
developers to implement their own VPN client.
• FDP_RIP.2: The TSF ensures that previous information contents of resources used for new
objects are not discernible in the new object via zeroing or overwriting of memory and tracking
read/write pointers for disk storage. Every process is allocated new memory and an execution
context. Memory is zeroed or overwritten before allocation.
6.4 Identification and Authentication
All logons are treated essentially in the same manner regardless of their source (e.g., interactive logon,
network interface, internally initiated service logon) and start with an account name, domain name
(which may be NULL; indicating the local system), and credentials that must be provided to the TSF.
Windows 10and Windows Server can authenticate users based on username and password as well as
using a Windows Hello PIN which is backed by a TPM. Windows 10 and Windows Server can also use
physical or virtual smart card thus supporting multiple user authentication.
Password-based authentication to Windows succeeds when the credential provided by the user matches
the stored protected representation of the password; Windows Hello and smart cards both use PIN-
based authentication to unlock a protected resource, a private key, the stored representation of the PIN
is protected by the Secure Kernel.
Password authentication can be used for interactive, service, and network logons and to initiate the
“change password” screen; the Windows Hello PIN, physical and virtual smart cards can be used for
interactive logons; and the Windows Hello PIN is used to re-authenticate the user when the user
chooses to change their PIN.
When the authentication succeeds, the user will be logged onto their desktop, their screen unlocked, or
their authentication factors changed depending whether the user logged onto the computer, the display
was locked, or the PIN or password was to be changed.
The Local Security Authority component within Windows maintains a count of the consecutive failed
logon attempts by security principals from their last successful authentication. When the number of
consecutive failed logon attempts is larger than the policy for failed logon attempts, which ranges from
0 (never lockout the account) to 999, Windows will lockout the user account. Windows persists the
number of consecutive failed logons on for the user and so rebooting the computer does not reset the
failed logon counter. Interactive logons are done on the secure desktop, which does not allow other
programs to run, and therefore prevents automated password guessing. In addition, the Windows logon
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 133 of 164
component enforces a one second delay between every failed logon with an increased delay after
several consecutive logon failures.
6.4.1 X.509 Certificate Validation and Generation
Every Windows component that uses X.509 certificates is responsible for performing certificate
validation, however all components use a common system subcomponent,57
which validates certificates
as described in RFC 5280, and particular, the specific validation listed in section 5.1.4.1.3, including all
applicable usage constraints such as Server Authentication for networking sessions and Code Signing
when installing product updates. Every component that uses X.509 certificates will have a repository for
public certificates and will select a certificate based on criteria such as entity name for the
communication partner, any extended key usage constraints, and cryptographic algorithms associated
with the certificate. The Windows component will use the same kinds of information along with a
certification path and certificate trust lists as part of deciding to accept the certificate.
If certificate validation fails, or if Windows is not able to check the validation status for a certificate,
Windows will not establish a trusted network channel, e.g. IPsec, however it will inform the user and
seek their consent before establishing a HTTPS web browsing session. Certification validation for
updates to Windows, mobile applications, and integrity verification is mandatory, neither the
administrator nor the user have the option to bypass the results of a failed certificate validation;
software installation and updates is further described in Windows and Application Updates.
When Windows needs to generate a certificate enrollment request it will include a distinguished name,
information about the cryptographic algorithms used for the request, any certification extensions, and
information about the client requesting the certificate.
6.4.2 Certificate Storage
In a Windows OS, stored certificates known as trusted root certificates are contained in certificate
stores. Each user has their own certificate store and there is a certificate store for the computer
account; access to a certificate store is managed by the discretionary access control policy in Windows
such that only the authorized administrator, i.e., the user or the local administrator, can add or remove
entries. Certificates which are used by applications, for example, TLS, are also placed in certificate stores
for the user.
In addition to the standard certificate revocation processes, application certificates can be loaded by
either using administrative tools such as certutil.exe, changes to the trusted root certificates can be
made using Certificate Trust Lists.
6.4.3 IPsec and Pre-shared Keys
IPsec is the only protocol in this evaluation which supports the use of pre-shared keys. These keys can
range from a-z, A-Z, the numbers 0 – 9, and any special character entered from the keyboard. The length
of the pre-shared key can range from 1 to 256 characters, and so the specific length of 22 characters
which the protection profile requires is supported.
57
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa380252(v=vs.85).aspx for the win32
interface description for this component.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 134 of 164
The IPsec pre-shared key is used as-is without modification by Windows and so the pre-shared key does
not use the Windows random number generator. The reasoning for this is that if the user needs to
supply a particular key, that specific key should be used. If the user desires a randomized bit string, then
the solution is to use a X.509 certificate which will contain a bit string of suitable length and
randomness.
6.4.4 SFR Summary
• FIA_AFL.1: After the number of consecutive failed authentication attempts for a user account
has been surpassed, Windows can be configured to lockout the user account.
• FIA_PAE_EXT.1: Windows conforms to IEEE 802.1X as a Port Access Entity acting in the
Supplicant role.
• FIA_UAU.5: Windows provides authentication using a username and password.
• FIA_X509_EXT.1, FIA_X509_EXT.1(WLAN): Windows validates X.509 certificates according to
RFC 5280 and provides OCSP and CRL services for applications to check certificate revocation
status.
• FIA_X509_EXT.2, FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN), FIA_X509_IPSEC.3:(IPSEC): Windows uses X.509
certificates for EAP-TLS exchanges, TLS, DTLS, HTTPS, IPsec, code signing for system software
updates, code signing for mobile applications, and code signing for integrity verification.
• FIA_X509_EXT.4: Windows stores trusted certificates in the certificate stores which controls
access based on the Windows Discretionary Access Control policy.
• FIA_PSK_EXT.1: Windows allows for the use of pre-shared IPsec keys which are directly used to
create an IPsec connection. The set of characters for the pre-shared key is a-z, A-Z, the numbers
0 – 9, and any special character entered from the keyboard.
6.5 Security Management
The complete set of management functions are described in Security Management (FMT), the following
table maps which activities can be done by a standard Windows user or a local administrator. A
checkmark indicates which entity can invoke the management function. Standard users, or programs
running on their behalf, are not able to modify policy or configuration that is set by the administrator,
the result is that the user cannot override the configuration specified by the administrator.
Table 26 General Purpose OS Windows Security Management Functions
# Management Function Administrator User
1. Enable/disable screen lock √ √
2. Configure screen lock inactivity timeout √ √
3. Configure local audit storage capacity √
4. Configure minimum password Length √
5. Configure minimum number of special characters in
password
6. Configure minimum number of numeric characters in
password
7. Configure minimum number of uppercase characters in
password
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 135 of 164
8. Configure minimum number of lowercase characters in
password
9. Configure lockout policy for unsuccessful authentication
attempts through [timeouts between attempts, limiting
number of attempts during a time period]
√
10. Configure host-based firewall √
11. Configure name/address of directory server to bind
with58
√
12. Configure name/address of remote management server
from which to receive management settings
√
13. Configure name/address of audit/logging server to which
to send audit/logging records
14. Configure audit rules √
15. Configure name/address of network time server √
16. Enable/disable automatic software update √
17. Configure Wi-Fi interface √
18. Enable/disable Bluetooth interface √
19. Enable/disable [local area network interface, configure
USB interfaces]
√
20. [manage Windows Diagnostics settings, √ √
Configure remote connection inactivity timeout] √
Table 27 IPsec VPN Client Windows Security Management Functions
Management Task Local Administrative Interface Remote Administrative
Interface
Specify VPN gateways to use • PowerShell
• User Interface
• Group Policy
• MDM
Specify client credentials to use • PowerShell
• User Interface
• Group Policy
• MDM
Configuration of IKE protocol
versions
• PowerShell
• User Interface
• Group Policy
• MDM
Configure IKE authentication
techniques
• PowerShell
• User Interface
• Group Policy
• MDM
Configure the cryptoperiod for
the established session keys
• PowerShell • Group Policy
• VPN Gateway
Configure certificate revocation
check
• PowerShell • Group Policy
Specify the algorithm suites that
may be proposed and accepted
during the IPsec exchanges
• PowerShell • Group Policy
Load X.509v3 certificates • PowerShell
• User Interface
• Group Policy
• MDM
58
For Windows 10 Pro, Windows 10 Enterprise and Windows Server.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 136 of 164
6.5.1 SFR Summary
• FMT_MOF_EXT.1, FMT_SMF_EXT.1, FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN), FMT_SMF_EXT.1(IPSEC):
Windows provides the user with the capability to administer the security functions described in
the security target. The mappings to specific functions are described in each applicable section
of the TOE Summary Specification.
6.6 Protection of the TSF
6.6.1 Separation and Domain Isolation
The TSF provides a security domain for its own protection and provides process isolation. The security
domains used within and by the TSF consists of the following:
• Hardware
• Virtualization Partitions
• Kernel-mode software
• Trusted user-mode processes
• User-mode Administrative tools process
• Application Containers
The TSF hardware is managed by the TSF kernel-mode software and is not modifiable by untrusted
subjects. The TSF kernel-mode software is protected from modification by hardware execution state
and protection for both physical memory and memory allocated to a partition; an operating system
image runs within a partition. The TSF hardware provides a software interrupt instruction that causes a
state change from user mode to kernel mode within a partition. The TSF kernel-mode software is
responsible for processing all interrupts and determines whether or not a valid kernel-mode call is being
made. In addition, the TSF memory protection features ensure that attempts to access kernel-mode
memory from user mode results in a hardware exception, ensuring that kernel-mode memory cannot be
directly accessed by software not executing in the kernel mode.
The TSF provides process isolation for all user-mode processes through private virtual address spaces
(private per process page tables), execution context (registers, program counters), and security context
(handle table and token). The data structures defining process address space, execution context and
security context are all stored in protected kernel-mode memory. All security relevant privileges are
considered to enforce TSF Protection.
User-mode administrator tools execute with the security context of the process running on behalf of the
authorized administrator. Administrator processes are protected like other user-mode processes, by
process isolation.
Application Containers (“App Containers”) provide an execution environment for Universal Windows
Applications which prevents Universal Windows Applications from accessing data created by other
Universal Windows Applications except through brokered operating system services such as the File
Picker dialog.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 137 of 164
Like TSF processes, user processes also are provided a private address space and process context, and
therefore are protected from each other. Additionally, the TSF has the added ability to protect memory
pages using Data Execution Prevention (DEP) which marks memory pages in a process as non-executable
unless the location explicitly contains executable code. When the processor is asked to execute
instructions from a page marked as data, the processor will raise an exception for the OS to handle.
The TSF implements cryptographic mechanisms within a distinct user-mode process, where its services
can be accessed by both kernel- and user-mode components, in order to isolate those functions from
the rest of the TSF to limit exposure to possible errors while protecting those functions from potential
tampering attempts.
Furthermore, the TSF includes a Code Integrity Verification feature, also known as Kernel-mode code
signing (KMCS), whereby device drivers will be loaded only if they are digitally signed by either Microsoft
or from a trusted root certificate authority recognized by Microsoft. KMCS uses public-key cryptography
technology to verify the digital signature of each driver as it is loaded. When a driver tries to load, the
TSF decrypts the hash included with the driver using the public key stored in the certificate. It then
verifies that the hash matches the one that it computes based on the driver code using the FIPS -
certified cryptographic libraries in the TSF. The authenticity of the certificate is also checked in the same
way, but using the certificate authority's public key, which must be configured in and trusted by the
TOE.
6.6.2 Protection of OS Binaries, Audit and Configuration Data
By default, a Windows operating system is installed into the \Windows\ directory of the first bootable
storage partition for the computer. The logical name for this directory is %systemRoot%. The kernel,
device drivers (.sys files), system executables (.exe files) and dynamically loadable libraries (.dll files) are
stored in the \%systemRoot%\system32 directory and subdirectories below system32. Standard users
have permissions to read and execute these files, however modify and write permissions are limited to
the local administrator and system service accounts.
The root directory for audit logs is %systemRoot%\system32\winevt. The local administrator, Event Log
service, and the system account have full control over the audit files; standard users are not authorized
to access the logs.
The primary configuration data store for Windows is the registry, and there are separate registry hives
for the computer itself and each user authorized to use the computer. The registry hives for operating
system configuration data is located at %systemRoot%\system32\config; the registry hive for the user is
located in the user’s profile home directory. Registry files use the same protection scheme as event log
files.
6.6.3 Protection From Implementation Weaknesses
The Windows kernel, user-mode applications, and all Windows Store Applications implement Address
Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) in order to load executable code at unpredictable base addresses.59
59
The 64-bit version of the Windows microkernel, ntoskrnl.exe, implements Kernel Patch Protection to prevent the
modification of kernel data structures which could be exploited by stack-based vulnerabilities.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 138 of 164
The base address is generated using a pseudo-random number generator that is seeded by high quality
entropy sources when available which provides at least 8 random bits for memory mapping. 60
The Windows runtime also provides stack buffer overrun protection capability that will terminate a
process after Windows detects a potential buffer overrun on the thread’s stack by checking canary
values in the function prolog and epilog as well as reordering the stack. All Windows binaries and
Windows Store Applications implement stack buffer overrun protection by being complied with the /GS
option,61
and checking that all Windows Store Applications are compiled with buffer overrun protection
before ingesting the Windows Store Application into the Windows Store.
To enable these protections using the Microsoft Visual Studio development environment, programs are
complied with /DYNAMICBASE option for ASLR, and optionally with /HIGHENTROPYVA for 64-bit ASLR,
or /NXCOMPAT:NO to opt out of software-based DEP, and /GS (switched on by default) for stack buffer
overrun protection.
Windows Store Applications are compiled with the /APPCONTAINER option which builds the executable
to run in a Windows appcontainer, to run with the user-mode protections described in this section.
6.6.4 Windows Platform Integrity and Code Integrity
A Windows operating system verifies the integrity of Windows program code using the combination of
Secure Boot and Code Integrity capabilities in Windows. On computers with a TPM, such as those used
in this evaluation, before Windows will boot, the computer will verify the integrity of the early boot
components, which includes the Boot Loader, the OS Loader, and the OS Resume binaries.
This capability, known as Secure Boot, checks that the file integrity of early boot components has not
been compromised, mitigating the risk of rootkits and viruses, and additionally checks that critical boot-
time data have not been modified. Secure Boot collects these file and configuration measurements and
seals them to the TPM. When Secure Boot starts in the preboot environment, it will compare the sealed
values from the TPM to the measured values from the current boot cycle and if those values do not
match the sealed values, Secure Boot will lock the system (which prevents booting) and display a
warning on the computer display. While the TPM is part of the external IT environment in this
evaluation, the hardware-protected hashes serve as the first step of the chain that provides integrity
from the hardware, through the bootchain into the kernel and required device drivers.
When the measurements match, the UEFI firmware will load the OS Boot Manager, which is an
Authenticode-signed image file, based on the Portable Executable (PE) image file format. A SHA-256
hash-based signature and a public key certificate chain are embedded in the boot manager
Authenticode signed image file under the “Certificate” IMAGE_DATA_DIRECTORY of the
IMAGE_OPTIONAL_HEADER of the file. This public key certificate chain ends in a root public key. The
boot manager uses the embedded SHA-256 hash-based signature and public key certificate chain to
validate its own integrity. A SHA-256 hash of the boot manager image file is calculated for the whole file,
with the exception of the following three elements which are excluded from the hash calculation: the
CheckSum field in the IMAGE_OPTIONAL_HEADER, the IMAGE_DIRECTORY_ENTRY_SECURITY
60
The PRNG is seeded by the TPM RBG, the RDRAND instruction and other sources.
61
Winload.exe, winresume.exe, tcblaunch.exe, tcbloader.dll, and hvloader.exe are loaded before the stack buffer
overrun protection mechanism is operational and therefore are not compiled with this option..
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 139 of 164
IMAGE_DATA_DIRECTORY, and the public key certificate table, which always resides at the end of the
image file.
If the boot manager is validated, then the root public key of the embedded public key certificate chain
must match one of the Microsoft root public keys which indicate that Microsoft is the publisher of the
boot manager. These root public keys are necessarily hardcoded in the boot manager. If the boot
manager cannot validate its own integrity, then the boot manager does not continue to load other
modules and displays an error message.
After the boot manager determines its integrity, it attempts to load one application from the following
list of boot applications:
• OS Loader: (Winload.exe or Winload.efi): the boot application started by the boot manager load
the Windows kernel to start the boot process
• OS Resume (winresume.exe or winresume.efi): the boot application started by the boot
manager to resume the instance of the executing OS which is persisted in the hibernation file
“hiberfil.sys”62
• A physical memory testing application (memtest.exe) to check the physical memory ICs for the
machine are working correctly.63
These boot applications are also Authenticode signed image files and so, the Boot Manager uses the
embedded trusted SHA-256 hash based signature and public key certificate chain within the boot
application’s IMAGE_OPTIONAL_HEADER to validate the integrity of the boot application before
attempting to load it. Except for three elements which are excluded from the hash calculation (these are
the same three elements mentioned above in the Boot Manager description), a hash of a boot
application image file is calculated in the same manner as for the Boot Manager.64
If the boot application is validated, then the root public key of the embedded public key certificate chain
must match one of the hardcoded Microsoft’s root public keys. If the boot manager cannot validate the
integrity of the boot application, then the boot manager will not load the boot application and instead
displays an error message below along with the full name of the boot application that failed the integrity
check.
After the boot application’s integrity has been determined, the boot manager attempts to load the boot
application. If the boot application is successfully loaded, the boot manager then transfers execution to
the loaded application.
After the Winload boot application is loaded, it receives the transfer of execution from the boot
manager. During its execution, Winload attempts to load the Windows kernel (ntoskrnl.exe) together
with a number of early-launch drivers. Among the modules that Winload must validate in the Portable
Executable (PE) image file format, are the cryptography-related modules listed below
• The Windows kernel (ntoskrnl.exe)
62
The evaluated configuration precludes suspending/resuming Windows and so this boot application will not be
used when operating Windows per the administrative guidance.
63
This is considered to be a non-operational mode for the evaluation.
64
Note that this is an additional integrity check in addition to the TPM measurements check.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 140 of 164
• The BitLocker drive encryption filter driver (fvevol.sys)
• The Windows kernel cryptography device driver (cng.sys)
• The Windows code integrity library module (ci.dll)
The four image files above have their trusted SHA hashes stored in catalog files that reside in the local
machine catalog directory.
Because they are PKCS #7 SignedData messages, catalog files are signed. The root public key of the
certificate chain used to verify the signature of a Microsoft’s catalog file must match one of the
Microsoft’s root public keys indicating that Microsoft is the publisher of the Windows image files. These
Microsoft’s root public keys are hardcoded in the Winload boot application.
If the image files are validated, their SHA-256 hashes, as calculated by the Winload boot application,
must match their trusted SHA-256 hashes in a Microsoft’s catalog file, which has been verified by the
Winload boot application. A hash of an image file is calculated for the whole file, with the exception of
the following three elements which are excluded from the hash calculation: the CheckSum field in the
IMAGE_OPTIONAL_HEADER, the IMAGE_DIRECTORY_ENTRY_SECURITY IMAGE_DATA_DIRECTORY, and
the public key certificate table, which always resides at the end of the image file.
Should the Winload boot application be unable to validate the integrity of one of the Windows image
files, the Winload boot application does not continue to load other Windows image files. Rather it
displays an error message and fails into a non-operational mode. In limited circumstances the pre-boot
environment will attempt to repair the boot environment, such as copying files from a repair partition to
repair files with integrity errors. When repair is not possible, the boot manager will ask the user to
reinstall Windows.
After the initial device drivers have been loaded, the Windows kernel will continue to boot the rest of
the operating system using the Code Integrity capability (ci.dll) to measure code integrity for (1) the
remaining kernel-mode and user-mode programs which need to be loaded for the OS to complete its
boot and (2) after booting, CI also verifies the integrity of applications launched by the user (applications
from Microsoft are always signed by Microsoft, and third-party applications which may be signed by the
developer) by checking the RSA signature for the binary and SHA-256 hashes of the binary which are
compared to the catalog files described above.
Kernel-mode code signing (KMCS), also managed by CI, prevents kernel-mode device drivers, such as
the TCIP/IP network driver (tcpip.sys), from loading unless they are published and digitally signed by
developers who have been vetted by one of a handful of trusted certificate authorities (CAs). KMCS,
using public-key cryptography technologies, requires that kernel-mode code include a digital signature
generated by one of the trusted certificate authorities. When a kernel device driver tries to load,
Windows decrypts the hash included with the driver using the public key stored in the certificate, then
verifies that the hash matches the one computed with the code. The authenticity of the certificate is
checked in the same way, but using the certificate authority's public key, which is trusted by Windows.
The root public key of the certificate chain that verifies the signature must match one of the Microsoft’s
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 141 of 164
root public keys indicating that Microsoft is the publisher of the Windows image files. These Microsoft’s
root public keys are hardcoded in the Windows boot loader.65
In addition, Windows File Protection maintains a set of protected files that are stored in a cache along
with cryptographic hashes of each of those files. Once the system is initialized, Windows File Protection
is loaded and will scan the protected files to ensure they have valid cryptographic hashes. Windows File
Protection also registers itself to be notified should any of the protected files be modified so that it can
recheck the cryptographic checksum at any point while the system is operational. Should the any of the
cryptographic hash checks fail, the applicable file will be restored from the cache.
6.6.5 Windows and Application Updates
Updates to Windows are delivered as Microsoft Update Standalone Package files (.msu files which are
signed by Microsoft with two digital signatures, a RSA SHA1 signature for legacy applications and a RSA
SHA-256 signature for modern applications. The digital signature is signed by Microsoft Corporation,
with a certification path through a Microsoft Code Signing certificate and ultimately the Microsoft Root
Certification Authority. These certificates are checked by the Windows Trusted Installer prior to
installing the update.
The Windows operating system will check that the certificate is valid and has not been revoked using a
standard PKI CRL. Once the Trusted Installer determines that the package is valid, it will update
Windows; otherwise the installation will abort and there will be an error message in the event log. Note
that the Windows installer will not install an update if the files in the package have lower version
numbers than the installed files.
The integrity of the Microsoft Code Signing certificate on the computer is protected by the storage root
key within the TPM, and the validated integrity of the Windows binaries as a result of Secure Boot and
Code Integrity.
Updates to the Windows operating system, Windows applications, and Microsoft desktop applications
are delivered through the Windows Update capability (for Windows) and Microsoft Update (for
Microsoft desktop applications), which is enabled by default, or the user can go to
http://catalog.update.microsoft.com to search and obtain security updates on their own volition.
A user can then check that the signature is valid either by viewing the digital signature details of the file
from Windows Explorer or by using the Get-AuthenticodeSignature PowerShell Cmdlet. The
following is an example of using PowerShell:
65
Enforcing the Kernel Mode Code Signing policy is mandatory for the x64 version of Windows. For the x86 version
of Windows, Windows will check the signatures for all kernel executable code and will halt OS if it detects an
integrity error in ntoskrnl.exe, bootvid.dll, hall.dll, kdcom.dll, ci.dll, clfs.dll, ksecdd.sys, pshed.dll, or tpm.sys.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 142 of 164
If the Get-AuthenticodeSignature PowerShell Cmdlet or Windows Explorer could not verify the
signature, the status will be marked as invalid. This verification check uses the same functionality
described above.
6.6.5.1 Windows Store Applications
Universal Windows Platform (UWP) apps can be downloaded from the Microsoft Store and their
installation packages are verified using a digital signature from Microsoft Corporation with the Code
Signing usage. These applications are contained in either AppX packages, or a collection of AppX
packages known as an AppX bundle.66
The AppX package uses the Open Packaging Conventions (OPC)
standard.67
Each package contains a directory file which lists the other files in the package, a digital
signature for the package, a block map representing the application files which may be installed on the
target computer, and the application files themselves. The AppX Deployment Service will verify the RSA
SHA-256 digital signature for the block map and the other AppX metadata at the beginning of the AppX
package (or bundle) download. This is described in more detail as part at
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsappdev/archive/2012/12/04/designing-a-simple-and-secure-app-
package-appx.aspx.
6.6.5.2 Distributing updates
There are several distribution channels for updates to Windows and Windows applications:
• Windows Update: Windows Update is the web service for delivering Windows updates to
directly to consumers.
• Windows Server Update Services (WSUS): WSUS is a server role in Windows Server which IT
administrators can use to distribute application updates to users within their enterprise.
• Windows Store: The Windows Store is a web service for delivering updates to Universal
Windows Platform apps which were originally installed from the Windows Store.
66
Windows Store Applications are typically downloaded from the Windows Store for the Windows 10 operating
system.
67
OPC is also part of ISO/IEC 2900-2 and ECMA 376-2.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 143 of 164
6.6.6 SFR Summary
• FPT_ACF_EXT.1: Windows provides a Discretionary Access Control policy to limit modification
and reading of objects by non-authorized users.
• FPT_ASLR_EXT.1: Windows randomizes user-mode process address spaces and kernel-mode
address space.
• FPT_SBOP_EXT.1: Windows binaries are compiled with stack overflow protection (compiled
using the /Gs option for native applications).
• FPT_SRP_EXT.1: Windows can restrict program execution based on the file path for the
executable, a digital signature for the executable, a version number for the executable, or a
hash of the executable file.
• FPT_TST_EXT.1, FPT_TST_EXT.1(WLAN), FPT_TST_EXT.1(IPSEC): Windows checks the integrity
of the Windows boot loader, OS loader, kernel, and system binaries and all application
executable code, i.e., Windows Store Applications and updates to Windows and Windows Store
Applications.
• FPT_TUD_EXT.1, FPT_TUD_EXT.2: Windows provides a means to identify the current version of
the Windows software, the hardware model, and installed applications. Windows has update
mechanisms to deliver updated operating system and application binaries and a means for a
user to confirm that the digital signatures, which ensure the integrity of the update, are valid for
both the operating system, applications, and Windows Store Applications.
6.7 TOE Access
Windows provides the ability for a user to lock their interactive logon session at their own volition or
after a user-defined inactivity timeout. Windows also provides the ability for the administrator to
specify the interval of inactivity after which the session will be locked. This policy will be applied to
either the local machine or the computers within a domain using either local policy or group policy
respectively. If both the administrator and a standard user specify an inactivity timeout period, Windows
will lock the session when the shortest time period expires.
Once a user has a desktop session, they can invoke the session locking function by using the same key
sequence used to invoke the trusted path (Ctrl+Alt+Del). This key sequence is captured by the TSF and
cannot be intercepted or altered by any user process. The result of that key sequence is a menu of
functions, one of which is to lock the workstation. The user can also lock their desktop session by going
to the Start screen, selecting their logon name, and then choosing the “Lock” option.
Windows constantly monitors the mouse, keyboard, touch display, and the orientation sensor for
inactivity in order to determine if they are inactive for the specified time period. After which, Windows
will lock the workstation and execute the screen saver unless the user is streaming video such as a
movie. Note that if the workstation was not locked manually, the TSF will lock the display and start the
screen saver program if and when the inactivity period is exceeded, as well any notifications from
applications which have registered to publish the application’s badge or the badge with associated
notification text to the locked screen. The user has the option to not display any notifications, or choose
one Windows Store Application to display notification text, and select other applications display their
badge.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 144 of 164
After the computer was locked, in order to unlock their session, the user either presses a key or swipes
the display. The user must provide the Ctrl+Alt+Del key combination if the Interactive Logon: Do not
required CTRL+ALT+DEL policy is set to disabled. Either action will result in an authentication dialog.
The user must then re-enter their authentication data, which has been cached by the local system from
the initial logon, after which the user’s display will be restored and the session will resume. Alternately,
an authorized administrator can enter their administrator identity and password in the authentication
dialog. If the TSF can successfully authenticate the administrator, the user will be logged off, rather than
returning to the user’s session, leaving the workstation ready to authenticate a new user.
As part of establishing the interactive logon session, Windows can be configured to display a logon
banner, which is specified by the administrator, that the user must accept prior to establishing the
session.
As described in the administrator guidance, an authorized administrator can specify which Wi-Fi
networks (SSIDs) a computer may be connected to.
6.7.1 SFR Summary
• FTA_TAB.1: An authorized administrator can define and modify a banner that will be displayed
prior to allowing a user to logon.
• FTA_WSE_EXT.1: An authorized administrator can specify which Wi-Fi networks connect to, as
specified in FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN).
6.8 Trusted Channels
Windows provides trusted network channels to communicate with supporting IT infrastructure or
applications:
• Using TLS (HTTPS) for certificate enrollment; CRL checking; authentication to network resources
such as web (HTTPS) and directory (LDAP-S) servers; and management via configuration service
providers in Windows that are local interface for processing Mobile Device Management (MDM)
requests.
• Using DTLS for datagram-based services and web browsing using a DTLS version which is
specified by the client application.
• Using IPsec for remote management of Windows and to connect over a virtual private network
(VPN).
In order to establish a trusted channel, these communications are protected as described above in
section 6.2.3.
The remote access can be performed through the following methods:
• Remote Desktop Services Overview: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/hh831447.aspx
• Connect to another computer using Remote Desktop Connection:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/connect-using-remote-desktop-
connection#connect-using-remote-desktop-connection=windows-7
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 145 of 164
• PowerShell Remoting: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
US/powershell/scripting/setup/winrmsecurity?view=powershell-6
Both methods use TLS (1.2) protocol for establishing the remote connection.
Windows implements IEEE 802.11-2012, IEEE 802.1X and EAP-TLS to provide authenticated wireless
networking sessions when requested by the user as described above in .
The specific details for each protocol are described in section Network Protocols.
6.8.1 SFR Summary
• FTP_ITC_EXT.1(TLS), FTP_ITC_EXT.1(DTLS), FTP_ITC_EXT.1(WLAN), FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC): Windows
provides several trusted network channels that protect data in transit from disclosure, provide
data integrity, and endpoint identification that is used by 802.11-2012, 802.1X, EAP-TLS, TLS,
HTTPS, DTLS, and IPsec. TLS and HTTPS is used as part of network-based authentication and
certification validation, HTTPS and DTLS are used for web-browsing and by other connection-
based and datagram-based application protocols.
• FTP_TRP.1: Windows provide a local trusted path service as described in TOE Access and a
network-based trusted channel built on the network protocols described in this section.
6.9 Security Response Process
Microsoft utilizes industry standard practices to address reported product vulnerabilities. This includes
a central email address (secure@microsoft.com) to report issues (as described at
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/faqs-report-an-issue?rtc=1), timely triage and root cause
analysis, and responsible resolution of the report which may result in the release of a binary update. If a
binary update is required, it is made available through automated channels to all customers following
the process described at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/. If the sender wishes to
send secure email, there is a public PGP key for S/MIME at https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/msrc/pgp-key-msrc?rtc=1. Security updates for Microsoft products – operating system, firmware,
and applications – are delivered as described in section 6.6.4 and 6.6.5.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 146 of 164
7 Protection Profile Conformance Claim
This section provides the protection profile conformance claim and supporting justifications and
rationale.
This Security Target is in compliance with the General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile,
Version 4.2.1, April 22, 2019 (GP OS PP), the Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network
(WLAN) Clients, version 1.0, February 8, 2016 (“WLAN Client EP”), and the PP-Module for Virtual Private
Network (VPN) Clients, version 2.1, October 5, 2017 (“IPsec Client EP”).
For all of the content incorporated from the protection profile, the corresponding rationale in that
protection profile remains applicable to demonstrate the correspondence between the TOE security
functional requirements and TOE security objectives. Moreover, as demonstrated in this security target
Windows runs on a wide variety of hardware ranging from tablets, convertibles, notebooks, desktop,
and server computers and so it is a general-purpose operating system.
The requirements in the protection profile are assumed to represent a complete set of requirements
that serve to address any interdependencies. All the functional requirements in this security target have
been copied from the protection profile so that all dependencies between SFRs are satisfied by the
inclusion of the relevant component.
Table 28 GP OS PP Security Objectives Rationale
Threat or Assumption Security Objective Rationale
T.NETWORK_ATTACK O.PROTECTED_COMMS,
O.INTEGRITY, O.MANAGEMENT,
O.ACCOUNTABILITY
The threat T.NETWORK_ATTACK
is countered by
O.PROTECTED_COMMS as this
provides for integrity of
transmitted data. The threat
T.NETWORK_ATTACK is
countered by O.INTEGRITY as
this provides for integrity of
software that is installed onto
the system from the network.
The threat T.NETWORK_ATTACK
is countered by
O.MANAGEMENT as this
provides for the ability to
configure the OS to defend
against network attack. The
threat T.NETWORK_ATTACK is
countered by
O.ACCOUNTABILITY as this
provides a mechanism for the OS
to report behavior that may
indicate a network attack has
occurred.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 147 of 164
T.NETWORK_EAVESDROP O.PROTECTED_COMMS,
O.MANAGEMENT
The threat
T.NETWORK_EAVESDROP is
countered by
O.PROTECTED_COMMS as this
provides for confidentiality of
transmitted data. The threat
T.NETWORK_EAVESDROP is
countered by O.MANAGEMENT
as this provides for the ability to
configure the OS to protect the
confidentiality of its transmitted
data.
T.LOCAL_ATTACK O.INTEGRITY,
O.ACCOUNTABILITY
The objective O.INTEGRITY
protects against the use of
mechanisms that weaken the
TOE with regard to attack by
other software on the platform.
The objective
O.ACCOUNTABILITY protects
against local attacks by providing
a mechanism to report behavior
that may indicate a local attack is
occurring or has occurred.
T.LIMITED_PHYSICAL_ACCESS O.PROTECTED_STORAGE The objective
O.PROTECTED_STORAGE
protects against unauthorized
attempts to access physical
storage used by the TOE.
A.PLATFORM OE.PLATFORM The operational environment
objective OE.PLATFORM is
realized through A.PLATFORM.
A.PROPER_USER OE.PROPER_USER The operational environment
objective OE.PROPER_USER is
realized through
A.PROPER_USER.
A.PROPER_ADMIN OE.PROPER_ADMIN The operational environment
objective OE.PROPER_ADMIN is
realized through
A.PROPER_ADMIN.
Table 29 WLAN Client EP Security Objectives Rationale
Threat or Assumption Security Objective Rationale
T.TSF_FAILURE O.TSF_SELF_TEST The objective O.TSF_SELF_TEST
protects against unexpected
failures since some subset of the
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 148 of 164
TOE security functionality are
periodically checked.
T.UNAUTHORIZED_ACCESS O.AUTH_COMM,
O.CRYPTOGRAPHIC_FUNCTIONS,
O.TOE_ADMINISTRATION, and
O.WIRELESS_ACCESS_POINT_
CONNECTION
The objective O.AUTH_COMM
provides a means to identify the
Wi-Fi access point before the
connection is established.
Moreover, the objective
O.WIRELESS_ACCESS_POINT_CO
NNECTION provides a means to
restrict the access point,
ensuring that the connection is
only performed with trusted
access points.
The objective
O.TOE_ADMINISTRATION
provides the capability to
configure the TOE to allow
connection to specific access
points.
The objective
O_CRYPTOGRAPHIC_FUNCTIONS
ensures that the
communications between the
TOE and the access point are
protected to ensure its integrity
and confidentially.
T.UNDETECTED_ACTIONS O.SYSTEM_MONITORING The objective
O.SYSTEM_MONITORING
protects against undetected
actions since all the actions and
events occurred in the TOE are
audited.
A.NO_TOE_BYPASS OE.NO_TOE_BYPASS The operational environment
objective OE.NO_TOE_BYPASS is
realized through
A.NO_TOE_BYPASS
A.TRUSTED_ADMIN OE.TRUSTED_ADMIN The operational environment
objective OE.TRUSTED_ADMIN is
realized through
A.TRUSTED_ADMIN
Table 30 IPsec Client EP Security Objectives Rationale
Threat or Assumption Security Objective Rationale
T.UNAUTHORIZED_ACCESS O.PROTECTED_COMMS,
O.INTEGRITY, O.MANAGEMENT,
O.ACCOUNTABILITY,
The threat of an attacker gaining
access to a network interface or
data that is transmitted over it is
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 149 of 164
O.PROTECTED_COMMS,
O.MANAGEMENT
consistent with the
T.NETWORK_ATTACK and
T.NETWORK_EAVESDROP threats
in the GPOS PP.
T.TSF_CONFIGURATION O.INTEGRITY,
O.ACCOUNTABILITY
The threat of a mis-configured
VPN client is consistent with the
T.LOCAL_ATTACK threat in the
GPOS PP.
T.UNAUTHORIZED_UPDATE O.INTEGRITY,
O.ACCOUNTABILITY
The threat of an unauthorized
update to the VPN client
software in particular is
consistent with the
T.LOCAL_ATTACK threat in the
GPOS PP.
T.USER_DATA_REUSE O.PROTECTED_COMMS,
O.MANAGEMENT
Inadvertent disclosure of user
data to an unauthorized
recipient is consistent with the
T.NETWORK_EAVESDROP threat
in the GPOS PP.
T.TSF_FAILURE O.INTEGRITY,
O.ACCOUNTABILITY
A failure of TSF functionality
could compromise the local
system, which is consistent with
the T.LOCAL_ATTACK threat in
the GPOS PP.
A.NO_TOE_BYPASS OE.NO_TOE_BYPASS The operational environment
objective OE.NO_TOE_BYPASS is
realized through
A.NO_TOE_BYPASS.
A.PHYSICAL OE.PHYSICAL The operational environment
objective OE.PHYSICAL is realized
through A.PHYSICAL.
A.TRUSTED_CONFIG OE.TRUSTED_CONFIG The operational environment
objective OE.TRUSTED_CONFIG
is realized through
A.TRUSTED_CONFIG.
Table 31 GP OS PP Tracing Between SFR and TOE Security Objective
Security Objective Rationale
O.ACCOUNTABILITY Addressed by: FAU_GEN.1, FTP_ITC_EXT.1
Rationale: FAU_GEN.1 defines the auditable events that must be
generated to diagnose the cause of unexpected system behavior.
FTP_ITC_EXT.1 provides a mechanism for the TSF to transmit the
audit data to a remote system.
O.INTEGRITY Addressed by: FPT_SBOP_EXT.1, FPT_ASLR_EXT.1, FPT_TUD_EXT.1,
FPT_TUD_EXT.2, FCS_COP.1(2), FCS_COP.1(3), FCS_COP.1(4),
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 150 of 164
FPT_ACF_EXT.1, FPT_SRP_EXT.1, FIA_X509_EXT.1, FPT_TST_EXT.1,
FTP_ITC_EXT.1, FPT_W^X_EXT.1, FIA_AFL.1, FIA_UAU.5
Rationale: FPT_SBOP_EXT.1 enforces stack buffer overflow
protection that makes it more difficult to exploit running code.
FPT_ASLR_EXT.1 prevents attackers from exploiting code that
executes in static known memory locations. FPT_TUD_EXT.1 and
FPT_TUD_EXT.2 enforce integrity of software updates.
FCS_COP.1(2), FCS_COP.1(3), and FCS_COP.1(4) provide the
cryptographic mechanisms that are used to verify integrity values.
FPT_ACF_EXT.1 guarantees the integrity of critical components by
preventing unauthorized modifications of them. FPT_SRP_EXT.1
restricts the execution of unauthorized software . FPT_X509_EXT.1
provides X.509 certificates as a way of validating software integrity.
FPT_TST_EXT.1 verifies the integrity of stored code. FPT_W^X_EXT.1
prevents execution of data in writable memory. FIA_UAU.5 provides
mechanisms that prevent untrusted users from accessing the TSF
and FIA_AFL.1 prevents brute-force authentication attempts.
FTP_ITC_EXT.1 provides trusted remote communications which
makes a remote authenticated session less susceptible to
compromise.
O.MANAGEMENT Addressed by: FMT_MOF_EXT.1, FMT_SMF_EXT.1, FTA_TAB.1,
FTP_TRP.1
Rationale: FMT_SMF_EXT.1 defines the TOE's management functions
and FMT_MOF_EXT.1 defines the privileges required to invoke them.
FTP_TRP.1 provides one or more secure remote interfaces for
management of the TSF and FTA_TAB.1 provides actionable
warnings against misuse of these interfaces.
O.PROTECTED_STORAGE Addressed by: FCS_STO_EXT.1, FCS_RBG_EXT.1, FCS_COP.1(1),
FDP_ACF_EXT.1
Rationale: FCS_STO_EXT.1 provides a mechanism by which the TOE
can designate data as ‘sensitive’ and subsequently require it to be
encrypted. FCS_COP.1(1) defines the symmetric algorithm used to
encrypt and decrypt sensitive data. FCS_RBG_EXT.1 defines the
random bit generator used to create the symmetric keys used to
perform this encryption and decryption. FDP_ACF_EXT.1 enforces
logical access control on stored data.
O.PROTECTED_COMMS Addressed by: FCS_TLSC_EXT.1, FCS_TLSC_EXT.2, FCS_TLSC_EXT.3,
FCS_TLSC_EXT.4, FCS_DTLS_EXT.1, FCS_RBG_EXT.1, FCS_CKM.1,
FCS_CKM.2, FCS_CKM_EXT.4, FCS_COP.1(1), FCS_COP.1(2),
FCS_COP.1(3), FCS_COP.1(4), FDP_IFC_EXT.1, FIA_X509_EXT.1,
FIA_X509_EXT.2, FTP_ITC_EXT.1
Rationale: FCS_TLSC_EXT.1, FCS_TLSC_EXT.2, FCS_TLSC_EXT.3, and
FCS_TLSC_EXT.4 define the ability of the TOE to act as a TLS client as
a method of enforcing protected communications. FCS_DTLS_EXT.1
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 151 of 164
defines the ability of the TOE to act as a DTLS client for the same
purpose. FCS_CKM.1, FCS_CKM.2, FCS_COP.1(1), FCS_COP.1(2),
FCS_COP.1(3), FCS_COP.1(4), and FCS_RBG_EXT.1 define the
cryptographic operations and key lifecycle activity used to support
the establishment of protected communications. FIA_X509_EXT.1
defines how the TSF validates x.509 certificates as part of
establishing protected communications. FIA_X509_EXT.2 defines the
trusted communication protocols for which the TOE must perform
certificate validation operations. FDP_IFC_EXT.1 defines the extent
to which the TSF provides an IPsec VPN as a protected
communications method. FTP_ITC_EXT.1 defines the trusted
communications channels supported by the TOE.
Table 32 WLAN Client EP Tracing Between SFR and TOE Security Objective
Security Objective Rationale
O.AUTH_COMM Addressed by: FCS_TLSC_EXT.1/WLAN, FCS_TLSC_EXT.2/WLAN,
FIA_PAE_EXT.1, FIA_X509_EXT.2/WLAN, FIA_X509_EXT.4 and
FTP_ITC_EXT.1.
Rationale: FCS_TLSC_EXT.1/WLAN and FCS_TLSC_EXT.2/WLAN
define the cipher suite used for establishing a secure connection
between the TOE and the access point. FIA_X509_EXT.2/WLAN
defines how the TSF validates x.509 certificates as part of
establishing protected communications. FIA_X509_EXT.4 defines
how the certificates used for the communications are protected
from unauthorized deletion. FIA_PAE_EXT.1 defines the protocol
that should be followed in the communication between the TOE and
the authentication server during its connection with the access
point. FTP_ITC_EXT.1/WLAN defines the trusted communications
channels supported by the TOE and the access point.
O.CRYPTOGRAPHIC_FUNCTIONS Addressed by: FCS_CKM.1/WLAN and FCS_CKM.2/WLAN
Rationale: FCS_CKM.1/WLAN and FCS_CKM.2/WLAN define the
cryptographic operations and key lifecycle activity used to support
the establishment of protected communications.
O.SYSTEM_MONITORING Addressed by: FAU_GEN.1/WLAN
Rationale: FAU_GEN.1 defines the auditable events that must be
generated to monitor the actions occurred in the TOE.
O.TOE_ADMINISTRATION Addressed by: FMT_SMF_EXT.1/WLAN
Rationale: FMT_SMF_EXT.1/WLAN provides the capability to
configure rules to determine whether the TOE can connect to some
specific access points, based on different rules.
O.TSF_SELF_TEST Addressed by: FPT_TST_EXT.1/WLAN
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 152 of 164
Rationale: FPT_TST_EXT.1/WLAN verifies the integrity of stored code
related to the WLAN component.
O.WIRELESS_ACCESS_POINT_CO
NNECTION
Addressed by: FTA_WSE_EXT.1
Rationale: FTA_WSE_EXT.1 enforces that the connection is only
performed with trusted access points
Table 33 Tracing Between GP OS PP Security Objective and IPsec Client EP SFRs
Security Objective Rationale
O.ACCOUNTABILITY Addressed by: FAU_GEN.1 (IPSEC), FAU_SEL.1
Rationale: FAU_GEN.1(IPSEC) defines the auditable events that must
be generated to diagnose the cause of unexpected system behavior.
FAU_SEL.1 enables the administrator to choose which events will be
audited
O.INTEGRITY Addressed by: FPT_TST_EXT.1, FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC), FDP_RIP.2
Rationale: FPT_TST_EXT.1(IPSEC) verifies the integrity of stored
code.
FTP_ITC_EXT.1(IPSEC) provides trusted remote communications
which makes a remote authenticated session less susceptible to
compromise.
O.MANAGEMENT Addressed by: FMT_SMF.1(VPN), FIA_PSK_EXT.1, FIA_X509_EXT.3
Rationale: FMT_SMF.1(VPN) defines the TOE's management
functions.
FIA_PSK_EXT.1 specifies how the administrator can valid pre-shared
keys.
FIA_X509_EXT.3 specifies whether the TOE will establish a IPsec
security association in there is a X.509 certificate validation problem.
O.PROTECTED_STORAGE Addressed by: FCS_CKM_EXT.2, FCS_COP.1(1)
Rationale: FCS_CKM_EXT.1 ensures that sensitive data is stored
when not in use.
FCS_COP.1(1) defines the symmetric algorithm used to encrypt and
decrypt sensitive data.
O.PROTECTED_COMMS Addressed by: FCS_CKM.1, FCS_CKM.1(VPN), FCS_CKM.2,
FCS_COP.1(1), FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1, FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC), FDP_RIP.2
Rationale: FCS_CKM.1, FCS_CKM.1(VPN), FCS_CKM.2, FCS_COP.1(1),
define the cryptographic operations and key lifecycle activity used to
support the establishment of protected communications.
FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 defines the IPsec protocol.
FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC) specifies the IPsec VPN Client.
FDP_RIP.2 specifies that data storage should not be reused without
clearing the memory location.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 153 of 164
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 154 of 164
8 Rationale for Modifications to the Security Requirements
This section provides a rationale that describes how the Security Target reproduced the security
functional requirements and security assurance requirements from the protection profile.
8.1 Functional Requirements
This Security Target includes security functional requirements (SFRs) that can be mapped to SFRs found
in the protection profile along with SFRs that describe additional features and capabilities. The mapping
from protection profile SFRs to security target SFRs along with rationale for operations is presented in
Table 34 Rationale for Operations. SFR operations left incomplete in the protection profile have been
completed in this security and are identified within each SFR in section 5.1 TOE Security Functional
Requirements.
Table 34 Rationale for Operations
PP or EP Requirement ST Requirement Operation & Rationale
GP OS FAU_GEN.1 FAU_GEN.1 A selection and multiple
assignments which are allowed by
the PP.
GP OS,
IPsec
FCS_CKM.1(1) FCS_CKM.1 Multiple selections which are
allowed by the PP and EP.
GP OS,
IPsec
FCS_CKM.2(1) FCS_CKM.2 A selection which is allowed by the
PP and EP.
GP OS FCS_CKM_EXT.4 FCS_CKM_EXT.4 Multiple selections which are
allowed by the Technical Decision
#239.
GP OS,
IPsec
FCS_COP.1(1) FCS_COP.1(SYM) Multiple selections which are
allowed by the PP and EP.
GP OS FCS_COP.1(2) FCS_COP.1(HASH) Multiple selections which are
allowed by the PP.
GP OS FCS_COP.1(3) FCS_COP.1(SIGN) A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FCS_COP.1(4) FCS_COP.1(HMAC) An assignment and multiple
selections which are allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FCS_RBG_EXT.1 FCS_RBG_EXT.1 Multiple selections which are
allowed by the PP.
GP OS FCS_STO_EXT.1 FCS_STO_EXT.1 Copied from the PP without
changes.
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.1 FCS_TLSC_EXT.1 A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.2 FCS_TLSC_EXT.2 Copied from the PP without
changes.
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.3 FCS_TLSC_EXT.3 A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.4 FCS_TLSC_EXT.4 Copied from the PP without
changes.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 155 of 164
PP or EP Requirement ST Requirement Operation & Rationale
GP OS FCS_DTLS_EXT.1 FCS_DTLS_EXT.1 A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FDP_ACF_EXT.1 FDP_ACF_EXT.1 Copied from the PP without
changes.
GP OS FDP_IFC_EXT.1 FDP_IFC_EXT.1 A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FIA_AFL.1 FIA_AFLT.1 Multiple assignment and multiple
selections which are allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FIA_UAU.5 FIA_UAU.5 An assignment and a selection
which are allowed by the PP.
GP OS FIA_X509_EXT.1 FIA_X509_EXT.1 A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FIA_X509_EXT.2 FIA_X509_EXT.2 A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FMT_MOF_EXT.1 FMT_MOF_EXT.1 Copied from the Technical Decision
#0104 without changes.
GP OS FMT_SMF_EXT.1 FMT_SMF_EXT.1 Refinements, selections and
assignments which are allowed by
the Technical Decision #104.
GP OS FPT_ACF_EXT.1 FPT_ACF_EXT.1 Two assignment which is allowed
by the PP.
GP OS FPT_ASLR_EXT.1 FPT_ASLR_EXT.1 An assignment which is allowed by
the PP.
GP OS FPT_SBOP_EXT.1 FPT_SBOP_EXT.1 Copied from the PP without
changes.
GP OS FPT_SRP_EXT.1 FPT_SRP_EXT.1 A selection which is allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FPT_TST_EXT.1 FPT_TST_EXT.1 An assignment and multiple
selections which are allowed by the
PP.
GP OS FPT_TUD_EXT.1 FPT_TUD_EXT.1 Added a refinement to align on SFR
labels.
GP OS FPT_TUD_EXT.2 FPT_TUD_EXT.2 Added a refinement to align on SFR
labels.
GP OS FTA_TAB.1 FTA_TAB.1 Copied from the PP without
changes.
GP OS FTP_TRP.1 FTP_TRP.1 Multiple selections which are
allowed by the PP and Technical
Decision #0208.
GP OS FTP_ITC_EXT.1 FTP_ITC_EXT.1(TLS) An assignment and a selection
which are allowed by the PP.
GP OS FTP_ITC_EXT.1 FTP_ITC_EXT.1(DTLS) An assignment and a selection
which are allowed by the PP.
WLAN FAU_GEN.1/WLAN FAU_GEN.1(WLAN) Two selections which are allowed
by the WLAN Client EP.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 156 of 164
PP or EP Requirement ST Requirement Operation & Rationale
WLAN FCS_CKM.1/WLAN FCS_CKM.1(WLAN) Three selections which are allowed
by the WLAN Client EP.
WLAN FCS_CKM.2/WLAN FCS_CKM.2(WLAN) Copied from the WLAN Client EP
without changes.
WLAN FCS_TLSC_EXT.1/WLAN FCS_TLSC_EXT.1(WLAN) Two selections which are allowed
by the WLAN Client EP.
WLAN FCS_TLSC_EXT.2/WLAN FCS_TLSC_EXT.2(WLAN) A selection which is allowed by the
WLAN Client EP.
WLAN FIA_PAE_EXT.1 FIA_PAE_EXT.1 Copied from the WLAN Client EP
without changes.
WLAN FIA_X509_EXT.1/WLAN FIA_X509_EXT.1(WLAN) Copied from the WLAN Client EP
without changes.
WLAN FIA_X509_EXT.2/WLAN FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN) A selection which is allowed by the
WLAN Client EP.
WLAN FIA_X509_EXT.4 FIA_X509_EXT.4 Copied from the WLAN Client EP
without changes.
WLAN FMT_SMF_EXT.1/WLA
N
FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN) A selection which is allowed by the
WLAN Client EP.
WLAN FPT_TST_EXT.1/WLAN FPT_TST_EXT.1(WLAN) Two selections which are allowed
by the WLAN Client EP.
WLAN FTA_WSE_EXT.1 FTA_WSE_EXT.1 Copied from the WLAN Client EP
without changes.
WLAN FTP_ITC_EXT.1/WLAN FTP_ITC_EXT.1(WLAN Copied from the WLAN Client EP
without changes.
IPsec FAU_GEN.1 FAU_GEN.1 (IPSEC) Two selections and a refinement
which are allowed by the IPsec
Client EP.
IPsec FAU_SEL.1 FAU_SEL.1 A selection and an assignment
which are allowed by the IPsec
Client EP.
IPsec FCS_CKM.1/VPN FCS_CKM.1(VPN) Three selections which are allowed
by the IPsec Client EP.
IPsec FCS_CKM_EXT.2 FCS_CKM_EXT.2 A selection which is allowed by the
IPsec Client EP.
IPsec FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 Multiple selections and
assignments which are allowed by
the IPsec Client EP.
IPsec FDP_IFC_EXT.1 FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC) Copied from the IPsec Client EP
without changes.
IPsec FDP_RDP.2 FDP_RDP.2 Two selections which are allowed
by the IPsec Client EP.
IPsec FIA_X509_EXT.3 FIA_X509_EXT.3 Multiple selections which are
allowed by the IPsec Client EP.
IPsec FIA_PSK_EXT.1 FIA_PSK_EXT.1 Multiple selections which are
allowed by the IPsec Client EP.
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 157 of 164
PP or EP Requirement ST Requirement Operation & Rationale
IPsec FMT_SMF_EXT.1/VPN FMT_SMF_EXT.1(VPN) Two selections which are allowed
by the IPsec Client EP.
IPsec FPT_TST_EXT.1 FPT_TST_EXT.1(IPSEC) Two selections and an assignment
which are allowed by the IPsec
Client EP.
IPsec FTP_ITC.1 FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC) Multiple selections which are
allowed by the IPsec Client EP.
8.2 Security Assurance Requirements
The statement of security assurance requirements (SARs) found in section 5.2.1 is in strict conformance
with the General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile.
8.3 Rationale for the TOE Summary Specification
This section, in conjunction with section 6, the TOE Summary Specification (TSS), provides evidence that
the security functions are suitable to meet the TOE security requirements.
Each subsection in section 6, TOE Security Functions (TSFs), describes a Security Function (SF) of the
TOE. Each description is followed with rationale that indicates which requirements are satisfied by
aspects of the corresponding SF. The set of security functions work together to satisfy all of the
functional requirements. Furthermore, all the security functions are necessary in order for the TSF to
provide the required security functionality.
The set of security functions work together to provide all of the security requirements as indicated in
Table 35. The security functions described in the TOE Summary Specification and listed in the tables
below are all necessary for the required security functionality in the TSF.
Table 35 Requirement to Security Function Correspondence
PP or EP Requirement
Audit
Cryptographic
Protection
User
Data
Protection
I
&
A
Security
Management
TSF
Protection
Resource
Utilization
TOE
Access
Trusted
Path
/
Channel
GP OS FAU_GEN.1 X
GP OS FCS_CKM.1 X
GP OS FCS_CKM.2 X
GP OS FCS_CKM_EXT.4 X
GP OS FCS_COP.1(SYM) X
GP OS FCS_COP.1(HASH) X
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 158 of 164
PP or EP Requirement
Audit
Cryptographic
Protection
User
Data
Protection
I
&
A
Security
Management
TSF
Protection
Resource
Utilization
TOE
Access
Trusted
Path
/
Channel
GP OS FCS_COP.1(SIGN) X
GP OS FCS_COP.1(HMAC) X
GP OS FCS_RBG_EXT.1 X
GP OS FCS_STO_EXT.1 X
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.1 X
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.2 X
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.3 X
GP OS FCS_TLSC_EXT.4 X
GP OS FCS_DTLS_EXT.1 X
GP OS FDP_ACF_EXT.1 X
GP OS FDP_IFC_EXT.1 X
GP OS FIA_AFL.1 X
GP OS FIA_UAU.5 X
GP OS FIA_X509_EXT.1 X
GP OS FIA_X509_EXT.2 X
GP OS FIA_X509_EXT.4 X
GP OS FMT_MOF_EXT.1 X
GP OS FMT_SMF_EXT.1 X
GP OS FPT_ACF_EXT.1 X
GP OS FPT_ASLR_EXT.1 X
GP OS FPT_SBOP_EXT.1 X
GP OS FPT_SRP_EXT.1 X
GP OS FPT_TST_EXT.1 X
GP OS FPT_TUD_EXT.1 X
GP OS FPT_TUD_EXT.2 X
GP OS FTA_TAB.1 X
GP OS FTP_TRP.1 X
GP OS FTP_ITC_EXT.1(TLS) X
GP OS FTP_ITC_EXT.1(DTLS) X
WLAN FAU_GEN.1(WLAN) X
WLAN FCS_CKM.1(WLAN) X
WLAN FCS_CKM.2(WLAN) X
WLAN FCS_TLSC_EXT.1(WLAN) X
WLAN FCS_TLSC_EXT.2(WLAN) X
WLAN FIA_PAE_EXT.1 X
WLAN FIA_X509_EXT.1(WLAN) X
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 159 of 164
PP or EP Requirement
Audit
Cryptographic
Protection
User
Data
Protection
I
&
A
Security
Management
TSF
Protection
Resource
Utilization
TOE
Access
Trusted
Path
/
Channel
WLAN FIA_X509_EXT.2(WLAN) X
WLAN FMT_SMF_EXT.1(WLAN) X
WLAN FPT_TST_EXT.1(WLAN) X
WLAN FTA_WSE_EXT.1 X
WLAN FTP_ITC_EXT.1(WLAN) X
IPsec FAU_SEL.1 X
IPsec FCS_CKM.1(VPN) X
IPsec FCS_CKM.2(IPSEC) X
IPsec FCS_CKM_EXT.2 X
IPsec FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 X
IPsec FDP_IFC_EXT.1(IPSEC) X
IPsec FDP_RIP.2 X
IPsec FIA_X509_EXT.3 X
IPsec FIA_PSK_EXT.1 X
IPsec FMT_SMF.1(VPN) X
IPsec FPT_TST_EXT.1(IPSEC) X
IPsec FTP_ITC.1(IPSEC) X
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 160 of 164
9 Appendix A: List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
3DES Triple DES
ACE Access Control Entry
ACL Access Control List
ACP Access Control Policy
AD Active Directory
ADAM Active Directory Application Mode
AES Advanced Encryption Standard
AGD Administrator Guidance Document
AH Authentication Header
ALPC Advanced Local Process Communication
ANSI American National Standards Institute
API Application Programming Interface
APIC Advanced Programmable Interrupt Controller
BTG BitLocker To Go
CA Certificate Authority
CBAC Claims Basic Access Control, see DYN
CBC Cipher Block Chaining
CC Common Criteria
CD-ROM Compact Disk Read Only Memory
CIFS Common Internet File System
CIMCPP Certificate Issuing and Management Components For Basic
Robustness Environments Protection Profile, Version 1.0, April 27,
2009
CM Configuration Management; Control Management
COM Component Object Model
CP Content Provider
CPU Central Processing Unit
CRL Certificate Revocation List
CryptoAPI Cryptographic API
CSP Cryptographic Service Provider
DAC Discretionary Access Control
DACL Discretionary Access Control List
DC Domain Controller
DEP Data Execution Prevention
DES Data Encryption Standard
DH Diffie-Hellman
DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
DFS Distributed File System
DMA Direct Memory Access
DNS Domain Name System
DS Directory Service
DSA Digital Signature Algorithm
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 161 of 164
DYN Dynamic Access Control
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ECB Electronic Code Book
EFS Encrypting File System
ESP Encapsulating Security Protocol
FEK File Encryption Key
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard
FRS File Replication Service
FSMO Flexible Single Master Operation
FTP File Transfer Protocol
FVE Full Volume Encryption
GB Gigabyte
GC Global Catalog
GHz Gigahertz
GPC Group Policy Container
GPO Group Policy Object
GPOSPP US Government Protection Profile for General-Purpose Operating
System in a Networked Environment
GPT Group Policy Template
GPT GUID Partition Table
GUI Graphical User Interface
GUID Globally Unique Identifiers
HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol
HTTPS Secure HTTP
I/O Input / Output
I&A Identification and Authentication
IA Information Assurance
ICF Internet Connection Firewall
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
ICS Internet Connection Sharing
ID Identification
IDE Integrated Drive Electronics
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force
IFS Installable File System
IIS Internet Information Services
IKE Internet Key Exchange
IP Internet Protocol
IPv4 IP Version 4
IPv6 IP Version 6
IPC Inter-process Communication
IPI Inter-process Interrupt
IPSec IP Security
ISAPI Internet Server API
IT Information Technology
KDC Key Distribution Center
LAN Local Area Network
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 162 of 164
LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
LPC Local Procedure Call
LSA Local Security Authority
LSASS LSA Subsystem Service
LUA Least-privilege User Account
MAC Message Authentication Code
MB Megabyte
MMC Microsoft Management Console
MSR Model Specific Register
NAC (Cisco) Network Admission Control
NAP Network Access Protection
NAT Network Address Translation
NIC Network Interface Card
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NLB Network Load Balancing
NMI Non-maskable Interrupt
NTFS New Technology File System
NTLM New Technology LAN Manager
OS Operating System
PAE Physical Address Extension
PC/SC Personal Computer/Smart Card
PIN Personal Identification Number
PKCS Public Key Certificate Standard
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
PP Protection Profile
RADIUS Remote Authentication Dial In Service
RAID Redundant Array of Independent Disks
RAM Random Access Memory
RAS Remote Access Service
RC4 Rivest’s Cipher 4
RID Relative Identifier
RNG Random Number Generator
RPC Remote Procedure Call
RSA Rivest, Shamir and Adleman
RSASSA RSA Signature Scheme with Appendix
SA Security Association
SACL System Access Control List
SAM Security Assurance Measure
SAML Security Assertion Markup Language
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SAS Secure Attention Sequence
SD Security Descriptor
SHA Secure Hash Algorithm
SID Security Identifier
SIP Session Initiation Protocol
SIPI Startup IPI
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 163 of 164
SF Security Functions
SFP Security Functional Policy
SFR Security Functional Requirement
SMB Server Message Block
SMI System Management Interrupt
SMTP Simple Mail Transport Protocol
SP Service Pack
SPI Security Parameters Index
SPI Stateful Packet Inspection
SRM Security Reference Monitor
SSL Secure Sockets Layer
SSP Security Support Providers
SSPI Security Support Provider Interface
ST Security Target
SYSVOL System Volume
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
TDI Transport Driver Interface
TLS Transport Layer Security
TOE Target of Evaluation
TPM Trusted Platform Module
TSC TOE Scope of Control
TSF TOE Security Functions
TSS TOE Summary Specification
UART Universal Asynchronous Receiver / Transmitter
UI User Interface
UID User Identifier
UNC Universal Naming Convention
US United States
UPN User Principal Name
URL Uniform Resource Locator
USB Universal Serial Bus
USN Update Sequence Number
v5 Version 5
VDS Virtual Disk Service
VPN Virtual Private Network
VSS Volume Shadow Copy Service
WAN Wide Area Network
WCF Windows Communications Framework
WebDAV Web Document Authoring and Versioning
WebSSO Web Single Sign On
WDM Windows Driver Model
WIF Windows Identity Framework
WMI Windows Management Instrumentation
WSC Windows Security Center
WU Windows Update
WSDL Web Service Description Language
Microsoft Common Criteria Security Target
Microsoft © 2020 Page 164 of 164
WWW World-Wide Web
X64 A 64-bit instruction set architecture
X86 A 32-bit instruction set architecture