UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
557-LSS
COMMON CRITERIA CERTIFICATION REPORT
RICOH IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000
version JE-1.00-H
18 October 2021
2
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
FOREWORD
This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief, Communications Security
Establishment (CSE).
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has been
evaluated at an approved testing laboratory established under the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (a branch of CSE).
This certification report, and its associated certificate, applies only to the identified version and release of the product in its
evaluated configuration. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Common
Criteria Program, and the conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation report are consistent with the evidence
adduced.
This report, and its associated certificate, are not an endorsement of the IT product by Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, or
any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report, and its associated certificate, and no warranty for the IT
product by the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report,
and its associated certificate, is either expressed or implied.
If your organization has identified a requirement for this certification report based on business needs and would like more
detailed information, please contact:
Canadian Centre for Cyber Security
Contact Centre and Information Services
contact@cyber.gc.ca | 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788)
3
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
OVERVIEW
The Canadian Common Criteria Program provides a third-party evaluation service for determining the trustworthiness of
Information Technology (IT) security products. Evaluations are performed by a commercial Common Criteria Testing
Laboratory (CCTL) under the oversight of the Certification Body, which is managed by the Canadian Centre for Cyber
Security.
A CCTL is a commercial facility that has been approved by the Certification Body to perform Common Criteria evaluations; a
significant requirement for such approval is accreditation to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025, the General Requirements
for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, the Certification Body asserts that the product complies with the security
requirements specified in the associated security target. A security target is a requirements specification document that
defines the scope of the evaluation activities. The consumer of certified IT products should review the security target, in
addition to this certification report, in order to gain an understanding of any assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT
product's intended environment, the evaluated security functionality, and the testing and analysis conducted by the CCTL.
The certification report, certificate of product evaluation and security target are posted to the Common Criteria portal (the
official website of the International Common Criteria Project).
4
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 6
1 Identification of Target of Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Common Criteria Conformance.......................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 TOE Description................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3 TOE Architecture ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2 Security Policy......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Cryptographic Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 9
3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope ......................................................................................................10
3.1 Usage and Environmental Assumptions.............................................................................................................10
3.2 Clarification of Scope .......................................................................................................................................10
4 Evaluated Configuration............................................................................................................................11
4.1 Documentation.................................................................................................................................................11
5 Evaluation Analysis Activities....................................................................................................................12
5.1 Development....................................................................................................................................................12
5.2 Guidance Documents........................................................................................................................................12
5.3 Life-Cycle Support ............................................................................................................................................12
6 Testing Activities ....................................................................................................................................13
6.1 Assessment of Developer tests.........................................................................................................................13
6.2 Conduct of Testing...........................................................................................................................................13
6.3 Independent Functional Testing ........................................................................................................................13
6.3.1 Functional Test Results.................................................................................................................................13
6.4 Independent Penetration Testing.......................................................................................................................14
6.4.1 Penetration Test results................................................................................................................................14
7 Results of the Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................15
7.1 Recommendations/Comments..........................................................................................................................15
8 Supporting Content..................................................................................................................................16
8.1 List of Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................................16
5
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
8.2 References.......................................................................................................................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
TOE Architecture..................................................................................................................................................8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: TOE Identification ................................................................................................................................................7
Table 2: Cryptographic Implementation(s).........................................................................................................................9
6
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RICOH IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 version JE-1.00-H (hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE),
from RICOH Company, LTD. , was the subject of this Common Criteria evaluation. A description of the TOE can be found in
Section 1.2. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that the TOE meets the requirements of the conformance claim
listed in Section 1.1 for the evaluated security functionality.
Lightship Security is the CCTL that conducted the evaluation. This evaluation was completed on 18 October 2021 and was
carried out in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Common Criteria Program.
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the Security Target, which identifies assumptions made during the evaluation, the
intended environment for the TOE, and the security functional/assurance requirements. Consumers are advised to verify
that their operating environment is consistent with that specified in the security target, and to give due consideration to the
comments, observations, and recommendations in this Certification Report.
The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, as the Certification Body, declares that this evaluation meets all the conditions of
the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product is listed on the Certified Products
list (CPL) for the Canadian Common Criteria Program and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Program).
7
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows:
Table 1: TOE Identification
TOE Name and Version RICOH IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 version JE-1.00-H
Developer RICOH Company, LTD.
1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
The TOE claims the following conformance:
Protection Profile for Hardcopy Devices, v1.0, 11 SEPT 2015
Protection Profile for Hardcopy Devices – v1.0 Errata #1, June 2017
1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION
The TOE is a Digital Multi-Function Printer (MFP), which is an IT device that inputs, stores, and outputs electronic and
hardcopy documents.
8
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE
A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows:
TOE Architecture
9
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
2 SECURITY POLICY
The TOE implements and enforces policies pertaining to the following security functionality:
 Security Audit
 Cryptographic Support
 Access Control
 Storage Data Encryption
 Identification and Authentication
 Administrative Roles
 Trusted Operations
 TOE Access
 Trusted Communications
 PSTN Fax-Network Separation
 Image Overwrite
Complete details of the security functional requirements (SFRs) can be found in the Security Target (ST) referenced in
section 8.2.
2.1 CRYPTOGRAPHIC FUNCTIONALITY
The following cryptographic implementations have been evaluated by the CAVP and are used by the TOE:
Table 2: Cryptographic Implementation(s)
Name Certificate Number
RICOH Cryptographic Module for IPSec, v1.0 AES 5315, SHS 4269, HMAC 3515
RICOH Platform Validation Library for JX3, v1.0 C630
RICOH Cryptographic Library 2 (Java), v1.0 C582
libgwguard, v0.9.8a SHS 3231, RSA 2002
RICOH Cryptographic Library C, v1.2 C629
LPUX NVRAM Encryption Driver, v1.2 AES 4560
Boot SHA-1 Module, v47.04 C715
RICOH Company AES256CBC Implementation, MB8AL1062MH-GE1 AES 3921
wolfCrypt, v4.1.1 A1837
10
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
Consumers of the TOE should consider assumptions about usage and environmental settings as requirements for the
product’s installation and its operating environment. This will ensure the proper and secure operation of the TOE.
3.1 USAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made regarding the use and deployment of the TOE:
 Physical security, commensurate with the value of the TOE and the data it stores or processes, is assumed to be
provided by the environment
 The Operational Environment is assumed to protect the TOE from direct, public access to its LAN interface
 TOE Administrators are trusted to administer the TOE according to site security policies
 Authorized Users are trained to use the TOE according to site security policies
3.2 CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
The TOE incorporates CAVP-validated cryptography and was not subjected to CMVP (FIPS-140) validation.
The following features of the TOE are excluded from the evaluated configuration:
 USB Port. The TOE has a USB Port that is used to directly connect a client computer to the TOE for printing. This
USB port is disabled during initial installation and configuration of the TOE.
 SD Card Slot. The TOE has two SD Card Slots, one for customer engineers and one for users. The SD Card Slot for
customer engineer is used by customer engineers to install components of the TOE; the SD Card Slot for users is
used by users to print documents. Both are disabled when the TOE is operational, a cover is placed on the SD Card
slot for customer engineer so cards cannot be inserted or removed and the card slot for users is set to disabled
during installation.
11
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION
The evaluated configuration for the TOE comprises:
TOE Software/Firmware JE-1.00-H
TOE Hardware  RICOH IM 2500
 RICOH IM 2500F
 RICOH IM 3500
 RICOH IM 3500F
 RICOH IM 4000
 RICOH IM 4000F
 RICOH IM 5000
 RICOH IM 5000F
 RICOH IM 6000
 RICOH IM 6000F
 IM 2500
 IM 2500A
 IM 2500G
 IM 3000
 IM 3000A
 IM 3000G
 IM 3500
 IM 3500A
 IM 3500G
 IM 4000
 IM 4000A
 IM 4000G
 IM 5000
 IM 5000A
 IM 5000G
 IM 6000
 IM 6000G
Environmental Support  SYSLOG server
 LDAP server
 NTP server
 FTP server
 SMTP server
4.1 DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE:
a) IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 series User Guide
b) IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 series Security Reference
c) RICOH IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 Common Criteria Guide, October 2021, v1.2
12
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
5 EVALUATION ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES
The evaluation analysis activities involved a structured evaluation of the TOE. Documentation and process dealing with
Development, Guidance Documents, and Life-Cycle Support were evaluated.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT
The evaluators analyzed the documentation provided by the vendor; they determined that the design completely and
accurately describes the TOE security functionality (TSF) interfaces and how the TSF implements the security functional
requirements. The evaluators determined that the initialization process is secure, that the security functions are protected
against tamper and bypass, and that security domains are maintained.
5.2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The evaluators examined the TOE preparative user guidance and operational user guidance and determined that it
sufficiently and unambiguously describes how to securely transform the TOE into its evaluated configuration and how to use
and administer the product. The evaluators examined and tested the preparative and operational guidance and determined
that they are complete and sufficiently detailed to result in a secure configuration.
Section 4.1 provides details on the guidance documents.
5.3 LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT
An analysis of the TOE configuration management system and associated documentation was performed. The evaluators
found that the TOE configuration items were clearly marked.
The evaluators examined the delivery documentation and determined that it described all the procedures required to
maintain the integrity of the TOE during distribution to the consumer.
13
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
6 TESTING ACTIVITIES
Testing consists of the following three steps: assessing developer tests, performing independent functional tests, and
performing penetration tests.
6.1 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPER TESTS
The evaluators verified that the developer has met their testing responsibilities by examining their test evidence, and
reviewing their test results, as documented in the Evaluation Test Report (ETR). The correspondence between the tests
identified in the developer’s test documentation and the functional specification was complete.
6.2 CONDUCT OF TESTING
The TOE was subjected to a comprehensive suite of formally documented, independent functional and penetration tests. The
detailed testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected results and observed results are
documented in a separate Test Results document.
6.3 INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL TESTING
During this evaluation, the evaluator developed independent functional tests by examining design and guidance
documentation.
All testing was planned and documented to a sufficient level of detail to allow repeatability of the testing procedures and
results. The following testing activities were performed:
a. PP Assurance Activities: The evaluator performed the assurance activities listed in the claimed PP.
b. Cryptographic Implementation Verification: The evaluator verified that the claimed cryptographic implementations
were present and used by the TOE.
6.3.1 FUNCTIONAL TEST RESULTS
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests yielded the expected results, providing assurance that the TOE
behaves as specified in its ST and functional specification.
14
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
6.4 INDEPENDENT PENETRATION TESTING
The penetration testing effort focused on 4 flaw hypotheses.
 Public Vulnerability based (Type 1)
 Technical community sources (Type 2)
 Evaluation team generated (Type 3)
 Tool Generated (Type 4)
The evaluators conducted an independent review of all evaluation evidence, public domain vulnerability databases and
technical community sources (Type 1 & 2). Additionally, the evaluators used automated vulnerability scanning tools to
discover potential network, platform, and application layer vulnerabilities (Type 4). Based upon this review, the evaluators
formulated flaw hypotheses (Type 3), which they used in their penetration testing effort.
6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
Type 1 & 2 searches were conducted on 8/25/2021 and included the following search terms:
RICOH IM
2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000
Web Image Monitor version 1.01. ST33TPHF2ESPI
NetBSD 6.0.1 Cheetah System
WolfSSL 3.14.2 OpenSSL 0.9.8a
Vulnerability searches were conducted using the following sources:
Ricoh Security bulletins
https://www.ricoh.com/products/security/mfp/bulletins/
Community (Symantec) security community:
https://www.securityfocus.com/
Ricoh Information
https://www.ricoh.com/info/
Tenable Network Security:
http://nessus.org/plugins/index.php?view=search
NIST National Vulnerabilities Database
https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search
Tipping Point Zero Day Initiative:
http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures:
http://cve.mitre.org/cve/
Offensive Security Exploit Database:
https://www.exploit-db.com/
CVE Details
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-search.php
Rapid7 Vulnerability Database:
https://www.rapid7.com/db/vulnerabilities
US-CERT:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/html/search
Google
The independent penetration testing did not uncover any residual exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating
environment.
15
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
7 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has been
evaluated at an approved testing laboratory established under the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS). This
certification report, and its associated certificate, apply only to the specific version and release of the product in its
evaluated configuration.
This evaluation has provided the basis for the conformance claim documented in Table 1. The overall verdict for this
evaluation is PASS. These results are supported by evidence in the ETR.
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS
It is recommended that all guidance outlined in Section 4.1 be followed to configure the TOE in the evaluated configuration.
The IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 are high-quality multi-function print, copy, fax and scanning devices with security
features consistent with the Protection Profile they claim conformance with. Of particular note, the evaluator found that
RICOH is a highly mature organization operating with integrity in regard to Common Criteria: they value the process and the
results.
16
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
8 SUPPORTING CONTENT
8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
CCTL Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
CM Configuration Management
CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program
CSE Communications Security Establishment
CCCS Canadian Centre for Cyber Security
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
GC Government of Canada
IT Information Technology
ITS Information Technology Security
PP Protection Profile
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Function
8.2 REFERENCES
Reference
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2012.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2012.
Security Target RICOH IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 version JE-1.00-H, 14 OCT 2021, v1.4
Evaluation Technical Report RICOH IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 version JE-1.00-H, 18 OCT 2021, v0.7
Assurance Activity Report RICOH IM 2500/3000/3500/4000/5000/6000 version JE-1.00-H, 18 OCT 2021, v0.8