BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
for
IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13
from
IBM Corporation
BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report V1.0 CC-Zert-327 V4.52
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Operating System
IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13
from IBM Corporation
PP Conformance: Operating System Protection Profile, Version 2.0,
01 June 2010, BSI-CC-PP-0067-2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Labeled Security,
Version 2.0, 28 May 2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Extended Identification
and Authentication, Version 2.0, 28 May 2010
Functionality: PP conformant
Common Criteria Part 2 extended
Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.3
Common Criteria
Recognition
Arrangement
The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility using the
Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 for conformance to the Common
Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1.
This certificate applies only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration
and in conjunction with the complete Certification Report.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the certification scheme of the
German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the
evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for Information Security or any
other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by the
Federal Office for Information Security or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
Bonn, 12 September 2012
For the Federal Office for Information Security
Bernd Kowalski L.S.
Head of Department
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0 - Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477 - Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
This page is intentionally left blank.
4 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
Preliminary Remarks
Under the BSIG1
Act, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has the task of
issuing certificates for information technology products.
Certification of a product is carried out on the instigation of the vendor or a distributor,
hereinafter called the sponsor.
A part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product according
to the security criteria published by the BSI or generally recognised security criteria.
The evaluation is normally carried out by an evaluation facility recognised by the BSI or by
BSI itself.
The result of the certification procedure is the present Certification Report. This report
contains among others the certificate (summarised assessment) and the detailed
Certification Results.
The Certification Results contain the technical description of the security functionality of
the certified product, the details of the evaluation (strength and weaknesses) and
instructions for the user.
1
Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
5 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Contents
A Certification........................................................................................................................7
1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure.................................................................7
2 Recognition Agreements................................................................................................7
2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA).........................7
2.2 International Recognition of CC – Certificates (CCRA)...........................................8
3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification..................................................................8
4 Validity of the Certification Result...................................................................................9
5 Publication......................................................................................................................9
B Certification Results.........................................................................................................11
1 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................12
2 Identification of the TOE...............................................................................................15
3 Security Policy..............................................................................................................17
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................................17
5 Architectural Information...............................................................................................17
5.1 Intended Method of Use........................................................................................19
5.2 TOE Design...........................................................................................................20
6 Documentation.............................................................................................................21
7 IT Product Testing.........................................................................................................21
7.1 Developer Test Configuration................................................................................21
7.2 Developer Testing..................................................................................................22
7.3 Evaluator Independent Testing..............................................................................24
7.4 Evaluator Penetration Testing................................................................................25
8 Evaluated Configuration...............................................................................................25
9 Results of the Evaluation..............................................................................................29
9.1 CC specific results.................................................................................................29
9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment....................................................................31
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.......................................................32
11 Security Target............................................................................................................32
12 Definitions...................................................................................................................32
12.1 Acronyms.............................................................................................................32
12.2 Glossary...............................................................................................................34
13 Bibliography................................................................................................................37
C Excerpts from the Criteria................................................................................................39
D Annexes...........................................................................................................................49
6 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
A Certification
1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure
The certification body conducts the procedure according to the criteria laid down in the
following:
● BSIG2
● BSI Certification Ordinance3
● BSI Schedule of Costs4
● Special decrees issued by the Bundesministerium des Innern (Federal Ministry of the
Interior)
● DIN EN 45011 standard
● BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125) [3]
● Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.15
[1]
● Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 [2]
● BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS) [4]
2 Recognition Agreements
In order to avoid multiple certification of the same product in different countries a mutual
recognition of IT security certificates - as far as such certificates are based on ITSEC or
CC - under certain conditions was agreed.
2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA)
The SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA) Version 3 became effective in
April 2010. It defines the recognition of certificates for IT-Products at a basic recognition
level and in addition at higher recognition levels for IT-Products related to certain technical
domains only.
The basic recognition level includes Common Criteria (CC) Evaluation Assurance Levels
EAL1 to EAL4 and ITSEC Evaluation Assurance Levels E1 to E3 (basic). For higher
recognition levels the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices has been defined.
It includes assurance levels beyond EAL4 resp. E3 (basic).
The new agreement was initially signed by the national bodies of Finland, France,
Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
2
Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
3
Ordinance on the Procedure for Issuance of a Certificate by the Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI-Zertifizierungsverordnung, BSIZertV) of 07 July 1992, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 1230
4
Schedule of Cost for Official Procedures of the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
(BSI-Kostenverordnung, BSI-KostV) of 03 March 2005, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 519
5
Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern of 12 February 2007 in the Bundesanzeiger dated
23 February 2007, p. 3730
7 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Within the terms of this agreement the German Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI) recognises
● for the basic recognition level certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national
certification bodies of France, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom.
● for the higher recognition level in the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices
certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national certification bodies of France, The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
In addition, certificates issued for Protection Profiles based on Common Criteria are part of
the recognition agreement.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the
terms of this agreement.
Historically, the first SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement Version 1 (ITSEC only)
became initially effective in March 1998. It was extended in 1999 to include certificates
based on the Common Criteria (MRA Version 2). Recognition of certificates previously
issued under these older versions of the SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement is being
continued.
2.2 International Recognition of CC – Certificates (CCRA)
An arrangement (Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement) on the mutual recognition of
certificates based on the CC Evaluation Assurance Levels up to and including EAL 4 has
been signed in May 2000 (CCRA). It includes also the recognition of Protection Profiles
based on the CC.
As of January 2009 the arrangement has been signed by the national bodies of: Australia,
Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Pakistan, Republic of Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States of America. The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes
can be seen on the web site: http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org
The Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement logo printed on the certificate indicates
that this certification is recognised under the terms of this agreement.
3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification
The certification body monitors each individual evaluation to ensure a uniform procedure, a
uniform interpretation of the criteria and uniform ratings.
The product IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13 has undergone the certification procedure at
BSI. This is a re-certification based on BSI-DSZ-CC-0701-2011. Specific results from the
evaluation process BSI-DSZ-CC-0701-2011 were re-used.
The evaluation of the product IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13 was conducted by atsec
information security GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 11 September 2012. The
atsec information security GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)6
recognised by the
certification body of BSI.
For this certification procedure the sponsor and applicant is: IBM Corporation.
The product was developed by: IBM Corporation.
6
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
8 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
The certification is concluded with the comparability check and the production of this
Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI.
4 Validity of the Certification Result
This Certification Report only applies to the version of the product as indicated. The
confirmed assurance package is only valid on the condition that
● all stipulations regarding generation, configuration and operation, as given in the
following report, are observed,
● the product is operated in the environment described, where specified in the following
report and in the Security Target.
For the meaning of the assurance levels please refer to the excerpts from the criteria at
the end of the Certification Report.
The Certificate issued confirms the assurance of the product claimed in the Security Target
at the date of certification. As attack methods evolve over time, the resistance of the
certified version of the product against new attack methods needs to be re-assessed.
Therefore, the sponsor should apply for the certified product being monitored within the
assurance continuity program of the BSI Certification Scheme (e.g. by a re-certification).
Specifically, if results of the certification are used in subsequent evaluation and certification
procedures, in a system integration process or if a user's risk management needs regularly
updated results, it is recommended to perform a re-assessment on a regular e.g. annual
basis.
In case of changes to the certified version of the product, the validity can be extended to
the new versions and releases, provided the sponsor applies for assurance continuity (i.e.
re-certification or maintenance) of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural
requirements, and the evaluation does not reveal any security deficiencies.
5 Publication
The product IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13 has been included in the BSI list of the
certified products, which is published regularly (see also Internet: https://www.bsi.bund.de
and [5]). Further information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline +49 228 9582-111.
Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the developer7
of the
product. The Certification Report may also be obtained in electronic form at the internet
address stated above.
7
IBM Corporation
2455 South Road P328
Poughkeepsie NY 12601
USA
9 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
This page is intentionally left blank.
10 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
B Certification Results
The following results represent a summary of
● the Security Target of the sponsor for the Target of Evaluation,
● the relevant evaluation results from the evaluation facility, and
● complementary notes and stipulations of the certification body.
11 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
1 Executive Summary
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13.
z/OS is a general-purpose, multi-user, multi-tasking operating system for enterprise
computing systems. Multiple users can use z/OS simultaneously to perform a variety of
functions that require controlled, shared access to the information stored on the system.
The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is based on the certified
Protection Profile Operating System Protection Profile, Version 2.0, BSI-CC-PP-0067-2010
with OSPP Extended Packages Labeled Security and Extended Identification and
Authentication [7].
The TOE Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) are based entirely on the assurance
components defined in Part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C or [1], Part 3 for details).
The TOE meets the assurance requirements of the Evaluation Assurance Level EAL 4
augmented by ALC_FLR.3.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the
Security Target [6], chapter 7.1. They are selected from Common Criteria Part 2 and some
of them are newly defined. Thus the TOE is CC Part 2 extended.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE
Security Functionalities:
TOE Security
Functionality
Addressed issue
Identification and
Authentication
z/OS provides identification and authentication of users by the means of
• An alphanumeric RACF user ID and a system-encrypted password or (for
applications that support it) password phrase.
• An alphanumeric RACF user ID and a PassTicket, which is a cryptographically
generated password substitute encompassing the user ID, the requested
application name, and the current date/time.
• an X.509v3 digital certificate presented to a server application that uses System
SSL or TCP/IP Application Transparent TLS (AT-TLS) to provide TLS- or SSLv3-
based client authentication, and then “mapped” (using TOE functions) by that
server application or by AT-TLS to a RACF user ID.
• A Kerberos™ v5 ticket presented to a server application that supports the
Kerberos mechanism, and then mapped by that application through the TOE-
provided GSS-API programming services or alternate functions that are also
provided by the TOE (specifically the R_ticketServ, and R_GenSec services).
These functions enable the application server to validate the Kerberos ticket,
and thus the authentication of the principal. The application server then
translates (or maps) the Kerberos principal (using the TOE provided function of
R_userMap) to a RACF user ID.
• An LDAP LDBM bind DN (which is mapped to a RACF user ID by information in
the LDAP directory) or an LDAP ICTX or SDBM bind DN (which contains a
RACF user ID) together with a RACF password or password phrase. The bind
processing then passes the derived RACF user ID, and the password/phrase, to
RACF to complete the authentication process.
• A digital certificate presented to LDAP over SSL/TLS (LDAP SASL bind with
EXTERNAL verification) which must map to a RACF USER ID.
Discretionary
Access Control
z/OS supports access controls that are capable of enforcing access limitations on
individual users and data objects. Discretionary access control (DAC) allows individual
12 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
TOE Security
Functionality
Addressed issue
users to specify how such resources as direct access storage devices (DASDs), DASD
and tape data sets, and tape volumes that are under their control are to be shared.
RACF makes access control decisions based on the user’s identity, security attributes,
group authorities, and the access authority specified with respect to the resource profile.
z/OS provides three DAC mechanisms:
1. The z/OS standard DAC mechanism is used for most traditional (non-UNIX)
protected objects.
2. The z/OS UNIX DAC mechanism is used for z/OS UNIX objects (files,
directories, etc.).
3. The z/OS LDAP LDBM DAC mechanism.
Mandatory
Access Control
In addition to DAC, z/OS provides mandatory access control (MAC) functions that are
required for Labeled Security Mode, which impose additional access restrictions on
information flow on security classification. Users and resources can have a security
label specified in their profile. Security labels contain a hierarchical classification
(security level), which specify the sensitivity (for example: public, internal use, or secret),
and zero or more non-hierarchical security categories (for example: PROJECTA or
PROJECTB).
The access control enforced by the TOE ensures that users can only read labeled
information if their security labels dominate the information’s label, and that they can
only write to labeled information containers if the container’s label dominates the
subject’s, thus implementing the Bell-LaPadula model of information flow control.
Auditing z/OS provides an auditing capability that allows generating audit records for security-
critical events. RACF provides a number of logging and reporting functions that allow
resource owners and auditors to identify users who attempt to access resources.
Audit records are collected by the System Management Facilities (SMF) into an audit
trail, which is protected from unauthorized modification or deletion by the DAC and (in
Labeled Security Mode) MAC mechanisms. This audit trail can reside directly in MVS
data sets, or in an MVS log stream (which can be automatically off-loaded into MVS
data sets), as configured by the administrator.
Object Reuse All memory content of non-shared page frames is cleared before making it accessible to
other address spaces or data spaces. DASD data sets can be purged during deletion
with the RACF ERASE option and tape volumes can be erased on return to the scratch
pool. All resources allocated to UNIX objects are cleared before reuse. Other data pools
are under strict TOE control and cannot be accessed directly by normal users.
Security
management
z/OS provides a set of commands and options to adequately manage the TOE’s security
functions. Additionally, the TOE provides the capability of managing users, groups of
users, general resource profiles, and RACF SETROPTS options via the z/OS LDAP
server, which can accept LDAP-format requests from a remote administrator and
transform them into RACF administrative commands via its SDBM backend processing.
The TOE also provides a Java class that allows Java programs to issue commands to
manage users and groups. Both the LDAP SDBM and the Java class ultimately create a
RACF command and pass it to RACF using a programming interface, and then RACF
runs the command using the identity associated with the SDBM session or the Java
program. This behaves just the same as when a local administrator issues the
command, including all the same security checking and auditing.
The TOE recognizes several authorities that are able to perform the different
management tasks related to the TOE’s security:
• General security options are managed by security administrators.
• In Labeled Security Mode: management of MAC attributes is performed by
security administrators.
13 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
TOE Security
Functionality
Addressed issue
• Management of users and their security attributes is performed by security
administrators. Management of groups (and to some extent users) can be
delegated to group security administrators.
• Users can change their own passwords or password phrases, their default
groups, and their user names (but not their user IDs).
In Labeled Security Mode: users can choose their security labels at login, for
some login methods. (Note: this also applies in standard operation mode if the
administrator chooses to activate security label processing.)
• Auditors manage the parameters of the audit system (a list of audited events,
for example) and can analyze the audit trail.
• Security administrators can define what audit records are captured by the
system.
• Discretionary access rights to protected resources are managed by security
administrators.
Communication
Security
z/OS provides means of secure communication between systems sharing the same
security policy. In Labeled Security Mode, communication within TOE parts coupled into
a sysplex can be multilevel, whereas other communication channels are assigned a
single security label. In standard operation mode, labels need not to be assigned and
evaluated for any communication channel.
z/OS TCP/IP provides the means for associating labels with all IP addresses in the
network. In Labeled Security Mode, communication is permitted between any two
addresses that have equivalent labels. In Labeled Security Mode, communication
between two multilevel addresses requires the explicit labeling of each packet with the
sending user's label and is only permitted over XCF links within the sysplex.
z/OS TCP/IP provides the means to define Virtual IP addresses (VIPAs) with specific
labels on a multilevel system. z/OS TCP/IP considers the user's label when choosing a
source address for communications. z/OS UNIX Systems Services also provides the
means to run up to eight instances of the z/OS TCP/IP stack which can each be
restricted to a single label. Either of these approaches can be used to ensure that most
communications between multilevel systems do not use a multilevel address on both
ends and thereby avoid the need for explicit labeling.
TCP/IP-based communication can be further controlled by the access control function
for TCP/IP connections, which allows controlling of the connection establishment based
on access to the TCP/IP stack in general, individual network address and individual
ports on a per-application or per-user basis.
Means implemented in z/OS for securing the communication
• SSL/TLS optionally with X.509-based client authentication
• IPSEC with IKE key exchange method
• Kerberos™ version 5 networking protocols
• IBM Ported Tools (SSH v2 implementation)
• Access controlled TCP/IP stacks
TSF self
protection
TSF protection is based on several protection mechanisms that are supported by the
underlying abstract machine the TOE is executed upon.
In addition to the protection mechanism of the underlying abstract machine, the TOE
also uses software mechanisms like the authorized program facility (APF), specific
privileges for programs in the UNIX system services environment to protect the TSF.
Table 1: TOE Security Functionalities
14 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
The TOE is one instance of z/OS running on an abstract machine as the sole operating
system and exercising full control over this abstract machine. This abstract machine, which
is not part of the TOE can be provided by one of the following:
• A logical partition provided by a certified version of PR/SM on an IBM System z™
processor (IBM System z10™ Business Class, IBM System z10™ Enterprise Class,
zEnterprise114, or zEnterprise 196) with CP Assist for Cryptographic Functions
(CPACF) DES/TDES Enabled Feature 3863 active, optionally with CryptoExpress3
card.
IBM zEnterprise 114 or 196 may be operated with or without the zEnterprise Blade
Center Extension (zBX).
• A certified version of IBM z/VM® executing in a logical partition provided by PR/SM
on one of the above-listed System z™ processors.
Note that if the configuration includes a zEnterprise Blade Center Extension (zBX), the
operating systems running in the zBX are not part of the TOE.
Multiple instances of the TOE may be connected in a basic sysplex or in a parallel sysplex
with the instances sharing their RACF® database.
The individual TOEs can be run alone or within a network as a set of cooperating hosts,
operating under and implementing the same set of security policies.
For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 1.4.
The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6], chapter 3.2.1.
Based on these assets the TOE Security Problem is defined in terms of Assumptions,
Threats and Organisational Security Policies. This is outlined in the Security Target [6],
chapters 3.2.3 to 3.4.
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:
The z/OS Version 1 Release 13 (V1R13) Common Criteria Evaluated Base Package, IBM
Ported Tools for z/OS V1.2, and all required APARs / PTFs. For details please refer to
chapter 8 of this report or Security Target [6], chapter 1.4.3.1.
The vulnerability assessment results as stated within this certificate do not include a rating
for those cryptographic algorithms and their implementation suitable for encryption and
decryption (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2).
The certification results only apply to the version of the product indicated in the certificate
and on the condition that all the stipulations are kept as detailed in this Certification
Report. This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for
Information Security (BSI) or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by BSI or any other organisation that
recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is either expressed or implied.
2 Identification of the TOE
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is called:
IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13
The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:
15 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
No Type Identifier Release Form of Delivery
z/OS Version 1 Release 13 (V1.13) Common Criteria Evaluated Base Package
z/OS Version 1 Release 13 (z/OS V1.13), program number 5694-A01)
1 SW z/OS V1.13 Common Criteria Evaluated Base (IBM
program number 5694-A01)
V1R13 Tape
2 DOC z/OS V1.13 Program Directory GI10-0670-13 Hardcopy
3 DOC z/OS V1.13 DVD Collection Kit SK3T-4271-29 DVD
4 DOC z/OS Hot Topics Newsletter GA22-7501-21 Hardcopy
5 DOC ServerPac: IYO (Installing Your Order) n/a Hardcopy
6 DOC Memo to Customers of z/OS V1.13 Common Criteria
Evaluated Base Package
n/a Hardcopy
7 DOC z/OS V1.13 Planning for Multilevel Security and the
Common Criteria
GA22-7509-13 Hardcopy
IBM Print Services Facility™ Version 4 Release 4 for z/OS (PSF V4.4.0, program number 5655-M32)
8 SW IBM Print Services Facility™ Version 4 Release 4 for z/OS
(PSF V4.4.0, program number 5655-M32)
V4R4 Tape
9 DOC PSF V4.4 Library Collection SK5T-8814-00 CD-ROM
OGL/370 V1.1.0 (program number 5688-191)
10 SW Overlay Generation Language Version 1 (OGLV1R1,
program number 5688-191)
V1R1 Tape
11 DOC OGL/370 V1.1.0: Getting Started G544-3691-00 Hardcopy
12 DOC OGL/370 V1.1.0: LPS G544-3697-00 Hardcopy
13 DOC OGL: Command Summary and Quick Reference S544-3703-01 Hardcopy
14 DOC Program Directory OGL/370 GI10-0212-01 Hardcopy
IBM Ported Tools for z/OS V1.2 (program number 5655-M23)
15 SW IBM Ported Tools for z/OS V1.2 (program number5655-
M23)
V1.2 Tape
16 DOC Program Directory IBM Ported Tools for z/OS V1.2.0 GI10-0769-05 Hardcopy
17 DOC IBM Ported Tools for z/OS License Information GA22-7986-08 Hardcopy
Additional Media
18 SW PTFs (required):
UA60116, UA59869, UA59856, UA60074, UA66798,
UA61422, UA62402, UA60574, UA60464, UA61231,
UA62306, UA62584, UA63192, UA63322, UA63384,
UA63310, UA63381, UA63280, UA63194, UA63353,
UA62097, UA62095, UA62047, UA63225
to be obtained electronically from ShopzSeries
(https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries)
n/a Electronic
Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE
Overview of Delivery Procedure:
The evaluated version of z/OS can be ordered via an IBM sales representative or via the
ShopzSeries web application (http://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries). When filing an
order via (secured) internet services, IBM requires customers to have an account with a
login name and password. Registration for such an account in turn requires a valid
customer ID from IBM.
16 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
The delivery of the tapes, DVDs, CDs and documentation occurs in one package, which is
manufactured specifically for this customer and shipped via courier services. Additional
maintenance then needs to be downloaded by the customer via the ShopzSeries web site,
following the instructions delivered with the package.
Identification of the TOE by the User:
The media and documents delivered to the customer are labeled with the product,
document and version numbers as indicated in the table above and can be checked by the
users installing the system. The TOE reference can be verified by the administrator during
initial program load (IPL), when the system identification is displayed on the system
console. The operator can also issue the operator command D IPLINFO, to display the
z/OS version. The string "z/OS 01.13.00" should be displayed among other information.
3 Security Policy
The Security Policy is expressed by the set of Security Functional Requirements and
implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues:
• identification and authentication
• discretionary access control
• in Labeled Security Mode: mandatory access control and support for security labels
• auditing
• object reuse
• security management
• secure communication
• TSF protection
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
The Assumptions defined in the Security Target and some aspects of Threats and
Organisational Security Policies are not covered by the TOE itself. These aspects lead to
specific Security Objectives to be fulfilled by the TOE-Environment. The following topics
are of relevance: Trained and trustworthy administrators, trusted remote IT, environmental
support for protection of information, correct TOE setup, maintenance, prevention of
physical attacks, recovery procedures and correct implementation of security protocols by
the remote IT. Details can be found in the Security Target [6], chapters 4.2 and 6.
5 Architectural Information
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the z/OS operating system with the software
components as listed in chapter 2 of this report. z/OS is a general-purpose, multi-user,
multi-tasking operating system for enterprise computing systems. Multiple users can use
z/OS simultaneously to perform a variety of functions that require controlled, shared
access to the information stored on the system.
For purposes of evaluation, the TOE is seen as one instance of z/OS running on an
abstract machine as the sole operating system and exercising full control over this abstract
machine. This abstract machine can be provided by one of the following:
17 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
• A logical partition provided by a certified version of IBM PR/SM on an IBM System
z™ processor (IBM System z10™ Business Class, IBM System z10™ Enterprise
Class, zEnterprise 114, or zEnterprise 196) with CP Assist for Cryptographic
Functions (CPACF) DES/TDES Enablement Feature 3863 active, optionally with
CryptoExpress3 card.
IBM zEnterprise 114 or 196 may be operated with or without the zEnterprise
BladeCenter Extension (zBX).
• A certified version of IBM z/VM® executing in a logical partition provided by PR/SM
on one of the above-listed System z™ processors.
If the configuration includes a zEnterprise Blade Center Extension (zBX), the operating
systems running in the zBX are not part of the TOE. They are external systems, connected
to z/OS only via the built-in TCP/IP networking facilities included in the zEnterprise System
and zBX.
The abstract machine itself is not part of the TOE; rather, it belongs to the TOE
environment. Nevertheless the correctness of separation and memory protection
mechanisms implemented in the abstract machine is analyzed as part of the evaluation
since those functions are crucial for the security of the TOE.
The TOE environment, as part of the System z processor, also includes specific hardware
functions that provide support for the cryptographic operations involved in communications
security and for the digital signature operations involved with X.509v3 digital certificates.
Multiple instances of the TOE may be connected in a basic sysplex or in a parallel sysplex
with the instances sharing their RACF® database.
The platforms selected for the evaluation consist of IBM products that are available when
the evaluation has been completed and will remain available for a substantial period of
time afterwards.
The individual TOEs can be run alone or within a network as a set of cooperating hosts,
operating under and implementing the same set of security policies.
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) network services, connections
and communication that occur outside of a sysplex are restricted to one security label; that
is, each system regards its peers as single-label hosts. Other network communication is
disallowed, with the exception of the Job Entry System 2 (JES2) Network Job Entry (NJE)
protocol.
Most of the TOE Security Functions are provided by the z/OS operating system Base
Control Program (BCP) and the Resource Access Control Facility (RACF), a z/OS
component that is used by different services as the central instance for identification and
authentication and for access control decisions. z/OS comes with management functions
that allow configuring of the TOE Security Functionality to tailor them to the customer's
needs.
Some elements have been included in the TOE that do not provide security functionality.
These elements run in authorized mode, so they could compromise the TOE if they do not
behave properly. Because these elements are essential for the operation of many
customer environments, the inclusion of these elements subjects them to the process of
scrutiny during the evaluation and ensures that they may be used by customers without
affecting the security status of the TOE.
In its evaluated configuration, the TOE allows two modes of operation: A standard mode
meeting all requirements of the Operating System Protection Profile base and its extended
18 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
package for Extended Identification and Authentication, and a more restrictive mode called
Labeled Security Mode, which additionally meets all requirements of the OSPP extended
package for Labeled Security [7]. In both modes, the same software elements are used.
The two modes have different RACF settings with respect to the use of security labels. All
other configuration parameters are identical in the two modes.
5.1 Intended Method of Use
z/OS provides a general computing environment that allows users to gain controlled
access to its resources in different ways:
• Online interaction with users through Time Sharing Option Extensions (TSO/E) or
z/OS UNIX System Services,
• batch processing (JES2),
• services provided by started procedures or tasks,
• daemons and servers utilizing z/OS UNIX System Services that provide similar
functions as started procedures or tasks but based on UNIX interfaces.
These services can be accessed by users local to the computer systems or accessing the
systems via network services supported by the evaluated configuration.
All users of the TOE are assigned a unique user identifier (user ID). This user ID, which is
used as the basis for access control decisions and for accountability, associates the user
with a set of security attributes. In most cases the TOE authenticates the claimed identity
of a user before allowing this user to perform any further security-relevant actions.
Exceptions to this authentication policy include:
● Pre-specified identities:
– The authorized administrator can specify an identity to be used by server or daemon
processes or system address spaces, which may be started either automatically or via
system operator commands;
– The authorized administrator may configure a trusted HTTP server to access selected
data under a specified identity, rather than the identity of the end user making the
request. The HTTP server may optionally authenticate the user in this case, or may
serve the data to anyone asking for it, if the administrator has determined that such
anonymous access is appropriate.
● Users are allowed to execute programs that accept network connections on ports the
user has access to. In this case the untrusted program has no knowledge about the
external "user" and cannot perform authentication. The program executes with the rights
of the z/OS user that started it, and any data access occurs using this user's
authenticated identity.
All TOE resources are under the control of the TOE. The TOE mediates the access of
subjects to TOE-protected objects. Subjects in the TOE are called tasks. Tasks are the
active entities that can act on the user's behalf. Data is stored in named objects. The TOE
can associate a set of security attributes with each named resource, which includes the
description of the access rights to that object and (in Labeled Security Mode) a security
label.
Objects are owned by users, who are assumed to be capable of assigning discretionary
access rights to their objects in accordance with the organizational security policies.
Ownership of named objects can be transferred under the control of the access control
policy. In Labeled Security Mode, security labels are assigned by the TOE, either
19 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
automatically upon creation of the object or by the trusted system administrator. The
security attributes of users, data objects, and objects through which the information is
passed are used to determine if information may flow through the system as requested by
a user.
Apart from normal users, z/OS recognizes administrative users with special authorizations.
These users are trusted to perform system administration and maintenance tasks, which
includes configuration of the security policy enforced by the z/OS system and attributes
related to it. Authorizations can be delegated to other administrative users by updating
their security attributes.
The TOE also recognizes the role of an auditor, who uses the auditing system provided
by z/OS to monitor the system usage according to the organizational security policies.
The TOE is intended to operate in a networked environment with other instantiations of the
TOE as well as other well-behaved client systems operating within the same management
domain. All of those systems need to be configured in accordance with a defined common
security policy.
5.2 TOE Design
The subsystems considered in the TOE design are the following:
1. Base Control Program (BCP)
2. System Management Facilities (SMF)
3. System REXX
4. Security Server (Resource Access Control Facility RACF)
5. System Operations
6. Communication Server (IP and SNA)
7. DFSMS – System Managed Storage
8. Job Entry Subsystem 2 - JES2
9. TSO/E
10.z/OS UNIX System Services
11. Print Services Facility (PSF)
12.Parallel Sysplex
13.Cryptographic Services
14.Hardware Configuration Definition (HCD) and Hardware Configuration Manager
(HCM)
15.Resource Management Facility - RMF
16.SDSF
17.System SSL
18.Network File System
19.HTTP Server for z/OS
20.IBM Health Checker
21.IBM Tivoli Directory Server for z/OS (LDAP)
20 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
22.Network Authentication Service (Kerberos)
23.PKI Services
24.OpenSSH
25.Common Information Model (CIM) Server
26.EIM ICTX - LDAP backend for remote authorization and remote auditing
27.TSO/ISPF Client Gateway
28.Binder
6 Documentation
The evaluated documentation as outlined in table 2 is being provided with the product to
the customer. This documentation contains the required information for secure usage of
the TOE in accordance with the Security Target.
Additional obligations and notes for secure usage of the TOE as outlined in chapter 10 of
this report have to be followed.
7 IT Product Testing
7.1 Developer Test Configuration
The Security Target requires the software packages comprising the TOE to be run on an
abstract machine implementing the z/Architecture machine interface as defined in the
"z/Architecture Principles of Operation" [11]. The hardware platforms implementing this
abstract machine are:
• IBM System z10 Business Class with CP Assist for Cryptographic Functions
(CPACF) DES/TDES Enablement Feature 3863 active, optionally with
CryptoExpress3 card.
• IBM System z10 Enterprise Class with CPACF DES/TDES Enablement Feature
3863 active, optionally with CryptoExpress3 card.
• IBM zEnterprise 114 with CPACF DES/TDES Enablement Feature 3863 active ,
optionally with CryptoExpress3 card, and with or without the zEnterprise
BladeCenter Extension (zBX).
• IBM zEnterprise 196 with CPACF DES/TDES Enablement Feature 3863 active,
optionally with CryptoExpress3 card, and with or without the zEnterprise
BladeCenter Extension (zBX).
The TOE may be running on those machines within a logical partition provided by a
certified version of IBM PR/SM. In addition, the TOE may run on a virtual machine
provided by a certified version of IBM z/VM.
For the peripherals that can be used with the TOE, please refer to the Security Target,
section 1.4.3.2.
IBM has tested the platforms (hardware and combinations of hardware with IBM PR/SM
and/or IBM z/VM) for z/OS individually for their compliance to the z/Architecture using the
Systems Assurance Kernel (SAK) suite of tests. These tests ensure that every platform
provides the abstract machine interface that z/OS requires.
21 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
The test systems were running z/OS Version 1 Release 13 in the evaluated configuration.
Due to the massive amount of tests, testing was performed throughout the development of
the TOE. To ensure proper testing of all security relevant behaviour of the TOE, the
evaluators verified that all tests that might have been affected by any security-relevant
change introduced late in the development cycle had been run on the evaluated
configuration.
7.2 Developer Testing
This section provides a brief summary of the developer testing activities:
• IBM tests the platforms for z/OS individually for their compliance to the
z/Architecture using the Systems Assurance Kernel (SAK) suite of tests. These
tests ensure that every platform provides the abstract machine interface that z/OS
requires to be run. SAK testing is important not only to the z/OS evaluation, but to
other evaluations (PR/SM, z/VM) as well.
• FVT for z/OS is largely performed on the VICOM test system. This is an enhanced
z/VM system implementing the z/Architecture abstract machine interface. It allows
testers to bring up individual, virtual test machines running z/OS with access to
virtualized peripherals such as disks and network connections. For the purpose of
the security function tests, this environment is fully equivalent to the machines
running z/OS. This environment was also used by the evaluators for their
independent testing.
• IBM has provided a common test framework for tests that can be automated.
COMSEC is an environment that can be operated in standard mode or Labeled
Security mode. The BERD (Background Environment Random Driver) test driver
submits the test cases as JES2 jobs. IBM's intention is to move more and more
tests to this automated environment,which will ease the test effort required for the
evaluations substantially. Starting with V1R9 a substantial number of tests has been
ported to this environment. Additionally, most test teams ran their manual tests in
the COMSEC test environment, which provides a complete test environment in the
evaluated configuration of the TOE in the different modes of operation.
• The test systems were running z/OS version 1 release 13 in the evaluated
configuration. The SDF team provided a pre-installed system image for VICOM and
for the machines running the COMSEC tests, thus ensuring that the CCEB software
version was used for all tests. The additional PTFs were applied to the VICOM and
COMSEC systems as they became available, with any security-relevant tests for
the PTFs being successfully re-run. For some APARs claimed by the ST, which
have not been installed on the test systems,an analysis of their security impact
revealed that they actually have no effect at all on the TOE functionality being
tested.
IBM's general test approach is defined in the process for Integrated Product Development
(IPD) with developer tests, functional verification tests (FVT), and system verification tests
(SVT). Per release, an overall effort of more than 100 person years is spent on FVT and
SVT for the z/OS components. FVT and SVT is performed by independent test teams,with
testers being independent from the developers. The different test teams have developed
their own individual test and test documentation tools, but all implement the requirements
set forth in the IPD documentation.
22 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
For the purpose of the evaluation, FVT is of interest to the evaluators, since the single
security functions claimed in the ST [6] are tested here. IBM decided to create a test
bucket with the tests for the security functions, summarizing the tests in individual test
plans,so that the evaluators had a chance to deal with the otherwise overwhelming
complexity of the z/OS testing.
IBM's test strategy for the evaluation had three cornerstones:
• The major internal security interface was the interface to RACF, which is tested
exhaustively by the RACF test group
• Components requiring Identification and Authentication or Access Control services
call RACF (with the exception of LDAP LDBM, which implements its own access
control). For most of these services, it is sufficient to demonstrate that these
interfaces call RACF, once the testing of the RACF interface (see above) has
established confidence in the correct inner workings of RACF.
• Due to the design of z/OS, a large number of internal interfaces is also visible
externally, although the interfaces are not intended to be called by external,
unprivileged subjects. For these interfaces, which are basically authorized
programs, operator commands, certain callable services, SVC and PC routines,
testing established only that these interfaces cannot be called by unauthorized
callers.
Apart from these tests, all components providing external interfaces for security functions
were tested intensively. For the current version of z/OS this included additional tests for
enhancements of the already existing TOE components RACF, CS390, USS, SystemSSL,
ICSF, LDAP and sudo introduced in the current TOE version. All new test cases were
determined to follow the approach of the already existing tests for the respective
component.
For components providing cryptographic functions, testing was performed with and without
hardware cryptographic support in order to test the correct usage of the hardware
cryptographic functions, if present, and the correct implementation of the software
implementation within the TOE.
The test results provided by the sponsor were generated on the configurations as
described above. Although different test teams used different tools and test tracking
databases, the evaluators verified that all provided results showed that tests had executed
successfully and yielded the expected results.
The testing provided was valid for both the standard mode and the Labeled Security mode
of operation, with the exception of tests for multilevel security features, which were
relevant to Labeled Security mode only. The test systems configured for Labeled Security
mode are compliant to standard mode as well, so that tests run on these systems were
always applicable to both modes of operation. For COMSEC, all applicable tests were run
in dedicated Labeled Security mode and standard mode configurations.
For the test coverage the developer provided a mapping between the TSF of the ST [6],
the TSFI in the functional specification and the tests performed. The evaluator checked
this mapping and examined the test cases to verify whether the tests covered the functions
and their interfaces. Although exhaustive testing is not required, the sponsor provided
evidence that significant detail of the security functions have been tested.
23 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
The evaluators determined that developer tests provided the required coverage: Testing
covered all TSF identified in the Security Target on all interfaces identified in the functional
specification.
Test depth was verified against the TOE subsystems and the security enforcing modules:
For most security functions relevant to this evaluation, subsystems invoke RACF functions
to take security-relevant decisions; access control, identification and authentication,
security management and the generation of security-relevant audit records are mostly
handled by RACF. All other security-relevant functions are implemented within the
subsystems themselves, thus keeping security functions isolated within them. For
cryptographic functions, hardware support provided by the TOE's IT environment is
accessed through the ICSF component. Several components (like PKI Services) use the
System SSL component as an intermediate provider of cryptographic functions. System
SSL then checks and uses hardware support through ICSF. For the self-protection, BCP
and the underlying abstract machine work together to provide memory protection and
different authorization mechanisms such as APF or AKM.
The evaluators verified that all security-relevant details of the TOE design at the level of
subsystems had been taken into account for testing. In particular, testing of the RACF
subsystem interfaces was performed directly at these interfaces as well as over the
subsystems invoking RACF.
7.3 Evaluator Independent Testing
The independent evaluator testing followed the CEM guidance to test every security
function, without striving for exhaustive testing. For their own tests, the evaluators decided
to focus on the most important security functions of the TOE in order to provide
independent verification of their correct operation:
• Identification and authentication: The evaluators would only devise some basic,
mostly implicit testing of the Identification and authentication functions in TSO/E, ftp,
su and JES, since these functions would be exercised extensively during the test
activity by the testers. The testers tests focused on the Kerberos based
authentication mechanisms. In addition the testers exercised the newly added sudo
function with regard to I&A.
• Discretionary access control: The evaluators focused on UNIX System Services
ACLs, which also implicitly test UNIX permission bits. Other DAC tests involved.
• USS IPC (all system calls for messages, semaphores and shared memory).
• DAC for different USS objects (device special files, IPC objects, directories).
• z/OS dataset access
• Security-relevant USS system calls.
• Mandatory Access Control: The evaluators re-ran their own tests on mandatory
access control checks for data sets and Unix System Services files as their own
regression tests. Testing of the write down override capability provided by FACILITY
class profiles was also performed.
• Communication security: The evaluators chose to ensure that secure
communications channels (SSL, Kerberos and Intrusion Detection functions) did not
contain hidden platform specific implementation errors by testing interoperability
with non-zSeries systems. Application-transparent TLS (AT-TLS) was also tested to
work with a non-z/OS platform, checking different policy settings.
24 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
• Audit: Tests were used to check auditing of changes to the system clock.
• Security Management: The evaluators decided to devise no special tests here,
since the setup of the test environment and the setup / cleanup of the tests would
already include a major portion of the TSF found here.
• TOE Self Protection: The only function to be suitably testable is object re-use,
where the evaluators decided to focus on the issue of memory pages probably
containing left-over information. All other self-protection features are properties that
could not be easily be "challenged" by evaluator tests.
For the set of developer tests to be re-run and observed, the evaluators chose an
approach supplementing their own tests and focusing on functionality changed since the
previous evaluation.
The evaluators decided to focus on security functions claimed in the Security Target and
not to run tests demonstrating that functions requiring authorization would fail when
invoked unprivileged. This was in part due to the fact that the evaluators had experienced
already sufficient issues with protection of security functions while bringing up the system
in its evaluated configuration, following the guidance in [10].
Apart from the tests re-run by the evaluators or during dedicated sessions set up for the
evaluators to observe the testers running those tests, the evaluators gained confidence in
the developers test efforts during their extended stay at the developer site, where they
discussed with testers issues of testing or interpretations of the CC requirements, and
were witnessing test executions while the test bucket was being created. The evaluators
had already interviewed testers during the site visits and examined the test databases with
test cases and test results and test execution records.
All tests were run on the VICOM test system that had been set up by the evaluators
according to the specifications found in the guidance [10], and on the COMSEC system
set up by IBM and verified by the evaluators to be in the evaluated configuration.
During their testing, the evaluators could verify that the test functions behaved as
expected.
7.4 Evaluator Penetration Testing
Since this evaluation was a re-evaluation of a product where several previous versions
had been evaluated before, and since the changes made were mainly to internals, the
evaluator concentrated his penetration testing on potential side-channels in the software
implementation of cryptographic algorithms. It can be easily seen that the only possible
source of side-channels in a mainframe system is timing, since power analysis, emanation
analysis, and fault injection can be excluded.
8 Evaluated Configuration
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:
The z/OS V1R13 Common Criteria Evaluated Base package, and (if used) IBM Ported
Tools for z/OS must be installed according to the directions delivered with the media and
configured according to the instructions in [10]. Also all required PTFs as listed as item #18
in table 2 above must be installed.
25 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Installations may choose not to use any of the elements delivered within the ServerPac,
but are required to install, configure, and use at least the RACF component of the z/OS
Security Server element.
In addition, any software outside the TOE may be added without affecting the security
characteristics of the system, if it cannot run:
• In supervisor state
• as APF-authorized,
• with keys 0 through 7,
• with UID(0),
• with authority to FACILITY resources BPX.DAEMON, BPX.SERVER, or
BPX.SUPERUSER,
• with authority to UNIXPRIV resources.
This explicitly excludes:
• Replacement of any element in the ServerPac providing security functions relevant
to this evaluation by other third-party products.
• Installing system exits that run authorized (supervisor state, system key, or APF-
authorized), with the exception of the sample ICHPWX11 and its associated
IRRPHREX routine.
• Installing IBM Tivoli Directory Server plug-ins that have not been evaluated.
• Using the Authorized Caller Table (ICHAUTAB) in RACF to allow unauthorized
programs to issue RACROUTE REQUEST=VERIFY (RACINIT) or RACROUTE
REQUEST=LIST (RACLIST).
The evaluated software configuration is not necessarily invalidated by installing and
operating other appropriately-certified components that possibly run authorized. However
the evaluation of those components must show that the component and the security
policies implemented by the component do not undermine the security policies described
in this document.
The IBM Tivoli Directory Server for z/OS component may be used as the LDAP server, but:
• For client authentication via digital certificates the administrator must configure the
LDAP server to map the certificate to a RACF user ID and to fail the bind if the
certificate does not map to a RACF user ID. The allowable LDAP configuration
provides three options for forming an LDBM subject:
• LDAP may use the original DN from the certificate; or
• LDAP may replace the original DN with an SDBM-format DN based on the
RACF user ID; or
• LDAP may add the SDBM-format DN to the LDAP subject, giving a subject
with two DNs, either of which will work in LDAP ACLs.
• Client authentication using the Kerberos mechanism has not been evaluated for
LDAP and cannot be used in the evaluated configuration.
• Authentication via passwords stored in LDAP cannot be used. Authentication must
occur using RACF passwords or password phrases. Note that if an LDBM bind DN
26 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
is specified when binding to the server, the password/phrase specified must be for
the RACF user ID associated with that bind DN by the LDAP administrator.
• Only the LDBM and CDBM back-ends and the ICTX plug-in may be used in
Labeled Security Mode. In the standard mode of operation of the TOE the LDBM,
CDBM and SDBM back-ends and the ICTXplug-in may be used. Other LDAP back-
end configurations and plug-ins have not been evaluated and must not be used.
• (Labeled Security Mode only) Each running instance of the LDAP server must run
with a single, non-SYSMULTI, non-SYSNONE, security label. Multiple server
instances may run at the same time, with the same or different security labels.
Each running instance of the HTTP server must run with a security label that is neither
SYSMULTI nor SYSNONE.
The SSH daemon sshd (from IBM Ported Tools for z/OS), may be used, but if used:
• must be configured to use protocol version 2 and either TDES or one of the AES-
based encryption suites,
• must be configured in privilege separation mode, and
• must be configured to allow only password-based (including password phrase)
authentication of users or public-key based authentication of users with the public
keys stored in RACF keyrings. Rhost-based and public-key based user
authentication with the keys stored elsewhere may not be used in the evaluated
configuration. In Labeled Security Mode sshd should be configured with the
SYSMULTI security label.
The Network Authentication Service component of the Integrated Security Services
component, if used, and applications exploiting it, must satisfy the following constraints:
• The Network Authentication Service must use the SAF (RACF) registry. The NDBM
registry is not a valid configuration for this evaluation.
• Cross Realm Trust relationships with foreign Kerberos realms is allowed, but the
foreign KDC must be capable of supporting the same cipher as does the z/OS KDC.
• In order to ensure strong cryptographic protection of Kerberos tickets, Triple DES or
AES should be utilized by the z/OS KDC and any KDC participating in a cross-
realm trust relationship with the z/OS KDC. DES should only be used in network
environments where the threat of cryptographic attacks against the tickets and
Kerberos-protected sessions is deemed low enough to justify the use of these
weaker encryption protocols.
• Applications supporting Kerberos may use a combination of application specific
protocols and the GSS-API functions or the equivalent native platform callable
services (the SAFR_TicketServ and R_GenSec callable services) to authenticate
clients, and in client-server authentication. Only the Kerberos mechanism may be
used by applications that utilize GSS-API or the equivalent native platform
functions. The GSS-API and R_GenSec services also enable the encryption of
sensitive application messages passed via application specific protocols. These
services enable the secure communication between client and server applications.
The GSSAPI services include the message integrity and privacy functions that
validate the authenticity and secure the communications between clients and
servers.
27 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
The Network File System (NFS) Server may be used, but must be configured with the SAF
or SAFEXPORT option, to ensure that all file and directory access (except possibly
directory mounting) has appropriate RACF security checks made.
SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) processing, if used, must use SSLv3 protocols. SSL and TLS
(Transport Layer Security), if used, must use either TDES (168-bit keys) or AES (128- or
256-bit keys) encryption.
IPSec (IP Security) processing, if used, must use either TDES (168-bit keys) or AES (128-
or 256-bit keys) encryption.
Any application performing client authentication using client digital certificates over SSL or
TLS must be configured to use RACF profiles in the RACDCERT or DIGTRING classes or
PKCS#11 tokens in ICSF to store the keyrings that contain the application private key and
the allowed Certificate Authority (CA) certificates that may be used to provide the client
certificates that the application will support. The use of gskkyman for this purpose is not
part of the evaluated configuration.
Any client that is delivered with the product that executes with the user's privileges must
be used with care, since the TSF can not protect those clients from potentially hostile
programs. Passwords/phrases a user enters into those client programs that those clients
use to pass to the corresponding server to authenticate the user may potentially be
spoofed by hostile programs running in the user's address space. This includes client
programs for telnet, TN3270, ftp, r-commands, ssh, all LDAP utilities and Kerberos
administration utilities that require the user to enter his password/phrase. When using
those client programs the user should take care that no untrusted potentially hostile
program has been called during his session.
The following elements and element components cannot be used in an evaluated system,
either because they violate the security policies stated in this Security Target or because
they have been removed from the evaluated configuration due to time and resource
constraints of the evaluation. As they are part of the base system, either they must be not
configured for use or they must be deactivated, as described in Chapter 7, "The evaluated
configuration for the Common Criteria" in z/OS Planning for Multilevel Security and the
Common Criteria [10]:
• All Bulk Data Transfer (BDT) elements: BDT, BDT File-to-File, and BDT Systems
Network Architecture (SNA) NJE
• Connection Manager
• The DFS™ Server Message Block (SMB) (FMID H0H23B0) components of the
Distributed File Service element
• The Enterprise Identity Mapping component of the Integrated Security Services
element
• Infoprint® Server
• JES3
• The Advanced Program-to-Program Communication / Multiple Virtual Storage
(APPC/MVS)component of the BCP
• Process Manager component from the UNIX System Services Element
The use of TCP/IP communication for JES2 NJE has not been part of the evaluation and
must not be used in the evaluated configuration.
28 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
The JES2 Execution Batch Monitor (XBM) facility has not been part of the evaluation and
must not be used in the evaluated configuration.
The RACF Remote Sharing Facility has not been part of the evaluation and must not be
used in the evaluated configuration.
The Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem (DFSMS) Object Access Method for
content management type applications must not be used.
The IBM Ported Tools for z/OS HTTP Server V7.0 (FMID HHAP700) must not be used.
For the Communications Server:
• The z/OS FTP server and client, and the z/OS TN3270 server, support both
manually-configured SSL/TLS, or AT-TLS. This evaluation has considered only AT-
TLS configurations, and as a result manual configuration of those components to
use SSL or TLS is not allowed for evaluated configurations.
• The z/OS FTP server and client can support either the protocols from the draft
standard for securing FTP with TLS/SSL, or the protocols from the formal RFC 4217
level of Security FTP with TLS/SSL (RFC4217). This evaluation has considered only
the formal RFC 4217 level of support, and as a result that option must be used in
the evaluated configuration.
• The following applications must not be used in Labeled Security configurations, as
noted in the Communications Server IP Configuration Guide: HOMETEST
command, IUCV, LPD,LPQ command, LPR command, LPRM command, LPRSET
command, NCPROUTE, NPF, Portmapper, SMTP, SNMP NetView client, TELNET
client command, TESTSITE command,TNF, VMCF, z/OS UNIX Network SLAPM2
subagent, z/OS UNIX OMPROUTE SNMP subagent, z/OS UNIX popper, z/OS
UNIX RSVP agent, z/OS UNIX SNMP client command, z/OS UNIXSNMP server
and agent, z/OS UNIX Trap Forwarder Daemon.
9 Results of the Evaluation
9.1 CC specific results
The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [8] was provided by the ITSEF according to the
Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all
interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE.
The Evaluation Methodology CEM [2] was used.
For RNG assessment the scheme interpretations AIS 20 was used (see [4]).
As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance
components:
● All components of the EAL 4 package including the class ASE as defined in the CC (see
also part C of this report).
● The component ALC_FLR.3 augmented for this TOE evaluation.
As the evaluation work performed for this certification procedure was carried out as a re-
evaluation based on the certificate BSI-DSZ-CC-0701-2011, re-use of specific evaluation
tasks was possible. The focus of this re-evaluation was on following changes:
• Communications Server
29 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
• The restriction on the TCP connection information service and the real-time SMF
information service being only accessible to APF authorized programs has been
lifted. Those services may also be used by programs not APF authorized as long as
the userid the program runs under is permitted access to the RACF SERVAUTH
profile controlling access to the respective service.
A description of VIPARANGE access control has been added. Dynamic Virtual IP
Addresses (VIPA) are used within a sysplex to cope with access issues caused by
termination of TCPIP stacks. In case of such termination, another TCPIP stack
defined in the sysplex can take over and an application will be still able to access
the sysplex using that application's VIPA. Access to Dynamic VIPA defined by a
VIPARANGE statement is controlled by respective RACF profiles in the SERVAUTH
class.
NAT traversal is also supported for IKEv2 in z/OS host-to-host communications.
The Telnet server may be configured to present a solicitor panel acting as
gatekeeper. Although that panel requests a password/passphrase in order to grant
access, the user's ID is not authenticated. Actual authentication will need to be
performed by applications invoked during logon like TSO.
The FTP server also accepts a user ID and a password phrase for user
authentication.
The Policy Agent no longer requires a user to have superuser authority in order to
be able to define policies. Access to the policies still is controlled by respective
SERVAUTH profiles maintained by RACF.
• z/OS UNIX
The zFS New Block Security (NBS) mount option is ignored, i.e. NBS is always
activated and cannot be switched off
• Cryptographic Services (ICSF)
A description of the differences between the IBM Common Cryptographic
Architecture (CCA) and PKCS#11 both used by ICSF has been added. It is pointed
out that for PKCS#11 there exists software fallback for all algorithms.
A description of the CRYPTOZ class maintained by RACF and controlling the
access to PKCS#11 tokens as well as the behaviour of PKCS#11 has been added.
• Resource Measurement Facility
Some minor changes to this component categorized as not security-relevant have
been added, like the access to cross-platform performance data.
• IBM Tivoli Directory Server
A description of the new LDAP functionality allowing to delegate administrator tasks
previously restricted to the role of the LDAP administrator to an administrative group
has been added. The LDAP root administrator may add users to the administrative
group and may assign administrative roles to them, which can be defined in LDAP
or RACF (the definition and the related capabilities is the same for both). The
administrative group and roles need to be enabled first. There is a description of
supported roles with various privileges that can be assigned to users in the
administrative group. The privileges available to administrative roles also cover
various sets of extended operations that can be used by a member of the
administrative groups having assigned such a role.
The LDAP server also was updated with respect to its search functionality, i.e.
descriptions for group search limits and sorted/paged output of search results has
been added. Also descriptions on how to manage those parameters are given.
A minor modification has been made with respect to setting up an SSL/TLS secured
30 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
LDAP connection. Rather than discussing all details of a connection establishment,
the description was reduced to a description and referral to the SSL handshake
procedure.
• System SSL
Support for elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman key exchange has been added. The list of
ciphers supported has been modified accordingly. Also a statement on the
CryptoExpress3 (CEX3C) coprocessor card being able to support ECC key
generation on z196 and z114 machines has been added.
• IBM Ported Tools
The sudo command family has been included in the evaluated configuration
allowing for fine grained access control (in sudo terms) to administrative actions
previously restricted to root or superuser. It is configured by the /etc/sudoers
configuration file.
The evaluation has confirmed:
● PP Conformance:
• Operating System Protection Profile, Version 2.0, 01 June 2010, BSI-CC-PP-0067-
2010,
• OSPP Extended Package – Labeled Security, Version 2.0, 28 May 2010,
• OSPP Extended Package – Extended Identification and Authentication, Version 2.0,
28 May 2010 [7]
● for the Functionality: PP conformant
Common Criteria Part 2 extended
● for the Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.3
The TOE design shows the TOE subsystems that implement the security functions defined
in the Security Target. Any modification to those subsystems may have security-critical
impacts and therefore needs to be assessed.
Another critical area is the addition of a trusted program that has not been part of the
evaluation. Those programs also may have side-effects that are able to subvert the
security functions of the TOE and therefore need to be assessed.
Other programs, as long as they are not called by an administrative user running with
elevated privileges, are bound by the security policy enforced by the TOE and may be
installed and executed from normal user accounts without invalidating the results of this
evaluation.
The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the TOE as defined in chapter 2 and
the configuration as outlined in chapter 8 above.
9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment
The vulnerability assessment results as stated within this certificate do not include a rating
for those cryptographic algorithms and their implementation suitable for encryption and
decryption (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2). This holds for:
– the TOE Security Functionality (“RACF Passtickets”, “Authentication via Client Digital
Certificates”, “Authentication via Kerberos”, “Communication Security”, and “TOE self
protection using digital signatures”, “IDID”) and
31 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
– for other usage of encryption and decryption within the TOE.
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE
The documents as outlined in table 2 contain necessary information about the usage of the
TOE and all security hints therein have to be considered. In addition all aspects of
Assumptions, threats and policies as outlined in the Security Target not covered by the
TOE itself need to be fulfilled by the operational environment of the TOE.
The customer or user of the product shall consider the results of the certification within his
system risk management process. In order for the evolution of attack methods and
techniques to be covered, he should define the period of time until a re-assessment for the
TOE is required and thus requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
If available, certified updates of the TOE should be used. If non-certified updates or
patches are available the user of the TOE should request the sponsor to provide a re-
certification. In the meantime a risk management process of the system using the TOE
should investigate and decide on the usage of not yet certified updates and patches or
take additional measures in order to maintain system security.
11 Security Target
For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [6] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is
provided within a separate document as Annex A of this report.
12 Definitions
12.1 Acronyms
ACEE Accessor Environment Element
AIS Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme
APF Authorized program facility
AT-TLS Application-Transparent TLS
BCP Base Control Program
BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for
Information Security, Bonn, Germany
BSIG BSI-Gesetz / Act on the Federal Office for Information Security
CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
CEM Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation
CMP Certificate Management Protocol
CN Common Name
DAC Discretionary access control
DFSMS Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem
DN Distinguished Name
32 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
DIT Directory Information Tree
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ECC Eliptic Curve Cryptography
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
FVT Functional Verification Tests
ICR Identity Context Reference
ICSF Integrated Cryptographic Services Facility
ICTX Identity Context Extension
IKE Internet Key Exchange
IOCDS Input/Output configuration Data Set
IT Information Technology
ITSEC Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria
ITSEF Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
JCL Job Control Language
JES Job Entry System
LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
LDBM Lightweight Database Manager
MAC Mandatory Access Control
MVS Multiple Virtual Storage
NSS Network Security Service
PADS Program Access to Data Sets
PDSE Partitioned Data Set Extended
PKCS Public Key Cryptographic Standard
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
PKM Program Key Mask
POSIX Portable Operating System Interface for UNIX
PP Protection Profile
PR/SM™ Processor Resource/Systems Manager™
PTF Program Temporary Fix
RACF Resource Access Control Facility
SAF System Authorization Facility
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SDSF System Display and Search Facility
SF Security Function
SFP Security Function Policy
33 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
SFR Security Functional Requirement
SMF System Management Facilities
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TLS Transport Layer Security
TSO Time Sharing Option
TSF TOE Security Functionalities
VTOC Volume Table of Content
12.2 Glossary
Abstract Machine - A processor design that is not intended to be implemented as
hardware, but which is the notional executor of a particular intermediate language
(abstract machine language) used in a compiler or interpreter. An abstract machine has an
instruction set, a register set, and a model of memory. It may provide instructions that are
closer to the language being compiled than any physical computer or it may be used to
make the language implementation easier to port to other platforms.
Access - If an authorized user is granted a request to operate on an object, the user is
said to have access to that object. There are numerous types of access. Examples include
read access, which allows the reading of objects, and write access, which allows the
writing of objects.
Access Control Policy - A set of rules used to mediate user access to TOE-protected
objects. Access control policies consist of two types of rules: access rules, which apply to
the behavior of authorized users, and authorization rules, which apply to the behavior of
authorized administrators.
Accessor Environment Element - A RACF control block that describes the current user’s
security environment.
Augmentation - The addition of one or more requirement(s) to a package.
Authorization - If an authorized user is granted a requested service, the user is said to
have authorization to the requested service or object. There are numerous possible
authorizations. Typical authorizations include auditor authorization, which allows an
administrator to view audit records and execute audit tools, and DAC override
authorization, which allows an administrator to override object access controls to
administer the system.
Authorized Administrator - An authorized user who has been granted the authority to
manage all or a defined subset of the functions of the TOE. Authorized administrators are
expected to use this authority only in the manner prescribed by the guidance that is given
to them.
Authorized User - A user who has been properly identified and authenticated. Authorized
users are considered to be legitimate users of the TOE. (Note: this is different from the
z/OS concept of an “authorized program” which is a program running in supervisor state,
or system key, or with APF authority.)
Category - See security category.
34 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
Classification (MLS) - A hierarchical designation for data that represents the sensitivity of
the information. The equivalent IBM term is security level.
Common Name (CN) - One component of an LDAP object’s complete name, usually
specified as cn=name.
Discretionary Access Control (DAC) - An access control policy that allows authorized
users and authorized administrators to control access to objects based on individual user
identity or membership in a group (PROJECTA, for example).
Distinguished Name (DN) - The complete name of an object in an LDAP directory, or the
complete name of the subject or issuer of a digital certificate.
Extension - The addition to an ST or PP of functional requirements not contained in part 2
and/or assurance requirements not contained in part 3 of the CC.
Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on well-
established mathematical concepts.
Informal - Expressed in natural language.
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) - A client/server protocol for accessing a
directory service.
Mandatory Access Control (MAC) - An access control policy that determines access
based on the sensitivity (SECRET, for example) and category (PERSONNEL or MEDICAL,
for example) of the information that is being accessed and the clearance of the user who is
trying to gain access to that information.
Mediation - When DAC and MAC policy rules are invoked, the TOE is said to be
mediating access to TOE-protected objects.
Object - A passive entity in the TOE, that contains or receives information, and upon which
subjects perform operations.
Package - A named set of either functional or assurance requirements (e.g. EAL 3).
Password - For the purposes of this evaluation, a 6 to 8 character secret value used
during some forms of user authentication, and allowing upper- and lower-case alphabetic,
numeric, or national ($, #, @) characters. Passwords are initially assigned by
administrators, but may be changed by the user to whom they are assigned.
Password Phrase - A 14 to 100 character secret value used in a manner similar to a
password, except for its length and an expanded set of valid characters (upper- and lower-
case alphabetic, special (including blanks), or numeric). In addition to assigning a
password, administrators may assign a password phrase to a user.
Note: Phrase may be shorter (down to 9 characters) if enabled by an administrator-
installed exit (ICHPWX11) that RACF supplies.
Password/Phrase - A shorthand term for “password or password phrase” sometimes used
in this security target when statements apply equally to passwords or to password
phrases.
Protection Profile - An implementation-independent statement of security needs for a
TOE type.
SECLABEL - Synonym for security label.
SECLEVEL - Synonym for security level (IBM).
35 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Security Category - A special designation for data at a certain level, which indicates that
only people who have been properly briefed and cleared for access to data with this
category can receive permission for access to the information.
Security Label - A name that represents the combination of a hierarchical level of
classification (IBM security level) and a set of non-hierarchical categories (security
category). Security labels are used as the base for Mandatory Access Control decisions.
Security labels are sometimes referred to as SECLABELs.
Security Level (IBM) - A hierarchical designation for data that represents the sensitivity of
the information. Security levels are sometimes referred to as SECLEVELs. The equivalent
MLS term is classification.
Security Level (MLS policy in the Bell-LaPadula model) - The combination of a
hierarchical classification (called security level in z/OS) and a set of non-hierarchical
categories that represents the sensitivity of information is known as the security level. The
equivalent term in other IBM documentation is security label.
Security Target - An implementation-dependent statement of security needs for a specific
identified TOE.
Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics.
Sensitivity Label - A specific marking attached to subjects or objects that indicates the
security level. The equivalent to this MLS term in other IBM documentation is security
label.
Subject - An active entity in the TOE that performs operations on objects.
Target of Evaluation - A set of software, firmware and/or hardware possibly accompanied
by guidance.
TOE Security Functionality - A set consisting of all hardware, software, and firmware of
the TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the SFRs.
Trusted channel - A means by which a TSF and a remote trusted IT product can
communicate with necessary confidence.
User - A person who is trying to invoke a service that is offered by the TOE.
User data - Data created by and for the user, that does not affect the operation of the TSF.
User ID - In z/OS, a string of up to eight characters defined as a RACF USER profile that
uniquely identifies a user. Users who may use UNIX services will additionally have a
numerical user identifier (UID) that is used by the UNIX subsystem for access decisions.
The user name is an additional attribute that usually holds the user’s full name. While
users can modify their user names, only administrators can change user IDs.
36 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
13 Bibliography
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
Part 1: Introduction and general model, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 2: Security functional components, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 3: Security assurance components, Revision 3, July 2009
[2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM),
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Rev. 3, July 2009
[3] BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125)
[4] Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE8
.
[5] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148), periodically updated list published also
in the BSI Website
[6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012, Version 9.02, 2012-09-09, Security Target
for IBM z/OS, Version 1, Release 13, IBM corp.
[7] Operating System Protection Profile, Version 2.0, 01 June 2010,BSI-CC-PP-0067-
2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Labeled Security, Version 2.0, 28 May 2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Extended Identification and Authentication, Version 2.0,
28 May 2010
[8] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 1, 2011-09-11, Final Evaluation Technical
Report, atsec information security GmbH (confidential document)
[9] Configuration list for the TOE, 2012-06-18, file name: CONFLIST.R13.zip and
Configuration List for the Publications, CM.PUBS-r13dvd2.txt (confidential
documents)
[10] MLSGUIDE z/OS Planning for Multilevel Security and the Common Criteria,
Eleventh Edition, Version GA22-7509-13, 2012-01-16
[11] z/Architecture Principles of Operation, Eighth Edition, Version SA22-7832-08,
August 2010.
8
specifically
• AIS 20, Version 1, 2. December 1999, Funktionalitätsklassen und Evaluationsmethodologie für
deterministische Zufallszahlengeneratoren
• AIS 32, Version 7, 3 August 2010, CC-Interpretationen im deutschen Zertifizierungsschema
• AIS 38, Version 2.0, 28 September 2007, Reuse of evaluation results
37 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
This page is intentionally left blank.
38 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
C Excerpts from the Criteria
CC Part1:
Conformance Claim (chapter 10.4)
“The conformance claim indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is met
by a PP or ST that passes its evaluation. This conformance claim contains a CC
conformance claim that:
● describes the version of the CC to which the PP or ST claims conformance.
● describes the conformance to CC Part 2 (security functional requirements) as either:
– CC Part 2 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 conformant if all SFRs in that
PP or ST are based only upon functional components in CC Part 2, or
– CC Part 2 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 extended if at least one SFR in
that PP or ST is not based upon functional components in CC Part 2.
● describes the conformance to CC Part 3 (security assurance requirements) as either:
– CC Part 3 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 conformant if all SARs in that
PP or ST are based only upon assurance components in CC Part 3, or
– CC Part 3 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 extended if at least one SAR in
that PP or ST is not based upon assurance components in CC Part 3.
Additionally, the conformance claim may include a statement made with respect to
packages, in which case it consists of one of the following:
● Package name Conformant - A PP or ST is conformant to a pre-defined package
(e.g. EAL) if:
– the SFRs of that PP or ST are identical to the SFRs in the package, or
– the SARs of that PP or ST are identical to the SARs in the package.
● Package name Augmented - A PP or ST is an augmentation of a predefined package
if:
– the SFRs of that PP or ST contain all SFRs in the package, but have at least
one additional SFR or one SFR that is hierarchically higher than an SFR in the
package.
– the SARs of that PP or ST contain all SARs in the package, but have at least
one additional SAR or one SAR that is hierarchically higher than an SAR in the
package.
Note that when a TOE is successfully evaluated to a given ST, any conformance claims of
the ST also hold for the TOE. A TOE can therefore also be e.g. CC Part 2 conformant.
Finally, the conformance claim may also include two statements with respect to Protection
Profiles:
● PP Conformant - A PP or TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the
conformance result.
● Conformance Statement (Only for PPs) - This statement describes the manner in
which PPs or STs must conform to this PP: strict or demonstrable. For more
information on this Conformance Statement, see Annex D.”
CC Part 3:
39 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Class APE: Protection Profile evaluation (chapter 10)
“Evaluating a PP is required to demonstrate that the PP is sound and internally consistent,
and, if the PP is based on one or more other PPs or on packages, that the PP is a correct
instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the PP to be
suitable for use as the basis for writing an ST or another PP.
Assurance Class Assurance Components
Class APE: Protection
Profile evaluation
APE_INT.1 PP introduction
APE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
APE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
APE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
APE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
APE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
APE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
APE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
APE: Protection Profile evaluation class decomposition”
Class ASE: Security Target evaluation (chapter 11)
“Evaluating an ST is required to demonstrate that the ST is sound and internally
consistent, and, if the ST is based on one or more PPs or packages, that the ST is a
correct instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the
ST to be suitable for use as the basis for a TOE evaluation.”
40 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
Assurance Class Assurance Components
Class ASE: Security
Target evaluation
ASE_INT.1 ST introduction
ASE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
ASE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
ASE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
ASE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
ASE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
ASE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
ASE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
ASE_TSS.1 TOE summary specification
ASE_TSS.2 TOE summary specification with architectural design
summary
ASE: Security Target evaluation class decomposition
Security assurance components (chapter 7)
“The following Sections describe the constructs used in representing the assurance
classes, families, and components.“
“Each assurance class contains at least one assurance family.”
“Each assurance family contains one or more assurance components.”
The following table shows the assurance class decomposition.
Assurance Class Assurance Components
ADV: Development ADV_ARC.1 Security architecture description
ADV_FSP.1 Basic functional specification
ADV_FSP.2 Security-enforcing functional specification
ADV_FSP.3 Functional specification with complete summary
ADV_FSP.4 Complete functional specification
ADV_FSP.5 Complete semi-formal functional specification with
additional error information
ADV_FSP.6 Complete semi-formal functional specification with
additional formal specification
ADV_IMP.1 Implementation representation of the TSF
ADV_IMP.2 Implementation of the TSF
ADV_INT.1 Well-structured subset of TSF internals
ADV_INT.2 Well-structured internals
ADV_INT.3 Minimally complex internals
ADV_SPM.1 Formal TOE security policy model
ADV_TDS.1 Basic design
ADV_TDS.2 Architectural design
ADV_TDS.3 Basic modular design
ADV_TDS.4 Semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.5 Complete semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.6 Complete semiformal modular design with formal high-
level design presentation
41 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Assurance Class Assurance Components
AGD:
Guidance documents
AGD_OPE.1 Operational user guidance
AGD_PRE.1 Preparative procedures
ALC: Life cycle support
ALC_CMC.1 Labelling of the TOE
ALC_CMC.2 Use of a CM system
ALC_CMC.3 Authorisation controls
ALC_CMC.4 Production support, acceptance procedures and
automation
ALC_CMC.5 Advanced support
ALC_CMS.1 TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.2 Parts of the TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.3 Implementation representation CM coverage
ALC_CMS.4 Problem tracking CM coverage
ALC_CMS.5 Development tools CM coverage
ALC_DEL.1 Delivery procedures
ALC_DVS.1 Identification of security measures
ALC_DVS.2 Sufficiency of security measures
ALC_FLR.1 Basic flaw remediation
ALC_FLR.2 Flaw reporting procedures
ALC_FLR.3 Systematic flaw remediation
ALC_LCD.1 Developer defined life-cycle model
ALC_LCD.2 Measurable life-cycle model
ALC_TAT.1 Well-defined development tools
ALC_TAT.2 Compliance with implementation standards
ALC_TAT.3 Compliance with implementation standards - all parts
ATE: Tests
ATE_COV.1 Evidence of coverage
ATE_COV.2 Analysis of coverage
ATE_COV.3 Rigorous analysis of coverage
ATE_DPT.1 Testing: basic design
ATE_DPT.2 Testing: security enforcing modules
ATE_DPT.3 Testing: modular design
ATE_DPT.4 Testing: implementation representation
ATE_FUN.1 Functional testing
ATE_FUN.2 Ordered functional testing
ATE_IND.1 Independent testing – conformance
ATE_IND.2 Independent testing – sample
ATE_IND.3 Independent testing – complete
AVA: Vulnerability
assessment
AVA_VAN.1 Vulnerability survey
AVA_VAN.2 Vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.3 Focused vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.4 Methodical vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.5 Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis
Assurance class decomposition
42 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 8)
“The Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs) provide an increasing scale that balances the
level of assurance obtained with the cost and feasibility of acquiring that degree of
assurance. The CC approach identifies the separate concepts of assurance in a TOE at
the end of the evaluation, and of maintenance of that assurance during the operational use
of the TOE.
It is important to note that not all families and components from CC Part 3 are included in
the EALs. This is not to say that these do not provide meaningful and desirable
assurances. Instead, it is expected that these families and components will be considered
for augmentation of an EAL in those PPs and STs for which they provide utility.”
Evaluation assurance level (EAL) overview (chapter 8.1)
“Table 1 represents a summary of the EALs. The columns represent a hierarchically
ordered set of EALs, while the rows represent assurance families. Each number in the
resulting matrix identifies a specific assurance component where applicable.
As outlined in the next Section, seven hierarchically ordered evaluation assurance levels
are defined in the CC for the rating of a TOE's assurance. They are hierarchically ordered
inasmuch as each EAL represents more assurance than all lower EALs. The increase in
assurance from EAL to EAL is accomplished by substitution of a hierarchically higher
assurance component from the same assurance family (i.e. increasing rigour, scope,
and/or depth) and from the addition of assurance components from other assurance
families (i.e. adding new requirements).
These EALs consist of an appropriate combination of assurance components as described
in Chapter 7 of this CC Part 3. More precisely, each EAL includes no more than one
component of each assurance family and all assurance dependencies of every component
are addressed.
While the EALs are defined in the CC, it is possible to represent other combinations of
assurance. Specifically, the notion of “augmentation” allows the addition of assurance
components (from assurance families not already included in the EAL) or the substitution
of assurance components (with another hierarchically higher assurance component in the
same assurance family) to an EAL. Of the assurance constructs defined in the CC, only
EALs may be augmented. The notion of an “EAL minus a constituent assurance
component” is not recognised by the standard as a valid claim. Augmentation carries with
it the obligation on the part of the claimant to justify the utility and added value of the
added assurance component to the EAL. An EAL may also be augmented with extended
assurance requirements.
43 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Assurance
Class
Assurance
Family
Assurance Components by
Evaluation Assurance Level
EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7
Development ADV_ARC 1 1 1 1 1 1
ADV_FSP 1 2 3 4 5 5 6
ADV_IMP 1 1 2 2
ADV_INT 2 3 3
ADV_SPM 1 1
ADV_TDS 1 2 3 4 5 6
Guidance
Documents
AGD_OPE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
AGD_PRE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Life cycle
Support
ALC_CMC 1 2 3 4 4 5 5
ALC_CMS 1 2 3 4 5 5 5
ALC_DEL 1 1 1 1 1 1
ALC_DVS 1 1 1 2 2
ALC_FLR
ALC_LCD 1 1 1 1 2
ALC_TAT 1 2 3 3
Security Target
Evaluation
ASE_CCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_ECD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_INT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_OBJ 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
ASR_REQ 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
ASE_SPD 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_TSS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tests ATE_COV 1 2 2 2 3 3
ATE_DPT 1 1 3 3 4
ATE_FUN 1 1 1 1 2 2
ATE_IND 1 2 2 2 2 2 3
Vulnerability
assessment
AVA_VAN 1 2 2 3 4 5 5
Table 1: Evaluation assurance level summary”
44 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 8.3)
“Objectives
EAL1 is applicable where some confidence in correct operation is required, but the threats
to security are not viewed as serious. It will be of value where independent assurance is
required to support the contention that due care has been exercised with respect to the
protection of personal or similar information.
EAL1 requires only a limited security target. It is sufficient to simply state the SFRs that the
TOE must meet, rather than deriving them from threats, OSPs and assumptions through
security objectives.
EAL1 provides an evaluation of the TOE as made available to the customer, including
independent testing against a specification, and an examination of the guidance
documentation provided. It is intended that an EAL1 evaluation could be successfully
conducted without assistance from the developer of the TOE, and for minimal outlay.
An evaluation at this level should provide evidence that the TOE functions in a manner
consistent with its documentation.”
Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 8.4)
“Objectives
EAL2 requires the co-operation of the developer in terms of the delivery of design
information and test results, but should not demand more effort on the part of the
developer than is consistent with good commercial practise. As such it should not require a
substantially increased investment of cost or time.
EAL2 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
low to moderate level of independently assured security in the absence of ready
availability of the complete development record. Such a situation may arise when securing
legacy systems, or where access to the developer may be limited.”
Evaluation assurance level 3 (EAL3) - methodically tested and checked (chapter 8.5)
“Objectives
EAL3 permits a conscientious developer to gain maximum assurance from positive
security engineering at the design stage without substantial alteration of existing sound
development practises.
EAL3 is applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a moderate
level of independently assured security, and require a thorough investigation of the TOE
and its development without substantial re-engineering.”
45 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
Evaluation assurance level 4 (EAL4) - methodically designed, tested, and reviewed
(chapter 8.6)
“Objectives
EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering
based on good commercial development practises which, though rigorous, do not require
substantial specialist knowledge, skills, and other resources. EAL4 is the highest level at
which it is likely to be economically feasible to retrofit to an existing product line.
EAL4 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
moderate to high level of independently assured security in conventional commodity TOEs
and are prepared to incur additional security-specific engineering costs.”
Evaluation assurance level 5 (EAL5) - semiformally designed and tested (chapter 8.7)
“Objectives
EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering based
upon rigorous commercial development practises supported by moderate application of
specialist security engineering techniques. Such a TOE will probably be designed and
developed with the intent of achieving EAL5 assurance. It is likely that the additional costs
attributable to the EAL5 requirements, relative to rigorous development without the
application of specialised techniques, will not be large.
EAL5 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
high level of independently assured security in a planned development and require a
rigorous development approach without incurring unreasonable costs attributable to
specialist security engineering techniques.”
Evaluation assurance level 6 (EAL6) - semiformally verified design and tested
(chapter 8.8)
“Objectives
EAL6 permits developers to gain high assurance from application of security engineering
techniques to a rigorous development environment in order to produce a premium TOE for
protecting high value assets against significant risks.
EAL6 is therefore applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in high
risk situations where the value of the protected assets justifies the additional costs.”
46 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 7 (EAL7) - formally verified design and tested
(chapter 8.9)
“Objectives
EAL7 is applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in extremely high
risk situations and/or where the high value of the assets justifies the higher costs. Practical
application of EAL7 is currently limited to TOEs with tightly focused security functionality
that is amenable to extensive formal analysis.”
Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment (chapter 16)
“The AVA: Vulnerability assessment class addresses the possibility of exploitable
vulnerabilities introduced in the development or the operation of the TOE.”
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VAN) (chapter 16.1)
"Objectives
Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether potential vulnerabilities
identified, during the evaluation of the development and anticipated operation of the TOE
or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses or quantitative or statistical analysis of the
security behaviour of the underlying security mechanisms), could allow attackers to violate
the SFRs.
Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that an attacker will be able to discover flaws
that will allow unauthorised access to data and functionality, allow the ability to interfere
with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users.”
47 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
This page is intentionally left blank.
48 / 50
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012 Certification Report
D Annexes
List of annexes of this certification report
Annex A: Security Target provided within a separate document.
49 / 50
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0788-2012
This page is intentionally left blank.
50 / 50