BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
for
IBM DB2 Version 11
for 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 V4.76
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
Database Management System
IBM DB2 Version 11
for 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 – Extended
Identification and Authentication, Version 2.0, 28
May 2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Labeled Security,
Version 2.0, 28 May 2010
Functionality: PP conformant plus product specific extensions
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, 27 August 2014
For the Federal Office for Information Security
Bernd Kowalski L.S.
Head of Department SOGIS Recognition
Agreement
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-0884-2014
This page is intentionally left blank.
4 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 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 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
Contents
A Certification........................................................................................................................7
1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure.................................................................7
2 Recognition Agreements................................................................................................7
3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification..................................................................8
4 Validity of the Certification Result...................................................................................8
5 Publication......................................................................................................................9
B Certification Results.........................................................................................................11
1 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................12
2 Identification of the TOE...............................................................................................13
3 Security Policy..............................................................................................................15
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................................16
5 Architectural Information...............................................................................................17
6 Documentation.............................................................................................................18
7 IT Product Testing.........................................................................................................18
8 Evaluated Configuration...............................................................................................21
9 Results of the Evaluation..............................................................................................22
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.......................................................23
11 Security Target............................................................................................................23
12 Definitions...................................................................................................................23
13 Bibliography................................................................................................................25
C Excerpts from the Criteria................................................................................................27
CC Part 1:.......................................................................................................................27
CC Part 3:.......................................................................................................................28
D Annexes...........................................................................................................................37
6 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 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). In addition, certificates issued
for Protection Profiles based on Common Criteria are part of the recognition agreement.
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 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
As of September 2011 the new agreement has been signed by the national bodies of
Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and
the United Kingdom. Details on recognition and the history of the agreement can be found
at https://www.bsi.bund.de/zertifizierung.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the
terms of this agreement by the nations listed above.
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 September 2011 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 website: 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 by the nations listed
above.
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 DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Version 1 Release 13 has undergone the
certification procedure at BSI. This is a re-certification based on BSI-DSZ-CC-0622-2012.
Specific results from the evaluation process BSI-DSZ-CC-0622-2012 were re-used.
The evaluation of the product IBM DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Version 1 Release 13 was
conducted by atsec information security GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 19
August 2014. 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.
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,
6
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
8 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
● the product is operated in the environment described, as 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 DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Version 1 Release 13 has been included in the
BSI list of 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
555 Bailey Avenue
San Jose, CA 95141
USA
9 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
This page is intentionally left blank.
10 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 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 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
1 Executive Summary
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is a combined TOE, consisting of:
• The “IBM z/OS Version 1 Release 13 (z/OS V1R13)” operating system, including
the Resource Access Control Facility (RACF) which is used as the evaluated
platform
• The “IBM DB2 11 for z/OS” (DB2 11), which is built upon this platform.
The DB2 11 Security Target ([6]) builds on the z/OS Security Target [8], which refers to the
evaluated “IBM z/OS Version 1 Release 13” operating system.
DB2 11 is a relational database management system that operates as a subsystem of
z/OS. DB2 is implemented by a set of address spaces plus a set of utilities.
The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is based on the certified
Protection Profiles
• Operating System Protection Profile, Version 2.0, 01 June 2010,
BSI-CC-PP-0067-2010,
• OSPP Extended Package – Extended Identification and Authentication, Version 2.0,
28 May 2010,
• OSPP Extended Package – Labeled Security, Version 2.0, 28 May 2010 [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 6. 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 Functionality:
TOE Security Functionality Addressed issue
Identification and
authentication
DB2 relies on the identification and authentication performed by z/OS.
When checking for the user's right to use authorities managed by DB2, the
database management system uses the ID of the user verified by z/OS.
Additionally, DB2 can establish a trusted connection with a user or system
when a trusted context matches the characteristics of the connection,
based on the user ID and connection trust attributes (e.g. IP address,
domain name or SERVAUTH security zone name for a remote client, the
job or task name for a local client). A trusted context allows the association
of the trusted connection with a database role, a different user or a
security label (in Labeled Security mode) for access control.
Object access control In the evaluated configuration, DB2 uses RACF to check for and manage
discretionary access control to DB2 objects. DB2 internal access controls
based on the GRANT and REVOKE SQL statements will not be effective
in the evaluated configuration.
In the case of a trusted connection, access control also includes object
ownership rules based on database roles. A database role can be
12 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
TOE Security Functionality Addressed issue
assigned to the DB2 process by a trusted context.
DB2 also enforces access control at table row and column levels.
In Labeled Security mode, mandatory access control is in effect: DB2 then
uses the labels defined in the RACF profiles related to DB2 objects as well
as the DB2-managed labels of rows in tables. In any case, the label-based
access checks for mandatory access control are performed using RACF.
In the case of a trusted connection, the default security label defined for
the related trusted context, if any, is assigned to the DB2 process.
Audit The audit requirements are implemented using a mix of SMF records
generated by RACF and the DB2 internal trace.
TSF management In the evaluated configuration DB2 uses the functions provided by RACF
to manage user profiles as well as the profiles related to DB2 objects.
Access to authorities of DB2 objects is controlled by those profiles. Labels
for rows in tables are assigned when they are created using the current
label of the user that creates the row. The current label of the user is
maintained by RACF.
TOE self protection DB2 uses the protection mechanisms of z/OS with RACF to protect its
address space, functions and objects from unauthorized access and
manipulation.
Table 1: TOE Security Functionalities
For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 7.
The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6], chapter 3.1.
Based on these assets the TOE Security Problem is defined in terms of Assumptions,
Threats and Organisational Security Policies. This is outlined in the Security Target [6],
chapter 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.
This certification covers the configurations of the TOE as outlined in chapter 8.
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 DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Version 1 Release 13
The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:
No Type Identifier Release Form of Delivery
DB2, z/OS
1 Software platform portion of combined TOE, the Scope-of-supply
of which is outlined in its own certification report under
IBM z/OS
Version 1
see
BSI-DSZ-CC-0788
13 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
No Type Identifier Release Form of Delivery
certification ID BSI-DSZ-CC-0788
z/OS V1R13
Release 13
2 Software One of the following licensing options:
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS (standard version) -
product number 5615-DB2
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS (Value Unit Edition
"VUE") - product number 5697-P43
11 physical shipment
3 Software DB2 Utilities Suite for z/OS - product number 5655-W87 11 physical shipment
4 Software
Updates
(PTFs)
• UI12584 (APAR PM97111)
• UA67637 (APAR OA39506)
• UA67929 (APAR OA39487)
• UA67930 (APAR OA39486)
- electronic
download (via
ShopzSeries)
5 docs • ServerPac: Installing Your Order
• Requirements for the Common Criteria
(SC19-4011-00)
• Memo to Customers of DB2 11 for z/OS
Common Criteria Evaluated Base
• Requirements for the Common Criteria for z/OS
(SC19-4058-EB)
• DB2 for z/OS Introduction to DB2 for z/OS
(SC19-4058-EB)
• DB2 11 for z/OS Managing Security
(SC19-4061-EB)
• DB2 11 RACF Module Access Guide
(SC19-4065-EB)
• DB2 for z/OS Utility Guide and Reference
(SC19-4067-EB)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Administration Guide
(SC19-4050-00)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Application
Programming and SQL Guide (SC19-4051-00)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Command Reference
(SC19-4054-00)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Diagnosis Guide and
Reference (LY37-3222-00)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Data Sharing:
Planning and Administration (SC19-4055-00)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Messages
(GC19-4062-01)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Managing
Performance (SC19-4060-00)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS SQL Reference
(SC19-4066-00)
• DB2 Version 11 for z/OS What's New?
(GC19-4068-00)
11 physical shipment
(hardcopies and
DVD)
14 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
No Type Identifier Release Form of Delivery
• DB2 11 for z/OS (5615-DB2) standard licensing
option:
◦ DB2 for z/OS Codes (GC19-4053-01)
◦ DB2 for z/OS Installation Guide
(GC19-4056-00)
◦ DB2 11 VUE Softcopy Publications
DVD (GI10-8951-003)
◦ DB2 for z/OS Licensed Program
Specifications (GC19-4059-00)
◦ DB2 11 for z/OS License Information
(GC19-4149-00)
◦ DB2 for z/OS Program Directory
(GI10-8945-00)
• DB2 11 for z/OS (5697-P43) Value Unit Edition
(VUE) licensing option:
◦ DB2 for z/OS Installation Guide
(GC19-4056-00)
◦ DB2 11 for z/OS License Information
(GC19-4149-00)
◦ DB2 11 for z/OS Value Unit Edition
Program Directory (GI10-8951-00)
• DB2 Utilities Suite for z/OS V11.1 (5655-W87)
• DB2 Utilities Suite for z/OS Agreements and
License Information (GC19-4155-00)
Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE
The DB2 portion of the TOE is delivered as a ServerPac (a preconfigured set of software
modules) on a cartridge that is physically shipped to the customer and installed by the
customer via CustomPac install dialogs, as well as applicable PTFs that are available for
electronic download. These additional PTFs which are part of DB2 or z/OS must be
electronically downloaded using ShopzSeries IBM website.
The delivery of the TOE is a chain of processes to produce and ship the TOE components
called ServerPacs, a preconfigured set of software modules that can be installed by the
customer. The process starts when the TOE has been built by the developers and
delivered to the production facility in Boulder, CO, where they are collected, packaged, and
finally delivered to the customer.
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
• Object access control
• Audit
• TSF management
15 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
• TOE self 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:
• Those responsible for the TOE are competent and trustworthy individuals, capable
of managing the TOE and the security of the information it contains.
• If the TOE relies on remote trusted IT systems to support the enforcement of its
policy, those systems provide the functions required by the TOE and are sufficiently
protected from any attack that may cause those functions to provide false results.
• Those responsible for the TOE must establish and implement procedures to ensure
that information is protected in an appropriate manner. In particular:
◦ All network and peripheral cabling must be approved for the transmittal of the
most sensitive data held by the system. Such physical links are assumed to
be adequately protected against threats to the confidentiality and integrity of
the data transmitted.
◦ DAC protections on security-relevant files (such as audit trails and
authentication databases) shall always be set up correctly.
Users are authorized to access parts of the data managed by the TOE and are
trained to exercise control over their own data.
• Those responsible for the TOE must establish and implement procedures to ensure
that the hardware, software and firmware components that comprise the system are
distributed, installed and configured in a secure manner supporting the security
mechanisms provided by the TOE.
• Authorized users of the TOE must ensure that the comprehensive diagnostics
facilities provided by the product are invoked at every scheduled preventative
maintenance period.
• Those responsible for the TOE must ensure that those parts of the TOE critical to
enforcement of the security policy are protected from physical attack that might
compromise IT security objectives. The protection must be commensurate with the
value of the IT assets protected by the TOE.
• Those responsible for the TOE must ensure that procedures and/or mechanisms
are provided to assure that after system failure or other discontinuity, recovery
without a protection (security) compromise is achieved.
• The remote trusted IT systems implement the protocols and mechanisms required
by the TSF to support the enforcement of the security policy. These remote trusted
IT systems are under the same management domain as the TOE, are managed
based on the same rules and policies applicable to the TOE, and are physically and
logically protected equivalent to the TOE.
Details can be found in the Security Target [6], chapter 4.2.
16 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
5 Architectural Information
DB2 11 is a relational database management system that operates as a subsystem of
z/OS. DB2 is implemented by a set of address spaces plus a set of utilities.
Users can access DB2 locally using "attachment facilities" or remotely via the Distributed
Data Facility which uses the DRDA protocols defined in the Open Group Technical
Standards DRDA-V1, DRDA-V2, and DRDA-V3.
Attachment facilities execute in the caller's address space and communicate with the DB2
address spaces to serve requests from the user. Attachment facilities included in the
evaluated configuration include the TSO attachment facility via the DSN TSO command or
the DB2I ISPF panels (which in turn use the DSN command to communicate with DB2).
Another attachment facility is the Call Attachment Facility (CAF), which allows programs
executing under TSO or in the z/OS batch environment to communicate with DB2.
The Resource Recovery Services Attachment Facility (RRSAF) is a newer implementation
of CAF with additional capabilities. RRS is a feature of z/OS that coordinates commit
processing of recoverable resources in a z/OS system. DB2 supports use of these
services for DB2 applications that use the RRS attachment facility provided with DB2. Use
the RRS attachment to access resources such as SQL tables, DL/I databases, MQSeries
messages, and recoverable VSAM files within a single transaction scope.
A requester using DRDA connects to an application server or database server. DRDA uses
Distributed Data Management (DDM) and Formatted Data Object Content Architecture
(FD:OCA) as part of the underlying architecture of DRDA. DDM is the communication
language used for message interchange systems. FD:OCA is used to exchange user data
among like or unlike systems. This allows external users to connect to DB2 and operate on
DB2 databases.
The DB2 Utilities are a set of online and standalone programs providing database
diagnostic and maintenance functions for administrators. The utilities do not use the
standard attachment facilities and operate with the database files directly at the tablespace
level.
The following figure shows the basic structure of DB2 and the attachment facilities
supported in the evaluated configuration.
17 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
Figure 1: Basic structure of DB2 for z/OS showing TOE structure with TOE boundary
The blue boxes in this figure represent the trusted parts of DB2, the yellow boxes
represent those parts of the attachment facilities of DB2 executing in the user's address
space or connections using the network interface. The brown box represents the z/OS
system that has already been evaluated as the platform of this combined TOE. The green
box represents (untrusted) user programs using services of z/OS and DB2.
The yellow arrows in the figure represent external interfaces of the trusted parts of DB2.
The brown arrow represents the external interfaces of the trusted parts of z/OS (which
have been assessed in the z/OS evaluation). The blue arrows represent the interface
between the trusted part of DB2 and the trusted part of z/OS.
It should be noted that this figure shows the main parts of the TOE and its interfaces, not a
flow of information. It should also be noted that the interfaces are not disjointed. The
trusted parts of DB2, for example, will also use interfaces to the trusted parts of z/OS that
are also used by other programs operating on top of z/OS.
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 Testing
Testing Effort
18 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
The developer used a fully-automated test suite comprised of 150 test cases that split up
into test case files where each test case file may test several functions and interface
parameters. This test framework was used to test every ST claim, all interface functions,
and subsystems, in both DAC and MAC context. Separate mapping files (for
interfaces/subsystems and claims) were maintained. In addition, the developer used a
summary sheet where the date of the successful execution of each test case was
recorded. The test environment was comprised of several virtualized systems of DB2 on
z/OS to test remote functionality. Most of the tests naturally focused on testing access
privileges, which comprises the biggest portion of the TSF. In general, the testing effort
allowed for very focused and fine-grained testing.
The test case description is embedded within the test files and refers explicitly to the test
claims. The test environment was enhanced by scripts that check that the different test
servers are still active during testing. Additional test scripts reverse the order of test cases
to demonstrate that no interdependencies exist.
Approach
The developer's approach was to demonstrate that all ST claims, interfaces, and
subsystems are verified by the tests.
Configuration
The provided test system is a virtualized environment on z/VM. Several VMs allow for
distributed testing. The test tool TCPUN is installed on these machines to drive the test
suites. The test systems are statically configured with necessary RACF options from z/OS
and the DB2 Common Criteria specific settings. This includes defining users in RACF. As
part of the test scripts, options are set dynamically to allow for DAC and MAC contexts,
and user privileges and authorities are set dynamically as needed by each test case. The
test environment was made available remotely. Test files were stored on the z/VM system
and could be executed by the evaluator, either individually or as a group.
Depth
The tested behavior was covered down to the level of subsystems, and the evaluator could
verify that most relevant execution paths were taken into account. Most test cases directly
referred to the sections in the guidance and some cited paragraphs to smooth test
development and verification in respect to specific TOE behavior. Each tested behavior
was tested with different privileges if applicable, e.g., administrative users, users with
explicit privileges for the task, or users without privileges (to test the negative case).
Results
The results of the developer showed a 100% successful test run.
7.2 Evaluator Testing Effort
Effort
The evaluator executed 3 of the 6 developer test suites where one of the test suites
comprised the majority of all developer tests. The evaluator further devised 4 tests that are
partially based on existing developer tests.
Approach
The evaluator used the test tool TCPUN to execute the test cases and to determine
whether any of the tests failed. The test tool produced a results file for each unsuccessful
test case, and summary files on the results for several tests. The evaluator also used
19 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
options of the tool to generate output files for test cases - even the ones that were
successful. This was used to verify the comparison logic of the tool that takes place when
comparing the actual results with the provided verification file.
All independent tests were executed on the test environment provided by the developer.
The independent tests were devised to cover cases where the developer did not test all
administrative authorities, or to test additional combinations of permission settings for new
functions.
Configuration
The evaluator executed the developer test suites in both the Labeled Security and
Controlled Access mode. The evaluator tests were performed in Controlled Access mode
(no additional Labeled Security related tests were necessary).
The configuration was according to the evaluated configuration with one exception: at the
end of the evaluation, a PTF was applied to the TOE. While the developer rerun all their
tests, the evaluator examined the impact of the PTF and determined that the patch does
not apply to the evaluated configuration as it only applies when RACF is not used for I&A.
As a result, he decided to not rerun the independent tests.
Depth
Execution of the developer tests covered most interfaces and subsystems. The additional
evaluator tests increase the coverage for testing different combinations of administrative
authorities and privileges for new functions (increasing the rigor of the already thorough
testing of access control functions).
Results
All tests were run successfully.
7.3 Evaluator Penetration Testing
Penetration testing effort
The evaluator considered common sources for vulnerabilities of DB2 in general and
narrowed the findings down to what is applicable to the z/OS version of the product. The
evaluator devised tests related to the following aspects:
• Potential SQL ID manipulation (SQL interface)
• Table manipulation through side-effects of other commands (SQL interface)
• Improper passphrase authentication (DRDA interface)
• DRDA server overflow vulnerability through chaining (DRDA interface)
• DRDA server general vulnerabilities through missing input validation (DRDA
interface)
• DRDA session hijacking on data queries (DRDA interface)
• DRDA protocol violations (incorrect order, missing message (DRDA interface)
The DRDA tests were performed by using custom C test code. The test code is based on
the opendrda project already used in the previous evaluation, but was enhanced to
increase the test scope for the DRDA protocol. The evaluator was supported by the
developer who, if needed, was observing the TOE error and trace logs for some of the
tests, as well as providing some of the test setup (e.g. creating a user configured with a
20 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
passphrase), and examples of DRDA-communications with the help of a DB2 client
program.
Testing approach
The tests focused on using remote access to the TOE (using the DRDA interface), which
enabled the evaluator to perform more in-depth tests on specific DRDA aspects. This
focused approach was favored against an approach where a variety of functionality is not
so deeply tested, because the developer already runs a very thorough suite of test cases
on all aspects of the TSF, and because any remote vulnerabilities are usually much more
critical to the TOE. The goal was to reveal any TOE behavior that violates the security
policy in terms of Identification and Authentication and to determine whether the TOE
operation remains stable which would otherwise indicate incorrect verification of the input
that might require additional investigation.
In addition to the DRDA tests, the evaluator tested the proper enforcement of
password-phrases (although using a DRDA test, it is not a test of DRDA itself but the
function reached through it), as well certain aspects of the SQL interface for table and SQL
ID manipulation.
Test configuration
The test configuration comprised of the TOE residing in the developer test lab which was
also used for independent testing. The test configuration was in accordance to the
evaluated configuration as necessary for the testing (password complexity required for the
z/OS configuration and an active TLS connection was not needed). From the set of the
different TOE setups provided by the developer, the test was run on a setup that supported
the distributed data facility which provided the working remote DRDA interface.
Depth
The main goal was to perform in-depth tests on the DRDA protocol (exchanging individual
protocol parameter values with invalid input, incorrect length parameters, and changing the
order of protocol messages, invalid request/reply object, leaving out protocol messages,
sending large chunks of data, for both the login flow and a data query flow). All tests used
the external accessible interfaces of the TOE, and the affected subsystems were the
Distributed Data Services Subsystem (applies to most of the DRDA tests), the Relational
Data Subsystem, and the System Services Subsystem.
Results
The tests were executed successfully. None of the test results indicated any vulnerability
of the TOE.
8 Evaluated Configuration
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:
The evaluated configuration is documented in DB2 Version 11 for z/OS Requirements for
the Common Criteria ([DB2CCG]). It is based on one of the two shipping options: DB2
Version 11 for z/OS (standard version) - product number 5615-DB2 or DB2 Version 11 for
z/OS (Value Unit Edition "VUE") - product number 5697-P43, the underlying IBM z/OS
Version 1 Release 13 and further components as listed in table 2.
Note, the difference between the two shipping options relates to the product licensing, not
to product functionality. The chosen licensing option will be visible as a string identifier in
the record facility of z/OS, and in the ISPF panel during installation. Both TOE versions are
21 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
completely representative because there is no functional difference between them which
means the VUE-option does not contain additional functions, nor does it replace or remove
functions of the standard edition. Therefore, although the actual testing only happened for
a non-VUE-installation, its results apply to the VUE shipping version as well.
The software is to be used on the following hardware platforms specified in the z/OS
Security Target ([8], 1.4.3.2):
The TOE is running within a logical partition provided by a certified version of
PR/SM, on the z/Architecture as implemented by the following hardware platforms:
• 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).
In addition, the TOE may run on a virtual machine provided by a certified version of
z/VM.
The Evaluated Configuration Guide specifies a number of constraints, such as
configuration values for various configuration files, specific steps to be taken during
installation and information to administrators on how to manage the TOE.
9 Results of the Evaluation
9.1 CC specific results
The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [9] was provided by the ITSEF according to the
Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all
interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE.
The Evaluation Methodology CEM [2] was used.
As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance
components:
● All components of the EAL 4 package including the class ASE as defined in the CC (see
also part C of this report)
● The 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-0622-2012, re-use of specific
evaluation tasks was possible. The focus of this re-evaluation was on the new functions
and the component ALC.
The evaluation has confirmed:
22 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
● PP Conformance: Operating System Protection Profile, Version 2.0, 01 June 2010,
BSI-CC-PP-0067-2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Extended Identification and
Authentication, Version 2.0, 28 May 2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Labeled Security, Version 2.0, 28 May
2010 [7]
● for the Functionality: PP conformant plus product specific extensions
Common Criteria Part 2 extended
● for the Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.3
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
• 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 OSPs 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 of 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.
The limited validity for the usage of cryptographic algorithms as outlined in chapter 9 has
to be considered by the user and his system risk management process.
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.
23 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
12 Definitions
12.1 Acronyms
AIS Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme
BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for
Information Security, Bonn, Germany
BSIG BSI-Gesetz / Act on the Federal Office for Information Security
CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
CEM Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
IT Information Technology
ITSEF Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
PP Protection Profile
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SFP Security Function Policy
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functionality
12.2 Glossary
Augmentation - The addition of one or more requirement(s) to a package.
Extension - The addition to an ST or PP of functional requirements not contained in part 2
and/or assurance requirements not contained in part 3 of the CC.
Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on
well-established mathematical concepts.
Informal - Expressed in natural language.
Object - A passive entity in the TOE, that contains or receives information, and upon which
subjects perform operations.
Protection Profile - An implementation-independent statement of security needs for a
TOE type.
Security Target - An implementation-dependent statement of security needs for a specific
identified TOE.
Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics.
Subject - An active entity in the TOE that performs operations on objects.
Target of Evaluation - A set of software, firmware and/or hardware possibly accompanied
by guidance.
24 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
TOE Security Functionality - Combined functionality of all hardware, software, and
firmware of a TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the SFRs.
25 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
13 Bibliography
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
Part 1: Introduction and general model, Revision 4, September 2012
Part 2: Security functional components, Revision 4, September 2012
Part 3: Security assurance components, Revision 4, September 2012
[2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM),
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Rev. 4, September 2012
[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-0884-2014, Version 1.9, 2014-03-28, IBM DB2 11 for
z/OS Version 1 Release 13 Security Target, IBM Corporation
[7] Operating System Protection Profile, Version 2.0, 01 June 2010,
BSI-CC-PP-0067-2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Extended Identification and Authentication, Version 2.0,
28 May 2010,
OSPP Extended Package – Labeled Security, Version 2.0, 28 May 2010
[8] Security Target BSI-DSZ-CC-788, Version 9.02, 2012-09-09, Security Target for IBM
z/OS Version 1 Release 13, IBM Corporation
[9] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 3, 2014-07-28, Final Evaluation Technical
Report, atsec information security GmbH, (confidential document)
8
specifically
• AIS 1, Version 13, Durchführung der Ortsbesichtigung in der Entwicklungsumgebung des Herstellers
• AIS 14, Version 7, Anforderungen an Aufbau und Inhalt von Einzelprüfberichten für Evaluationen
nach CC
• AIS 19, Version 8, Anforderungen an Aufbau und Inhalt der Zusammenfassung des ETR (Evaluation
Technical Report) für Evaluationen nach CC (Common Criteria) und ITSEC
• AIS 23, Version 3, Zusammentragen von Nachweisen der Entwickler (Collection of Developer
Evidence)
• AIS 32, Version 7, CC-Interpretationen im deutschen Zertifizierungsschema
26 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
This page is intentionally left blank.
27 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
C Excerpts from the Criteria
CC Part 1:
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.”
28 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
CC Part 3:
Class APE: Protection Profile evaluation (chapter 10)
“Evaluating a PP is required to demonstrate that the PP is sound and internally consistent,
and, if the PP is based on one or more other PPs or on packages, that the PP is a correct
instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the PP to be
suitable for use as the basis for writing an ST or another PP.
Assurance Class Assurance Components
Class APE: Protection
Profile evaluation
APE_INT.1 PP introduction
APE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
APE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
APE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
APE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
APE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
APE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
APE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
APE: Protection Profile evaluation class decomposition”
Class ASE: Security Target evaluation (chapter 11)
“Evaluating an ST is required to demonstrate that the ST is sound and internally
consistent, and, if the ST is based on one or more PPs or packages, that the ST is a
correct instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the
ST to be suitable for use as the basis for a TOE evaluation.”
29 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
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
30 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
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
31 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
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.
32 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
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”
33 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
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.”
34 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
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.”
35 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
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.”
36 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
This page is intentionally left blank
37 / 39
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014
D Annexes
List of annexes of this certification report
Annex A: Security Target IBM DB2 11 for z/OS Version 1 Release 13 provided within a
separate document.
38 / 39
BSI-DSZ-CC-0884-2014 Certification Report
This page is intentionally left blank.
39 / 39