BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 for S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1 from OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG Certification Report V1.0 ZS-01-01-F-326 V4.0 BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn Phone +49 (0)228 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)228 9582-111 Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn Phone +49 (0)228 9582-0 - Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477 - Infoline +49 (0)228 9582-111 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Signature application component S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1 from OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG Functionality: Product specific Security Target Common Criteria Part 2 extended Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant EAL 4 augmented by AVA_VLA.4, AVA_MSU.3 Common Criteria Arrangement for components up to EAL 4 The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an accredited and licensed/ approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 2.3 extended by advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL 4 for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 2.3 (ISO/IEC 15408:2005). 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, 18. September 2007 The President of the Federal Office for Information Security Dr. Helmbrecht L.S. Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 IV This page is intentionally left blank. BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 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 setting up the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Errichtungsgesetz, BSIG) of 17 December 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2834 V Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 VI Contents Part A: Certification Part B: Certification Results Part C: Excerpts from the Criteria Part D: Annexes BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 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) • Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 2.3 (ISO/IEC 15408:2005)5 • Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 2.3 • BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS) • Advice from the Certification Body on methodology for assurance components above EAL4 (AIS 34) 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 Act setting up the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Errichtungsgesetz, BSIG) of 17 December 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2834 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 10 May 2006 in the Bundesanzeiger dated 19 May 2006, p. 3730 A-1 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC - Certificates The SOGIS-Agreement on the mutual recognition of certificates based on ITSEC became effective on 3 March 1998. This agreement was signed by the national bodies of Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. This agreement on the mutual recognition of IT security certificates was extended to include certificates based on the CC for all evaluation levels (EAL 1 – EAL 7). The German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) recognises certificates issued by the national certification bodies of France and the United Kingdom within the terms of this Agreement. The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the terms of this agreement. 2.2 International Recognition of CC - Certificates An arrangement (Common Criteria 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 (CC-MRA). It includes also the recognition of Protection Profiles based on the CC. As of February 2007 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, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America. The current list of signatory nations resp. approved certification schemes can be seen on the web site: http:\\www.commoncriteriaportal.org The Common Criteria Arrangement logo printed on the certificate indicates that this certification is recognised under the terms of this agreement. This evaluation contains the components AVA_VLA.4 and AVA_MSU.3 that are not mutually recognised in accordance with the provisions of the CCRA. For mutual recognition the EAL4-components of these assurance families are relevant. 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 S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1 has undergone the certification procedure at BSI. This is a re-certification based on BSI-DSZ-CC-0374-2006. A-2 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report The evaluation of the product S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1 was conducted by T-Systems GEI GmbH. The T-Systems GEI GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)6 recognised by the certification body of BSI. For this certification procedure the applicant and developer is: OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG. 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 and the confirmed strength of functions, 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 may evolve over time, the resistance of the certified version of the product against new attack methods can be re-assessed if required and the sponsor applies for the certified product being monitored within the assurance continuity program of the BSI Certification Scheme. It is recommended to perform a re-assessment on a regular 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 following Certification Results contain pages B-1 to B-20 and D1 to D-2. The product S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1 has been included in the BSI list of the certified products, which is published regularly (see also Internet: http:// www.bsi.bund.de). Further information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline +49 228 9582-111. 6 Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility A-3 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 A-4 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 OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG Zuger Str. 76 b 6341 Baar, Switzerland BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 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. B-1 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Contents of the certification results 1 Executive Summary 3 2 Identification of the TOE 6 3 Security Policy 8 4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 9 5 Architectural Information 10 6 Documentation 12 7 IT Product Testing 12 8 Evaluated Configuration 14 9 Results of the Evaluation 15 9.1 CC specific results 15 9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment 16 10 Obligations and notes for the usage of the TOE 16 11 Security Target 17 12 Definitions 17 12.1 Acronyms 17 12.2 Glossary 18 13 Bibliography 19 B-2 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report 1 Executive Summary The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the software application S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.18 . S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 is an electronic signature application compliant to the German electronic signature law [11] and ordinance on electronic signatures [12]. The application itself is a set of executables and programming libraries. The S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 were developed for the use on the operating systems from Microsoft since Microsoft NT 4.0, SP6. In the IT-security environment a smart card terminal with secure pin entry mode as well as a smart card are required to run the required cryptographic operations in the process of electronic signature creation. The product provides additional cryptographic functionality like data encryption based on symmetric encryption algorithms. These product capabilities are not part of the Common Criteria evaluation of this product. The TOE itself is limited to the creation of hash values, using the SHA-1, SHA- 256, SHA-384, SHA-512 and RIPEMD 160 algorithms and the RSA-Algorithm for signature validation. It is therefore able to check and ensure the integrity as well as the trustworthiness of signed data based on the components responsible for CRL-processing, OCSP-processing, timestamp processing and PDF processing. The TOE can be used as a standalone application or can be integrated into third party products. For third party products the TOE includes an API (called S- TRUST Sign-it Job Interface or OPENLiMiT SignCubes SDK v2.0) that allows access to the following core functionality of the TOE: • Computation of hash values implementing the algorithms mentioned above. • Creation of electronic signatures. • Timestamp processing. • Support for attribute certificates in the process of electronic signature creation. • Support for OCSP processing in the process of electronic signature creation. • Electronic signature verification. • Integrity protection of the installed product. Furthermore, the TOE provides a legal binding displaying unit (S-TRUST Sign-it Viewer) for the Text, TIFF and PDF format. The displaying unit of the TOE 8 Also named S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 in this report. B-3 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 allows the examination of the files in order to ensure that the user is assured about the content to be signed or the content of the signed file. The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is not based on a certified Protection Profile. The TOE security assurance requirements 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 AVA_VLA.4, AVA_MSU.3. The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the Security Target [6], chapter 5.1. They are selected from Common Criteria Part 2 and some of them are newly defined. Thus the TOE is CC part 2 extended. The Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the IT-Environment of the TOE are outlined in the Security Target [6], chapter 5.3. The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE Security Functions: TOE Security Function Addressed issue SF.1 Hash value computation and initiation of the electronic signature creation process using certificates, smart card terminals and secure signature creation devices. The user can optionally include OCSP-responses for the validation of certificates and add timestamps to a digital signature. Furthermore, the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 allow the creation of more than one signature without entering the PIN for every document9 . This feature is only available for the S-TRUST Sign-it Job Interface and not for the graphical user interface included in the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1. SF.2 Verification of hash values and electronic signatures using certificate revocation lists, OCSP responses (optional) and timestamps (optional) Apart from the extraction of the original and the comparison with the calculated hash value the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 verify the certificate chain using the chain model or RFC 3280. SF.3 Program module manipulation detection The files and libraries constituting the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 are digitally signed. Each time the application starts a specific module is responsible for verfying these signatures mathematically. SF.4 Unambiguous presentation of the data to be signed The S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 present the data to be signed unambigiously to the user. To accomplish this, a parser 9 Though the software provides this functionality, the supported smart cards require entering the PIN for every document. B-4 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report TOE Security Function Addressed issue determines whether the format of the data to be signed complies to the Adobe PDF-, the TIFF-standard or is a text file. The data is checked for active content, unknown tags and elements or control characters that cannot be displayed. If any irregularities are detected, the user is informed with appropriate error messages or warnings. SF.5 Protection against hash value manipulation Before the electronic signature is initiated, the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 compute the hash value of the data to be signed. After the electronic signature creation process the S- TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 verifiy the electronic signature using the public key of the given signer certificate. If the original hash value and the hash value encoded in the electronic signature are not identical, the signature is discarded. SF.6 Assurance of the TOE’s integrity For the integrity check the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 comprise a JAVA-applet that is provided online. When assessing this applet it calculates the hash value of each file belonging to the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 and compares it to the values that were initially caluculated by the manufacturer. If any value does not match, an error message is displayed. SF.7 Processing of OCSP information for certificate validation The S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 is able to process OCSP-responses. First the mathematical correctness of the signature of the OCSP-response is checked. If the OCSP- response is used for the validation of a certificate, the complete chain for the signing certificate of the OCSP-response is verified. SF.8 Application of Timestamps The S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 apply timestamps to files if the timestamp is electronically signed and the certificate belonging to the signature of the timestamp is already available. Otherwise the timestamp is not imported. SF.9 Validation of Timestamps The S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 validate the electronic signature of a timestamp mathematically. Furthermore, the certificate underlying the electronic signature of the timestamp is validated according to the chain model or RFC 3280. A prerequisite for this security function is that the signing certificate of the timestamp is already available. SF.10 Management of Security Functions depending on licenses The S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 support different licenses. E.g. for the verification of electronic signatures no special license key must be purchased, whereas the creation of embedded PDF-signatures requires the availability of the most comprehensive license Table 1: TOE Security Funktions For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 6. B-5 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 The claimed TOE’s strength of functions ‘high (SOF-high ) for specific functions as indicated in the Security Target [6], chapter 8.5 is confirmed. The rating of the strength of functions does not include the cryptoalgorithms suitable for encryption and decryption (see BSIG Section 4, Para. 3, Clause 2). For details see chapter 9 of this report. The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6], chapter 3. Based on these assets the security environment is defined in terms of assumptions, threats and policies. This is outlined in the Security Target [6], chapter 3. This certification covers the configuration of the TOE as mentioned in the Security Target and in the in the Evaluation Technical Report [7]. 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: S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1 The following table outlines the TOE deliverables: No Type Identifier Release Date Form of Delivery 1. SW S-TRUST sign-it base components, version 2.1.4.1 delivered as: S-TRUST sign-it base components, version 2.0.3.1 with patch STRUST203Sec.exe (2.187.832 bytes) or as complete setup. 2.1.4.1 13.11.2006 File 2. SW Integrity Tool SiqCfg.jar see Table 3 13.11.2006 File 3. DOC S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.0 – User Guidance (German) 2.0.3.1 09.05.2006 chm-File 4. DOC OPENLiMiT SignCubes SDK v2.0 Documentation 1.1 17.05.2006 PDF- File 5. SW (Header file) siqSDK.h see Table 3 10.04.2006 File B-6 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report No Type Identifier Release Date Form of Delivery 6. SW (Library file) siqSDK.lib see Table 3 10.04.2006 File Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE The TOE deliverables No.1 to No.3 are delivered to customers who purchase the TOE as a standalone application. The TOE deliverables No.4 – No.6 are intended for developers who want to integrate the API provided by the TOE into their own application. To identify the Header and Library Files of the API and the S-TRUST Sign-it Integrity Tool the SHA-1 values of these files are listed in the next table. No. File SHA-1-value 1. siqSDK.h 488c09f809df9b6fbbbb225649dcc890f6b52461 2. siqSDK.lib 0d7029d0afd70838bcbb9e6e5093f46f19db2d38 3. SiqCfg.jar 6068af8120bac66f57c529d781a22bb1083272ee Table 3: Hash Values of TOE deliverables OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG provides the TOE deliverables No.1 – No.3 to the distributor (Deutscher Sparkassen Verlag GmbH). The end customer receives these parts of the TOE from the distributor through the following sales channels: • Purchase of a CD-ROM in one of the subsidiaries of the Sparkassen Finanzgruppe. • Online as a compressed archive from the website of the Deutscher Sparkassen Verlag GmbH. • Delivery of a CD-ROM by logistic service with a prior notification from the distributor. • The user already posesses the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.0, version 2.0.3.1 and installs the patch update. To download the patch, the user must execute the Java-Applet contained on the webpage https://www.openlimit.com/integritytool. This applet automatically directs the user to the webpage where the correct patch can be downloaded. The setup-program enclosed in the distribution enables the user to install the deliverables as required. After the installation of the product an enduser must download the S-TRUST Sign-it Integrity Tool for the TOE from the webpage https://www.openlimit.com/integritytool to check the integrity of the installation. If the integrity check is successful the enduser can be sure that the version being subject of this certificate is installed on the computer. B-7 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 The TOE deliverables No. 4 – No. 6 can only be acquired from OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG. They are handed over to end customers (i.e. application developers) either online or by a delivery service on CD-ROM as a compressed zip-archive. The archive is digitally signed with a qualified electronic signature. The belonging qualified certificate can be identified by means of the following information: Subject: Armin Lunkeit Issuer: S-TRUST Qualified Signature CA 2005-001:PN Valid From: 11th of October 2005 Valid Until: 31st of December 2009 Serial Number: 0x6A 41 76 EC AB 31 41 3B DC B3 87 A0 2A 62 E6 BF SHA-1 Fingerprint: 49 DA 34 B5 BF C2 8A 41 38 1D 52 2C 6E C6 24 BD C3 0E 08 38 The receiver of the archive must verify this qualified electronic signatur to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the software. 3 Security Policy The S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1 is a signature application component compliant to the German signature law and ordinance on electronic signature. The security policy is expressed by the set of security functionl requirements and implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues: • The TOE clearly indicates the creation of a qualified electronic signature and enables the user to unambigiously identify the data to to be signed. • The TOE ensures that the identification data are not disclosed and are stored only on the relevant secure signature creation device. The application enforces the rule that a signature is provided only at the initiation of the authorized signing person. • The TOE shows, to which data the signature refers, whether the signed data are unchanged and to which signature-code owner the signature is to be assigned. • The TOE presents the contents of the qualified certificate on which the signature is based, the appropriate qualified attribute certificates and the results of the subsequent check of certificates. • If data to be signed or data already signed is displayed by the TOE certain rules for the treatment of nonreadable signs are enforced. • For the verification of a qualified electronic signature the TOE reliably verifies the correctness of a signature and displays this fact appropriately. B-8 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report • Using the TOE it can be clearly determined whether the verified qualified certificates were present in the relevant register of certificates at the given time and were not revoked. • The TOE ensures, that security-relevant changes in the technical components are apparent to the user. 4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 4.1 Assumptions The assumptions defined in the Security Target [6] 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: • Usage of the supported operating system, smart card readers and smart cards as specified in the objetive OE.Platform. • Trustworthiness of users and administrators as mentioned in OE.Personnel. • Protection of the computer where the TOE is installed on against network based attacks as indicated in OE.Network. • Restriction of the physical access to the computer where the TOE is installed on to authorized users and administrators only. The TOE must not be accessed through existing network connections. See OE.Access for more details. • Computation of electronic signatures from a given hash value in the environment. Details can be found in the Security Target [6], chapter 4.2. 4.2 Clarification of scope The TOE cannot assure the correctness of the following functions: • Private Key material. The secure signature creation device must assure the correctness and integrity of the private key material. • Assurance of the operating system integrity. The TOE does not contain any capabilities for ensuring the integrity of the operating system and its environment. The user must assure, that sufficient actions are undertaken to avoid, that the operating system may be compromised. • Strength and security of cryptographic operations. The TOE uses libraries for hash value creation and the RSA algorithm for signature validation. Therefore the TOE can only assure the compliance to given standardization documentation and test vectors but must not make any statement about the strength of the cryptographic operations. B-9 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 The capability characteristics of the TOE are limited to the computation of hash values and the usage of secure signature creation devices for electronic signature creation and the usage of the RSA algorithm for signature verification. Manipulations on the IT-security environment cannot be recognized or even prevented by the TOE. Applications that use the TOE via the evaluated API are not in the focus of this evaluation. Restrictions and Exceptions There are some combination between operating system and smart card terminal that do not work together. Those are listed below. Windows NT does not support the following smart card terminals: Kobil Systems B1 Pro USB, Reiner SCT cyberJack Version 3.0, Omnikey Cardman 3621, Omnikey Cardman 3821, Cherry Model ST 2000 Windows XP 64 Bit Edition does not support the following smart card terminals: Cherry Model ST 2000, Kobil Systems B1 Pro USB, Kobil Systems KAAN SecOVID Plus, Kobil Standard Plus, SCM Microsystems SPRx32/ChipDrive pinpad, Reiner SCT Cyber Jack e-com v2.0, Reiner SCT Cyber Jack pinpad v2.0, Reiner SCT Cyber Jack pinpad v3.0 Those combinations of smard card readers and operating systems are not included in the evaluation and therefore not included in the certificate. 5 Architectural Information The TOE is a signature application component compliant to the German electronic signature law and ordinance on electronic signatures. The application itself is a set of executables and programming libraries. This means that the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 may be used as a single application but also may be integrated into third party products. The software-design of the TOE distinguishes three different subsystems that provide the security functionality described in Table 1: • the S-TRUST Sign-it Security Environment Manager • the S-TRUST Sign-it Viewer • the S-TRUST Sign-it Integrity Tool The first two parts represent the main components (subsystems) of the TOE whereas the Integrity Tool is a separate application implemented as a Java Applet. The Integrity Tool is used to allow the user to check the integrity of the installed product. B-10 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report The figure below provides an overvierw of the subsystems and their interfaces as described in the High-Level Design. For the sake of clarity the Integrity Tool is not depicted in this figure. Figure 1: Decomposition of the main components of the TOE In Figure 1 the lined boxes represent the subsystems of the main components of the TOE whereas the arrows indicate interfaces between subsystems. Dashed boxes refer to external subsystems that are part of the IT environment of the TOE. The S-TRUST Sign-it Viewer is a software component for displaying signed data or data to be signed according to the signature law §17 paragraph 2. The S-TRUST Sign-it Viewer is able to display TIFF documents following the Adobe TIFF specification, PDF documents that follow the PDF 1.6 document format as well as documents that contain ASCII characters. If the user decides to sign the B-11 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 document that is currently displayed with the S-TRUST Sign-it Viewer, he can start the process of electronic signature creation using the S-TRUST Sign-it Viewer as an indirect interface to that functionality provided by the S-TRUST Sign-it Security Environment Manager. The S-TRUST Sign-it Security Environment Manager provides the following functionality that may be accessed in parts or completely through the use of the S-TRUST Sign-it Job API: • Computation of hash values using the SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 and RIPEMD 160 algorithms. • Creation of electronic signatures using a smart card and a secure pin entry device. • Timestamp processing during the process of electronic signature creation. • Support for attribute certificates in the process of electronic signature creation. • Support for OCSP processing during the electronic signature creation. • Electronic signature verification including OCSP and CRL processing as well as timestamp processing. The use of attribute certificates is supported. • API’s for applications or product parts that want to use the provided functionality. • Ensuring the integrity and correctness of the SignCubes base components installed on the users computer. • Providing graphical interfaces in the process of signature creation, verification and product configuration. 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 The following tests belong to this re-evaluation: • New tests to check the changed behaviour of the security function SF. 2 (verification of hash values and electronic signatures, see chapter 1), • new tests to check the correct delivery of the product with the patch update, B-12 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report • tests of the former evaluation that were repeated to ensure the compatibility of the changes with the unchanged parts of the program and • tests of the former evaluation that remain valid. Thus the TOE was tested in accordance with the Security Target [6]. All prerequisites mentioned in the assumptions on the operating environment concerning the installation of modules of the operating systems (e.g. the correct version of the Internet Explorer) or firewalls and virus scanners were fulfilled for the computers of the testbed. Consequently, the TOE was tested with the following configuration. Smart cards: • ZKA Banking signature card, v6.2b NP and 6.2f NP, Type 3 from Giesecke & Devrient • ZKA Banking signature card, v6.2 NP, Type 3 from Giesecke & Devrient • ZKA Banking signature card v6.31 NP, Type 3 from Giesecke & Devrient • ZKA Banking signature card, v6.32, Type 3 from Giesecke & Devrient • ZKA Banking signature card, Version 6.4 from Giesecke & Devrient • ZKA Banking signature card, Version 6.51 from Giesecke & Devrient • ZKA signature card, version 5.02 from Gemplus-mids GmbH • ZKA Banking signature card v6.6, from Giesecke & Devrient GmbH • ZKA signature card, Version 5.11 from Gemplus-mids GmbH • S-TRUST signature card release 3 (SPK 2.3 based) Smart card terminals • Kobil Systems B1 Pro USB • Kobil Systems KAAN SecOVID Plus • Kobil Standard Plus • SCM Microsystems SPRx32 • Reiner SCT cyberJack e-com v2.0 • Reiner SCT cyberJack pinpad v2.0 • Reiner SCT cyberJack pinpad v3.0 • Omnikey Cardman 3621 • Omnikey Cardman 3821 B-13 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 • Cherry Model ST-2000 Operating systems • Windows NT 4 SP 6 • Windows 2000 SP 2 • Windows 2003 • Windows XP Home • Windows XP Professional • Windows XP Tablet PC Edition • Windows XP 64 Bit Edition 7.2 Developer tests Compared to the functionality that was evaluated and certified in the certification procedure BSI-DSZ-CC-0374-2006 the TOE changed on a small scale. As the changes of the TOE did not affect parts that depend on the operating system, all new and repeated tests were conducted on a test computer with the Windows 2000 operating system. The test description demonstrates that the developer performed his testing on an adequate level for the evaluation assurance level EAL 4 augmented. According to the verdict of the evaluator mentioned in the Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [7], the test efforts of the developer demonstrate that the security functionalities defined in the ST [6] have been implemented as required. 7.3 Evaluator tests In context of the evaluation the ITSEF repeated some of the developer tests and performed independent tests in addition. The following testing approach was chosen: Evaluator tests and independent tests were identified based on the developer tests already available. The developer tests have been compared with the Security Target and the corresponding design documentation in order to determine the fields of further investigation. According to EAL4, testing is performed down to a depth of subsystem interfaces. The tests showed that the TOE behaves as expected. The depth of testing is adequate for the evaluation assurance level chosen (EAL4+). The TOE successfully passed independent testing. The penetration tests performed by the evaluators confirmed that under the given assumptions no vulnerabilities can be exploited. 8 Evaluated Configuration The TOE S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 was evaluated in the configuration as described in the Evaluation Technical Report [7] and summarized in chapter 2 of this report. B-14 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report The TOE allows only one mode of operation though several different functionalities are bound to purchasing a corresponding license. Depending on the license, the user may use only parts of the functionality evaluated and certified. In any case, the evaluation and the certificate cover all functionalities that the purchase of the most comprehensive license provides. 9 Results of the Evaluation 9.1 CC specific results The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR), [7] 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. For components beyond EAL4 the evaluation methodology applied was defined in co-ordination with the Certification Body [4] (AIS 34). The evaluation methodology CEM [2] was used for components up to EAL4 and extended by advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL 4. As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance components: • All components of the class ASE. • All components of the EAL 4 package as defined in the CC (see also part C of this report). • The components AVA_VLA.4 – Highly resistant AVA_MSU.3 – Analysis and testing for insecure states augmented for this TOE evaluation. The evaluation work performed for this certification procedure was carried out as a re-evaluation based on the certificate BSI-DSZ-CC-0374-2006. The goal for this re-certification was to inspect the changed behaviour of the security function SF.2 – verification of time stamps and electronic signatures – and to ensure a correct installation of the patch update. The evaluation has confirmed: • For the functionality: product specific Security Target Common Criteria Part 2 extended. • For the assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant EAL 4 augmented by AVA_VLA.4, AVA_MSU.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. B-15 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment The following cryptographic algorithms are used by the TOE to enforce its security policy: • hash functions: SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, RIPEMD-160 • algorithms for the encryption and decryption of hash values in the context of the creation or verification of electronic signatures: RSA with bitlength between 1024 and 2048 bits This holds for the following security functions: • SF1 (Hash value computation and initiation of the electronic signature creation), • SF.2 (Verification of hash values and electronic signatures), • SF.3 (Program module manipulation detection), • SF.5 (Protection against hash value manipulation), • SF.6 (Assurance of the TOE’s integrity), • SF.7 (Processing of OCSP information for certificate validation), • SF.8 (Application of Timestamps), • SF.9 (Validation of Timestamps), • SF.10 (Management of Security Functions depending on license. The strength of the cryptographic algorithms was not rated in the course of this evaluation (see BSIG Section 4, Para. 3, Clause 2). According to the publication of the Bundesnetzagentur [14] the algorithms are suitable for the the creation and verification of qualified electronic signatures. The validity period of each algorithm is mentioned in the official catalogue [14] and summarized in chapter 10. 10 Obligations and notes for the usage of the TOE The operational documents as outlined in table 2 contain necessary information about the usage of the TOE and all security hints therein have to be considered. As outlined in chapter 1 of this report and in the Security Target the TOE uses the hashfunctions SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 and RIPEMD-160. For the verification of digital signatures the TOE uses the RSA-Algorithms with bitlengths between 1024-2048 bits. According to the publication of the Bundesnetzagentur, these algorithms are considered to be suitable for the application of qualified electronic signatures with respect to the German Signature Law (SigG) and ordinance on electronic signatures. The following table describes the validity period of hash functions according to the publication of the Bundesnetzagentur [14]. B-16 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report Hash function Valid until end of SHA-1 2009 RIPEMD-160 2010 SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 2012 Table 4: Validity period of hash functions As the S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1 implement certain cryptographic algorithms for the verification of electronic signatures, the following table summarizes the validity period of these algorithms as published by the Bundesnetzagentur. Algorithm with bitlength Valid until end of RSA 1024 2007 RSA 1280 2008 RSA 1536 2009 RSA 1728 2010 RSA 1976 2012 Table 5: Validity period of cryptographic algorithms A bitlength of 2048 Bits is recommended for an acceptable long term security level. Detailed information about suitable algorithms for the application of qualified electronic signatures can be obtained from the website of the Bundesnetzagentur (see www.bundesnetzagentur.de). 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 API Application Programming Interface BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for Information Security, Bonn, Germany CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation CRL Certificate Revocation List CT Card Terminal B-17 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 EAL Evaluation Assurance Level IT Information Technology OCSP Online Certificate Status Protocol PC/SC Personal Computer/Smart Card PP Protection Profile SDK Software development kit SF Security Function SFP Security Function Policy SOF Strength of Function SSCD Secure Signature Creation Device ST Security Target TOE Target of Evaluation TSC TSF Scope of Control TSF TOE Security Functions TSP TOE Security Policy 12.2 Glossary Augmentation - The addition of one or more assurance component(s) from CC Part 3 to an EAL or assurance 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 - An entity within the TSC that contains or receives information and upon which subjects perform operations. Protection Profile - An implementation-independent set of security require- ments for a category of TOEs that meet specific consumer needs. Security Function - A part or parts of the TOE that have to be relied upon for enforcing a closely related subset of the rules from the TSP. Security Target - A set of security requirements and specifications to be used as the basis for evaluation of an identified TOE. Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics. B-18 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report Strength of Function - A qualification of a TOE security function expressing the minimum efforts assumed necessary to defeat its expected security behaviour by directly attacking its underlying security mechanisms. SOF-basic - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that the function provides adequate protection against casual breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a low attack potential. SOF-medium - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that the function provides adequate protection against straightforward or intentional breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a moderate attack potential. SOF-high - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that the function provides adequate protection against deliberately planned or organised breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a high attack potential. Subject - An entity within the TSC that causes operations to be performed. Target of Evaluation - An IT product or system and its associated administrator and user guidance documentation that is the subject of an evaluation. TOE Security Functions - A set consisting of all hardware, software, and firmware of the TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the TSP. TOE Security Policy - A set of rules that regulate how assets are managed, protected and distributed within a TOE. TSF Scope of Control - The set of interactions that can occur with or within a TOE and are subject to the rules of the TSP. 13 Bibliography [1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 2.3, August 2005 [2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM), Evaluation Methodology, Version 2.3, August 2005 [3] BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125) [4] Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE specifically: - AIS 32, Version 1, 02 July 2001, Übernahme international abgestimmter CC-Interpretationen ins deutsche Zertifizierungs- schema - AIS 34, Version 1.00, 1 June 2004, Evaluation Methodology for CC Assurance Classes for EAL5+ - AIS 38, Version 1.1, 7 January 2004, Reuse of evaluation results B-19 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 B-20 [5] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148, BSI 7149), periodically updated list published also on the BSI Web-site [6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0413-2007, Version 1.3, 2006-12-06, Security Target (ST) Electronic Signature Application S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.1, Version 2.1.4.1, OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG [7] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 1.1, 2006-12-22, Evaluation Technical Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413 BSI.02084.TE.XX.2006 (confidential document) [8] Configuration list for S-TRUST Sign-it 2.1 version 2.1.4.1, 2006-12-06, OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG Guidance documentation [9] User Guidance, Version 2.0.3.1, 2006-05-09, S-TRUST Sign-it base components 2.0 – User Guidance (German), OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG [10] API Documentation, Version 1.1, 2006-05-17, OPENLiMiT SignCubes SDK v2.0 Documentation, OPENLiMiT SignCubes AG Legal regulations [11] Gesetz über Rahmenbedingungen für elektronische Signaturen (Signaturgesetz - SigG)1) vom 16. Mai 2001 (BGBl. I S. 876) zuletzt geändert durch Art. 1 des Ersten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Signaturgesetzes (1. SigÄndG), 01/04/2005, BGBl. volume 2005 part I p. 2 [12] Verordnung zur elektronischen Signatur (Signaturverordnung - SigV), 11/16/2001, BGBl. volume 2001 part I p. 876 [13] Maßnahmenkatalog für technische Komponenten nach dem Signaturgesetz, Stand 15. July 1998, publisher RegTP [14] Bekanntmachung zur elektronischen Signatur nach dem Signaturgesetz und der Signaturverordnung (Übersicht über geeignete Algorithmen), published 12 April 2007, in the Bundesanzeiger No. 69, p. 3759 and available for download on the web-pages of the Bundesnetzagentur (www.bundesnetzagentur.de) BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report C Excerpts from the Criteria CC Part1: Conformance results (chapter 7.4) „The conformance result indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is met by a TOE or PP that passes its evaluation. This conformance result is presented with respect to CC Part 2 (functional requirements), CC Part 3 (assurance requirements) and, if applicable, to a pre-defined set of requirements (e.g., EAL, Protection Profile). The conformance result consists of one of the following: – CC Part 2 conformant - A PP or TOE is CC Part 2 conformant if the functional requirements are based only upon functional components in CC Part 2. – CC Part 2 extended - A PP or TOE is CC Part 2 extended if the functional requirements include functional components not in CC Part 2. plus one of the following: – CC Part 3 conformant - A PP or TOE is CC Part 3 conformant if the assurance requirements are based only upon assurance components in CC Part 3. – CC Part 3 extended - A PP or TOE is CC Part 3 extended if the assurance requirements include assurance requirements not in CC Part 3. Additionally, the conformance result may include a statement made with respect to sets of defined requirements, in which case it consists of one of the following: – Package name Conformant - A PP or TOE is conformant to a pre-defined named functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements (functions or assurance) include all components in the packages listed as part of the conformance result. – Package name Augmented - A PP or TOE is an augmentation of a pre- defined named functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements (functions or assurance) are a proper superset of all components in the packages listed as part of the conformance result. Finally, the conformance result may also include a statement made with respect to Protection Profiles, in which case it includes the following: – PP Conformant - A TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the conformance result.“ C-1 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 CC Part 3: Protection Profile criteria overview (chapter 8.2) “The goal of a PP evaluation is to demonstrate that the PP is complete, consistent, technically sound, and hence suitable for use as a statement of requirements for one or more evaluatable TOEs. Such a PP may be eligible for inclusion within a PP registry.” “Assurance Class Assurance Family TOE description (APE_DES) Security environment (APE_ENV) Class APE: Protection Profile evaluation PP introduction (APE_INT) Security objectives (APE_OBJ) IT security requirements (APE_REQ) Explicitly stated IT security requirements (APE_SRE) Table 3 - Protection Profile families - CC extended requirements ” Security Target criteria overview (Chapter 8.3) “The goal of an ST evaluation is to demonstrate that the ST is complete, consistent, technically sound, and hence suitable for use as the basis for the corresponding TOE evaluation.” “Assurance Class Assurance Family TOE description (ASE_DES) Security environment (ASE_ENV) ST introduction (ASE_INT) Class ASE: Security Target evaluation Security objectives (ASE_OBJ) PP claims (ASE_PPC) IT security requirements (ASE_REQ) Explicitly stated IT security requirements (ASE_SRE) TOE summary specification (ASE_TSS) Table 5 - Security Target families - CC extended requirements ” C-2 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report Assurance categorisation (chapter 7.5) “The assurance classes, families, and the abbreviation for each family are shown in Table 1. Assurance Class Assurance Family CM automation (ACM_AUT) ACM: Configuration management CM capabilities (ACM_CAP) CM scope (ACM_SCP) ADO: Delivery and operation Delivery (ADO_DEL) Installation, generation and start-up (ADO_IGS) Functional specification (ADV_FSP) High-level design (ADV_HLD) Implementation representation (ADV_IMP) ADV: Development TSF internals (ADV_INT) Low-level design (ADV_LLD) Representation correspondence (ADV_RCR) Security policy modeling (ADV_SPM) AGD: Guidance documents Administrator guidance (AGD_ADM) User guidance (AGD_USR) Development security (ALC_DVS) ALC: Life cycle support Flaw remediation (ALC_FLR) Life cycle definition (ALC_LCD) Tools and techniques (ALC_TAT) Coverage (ATE_COV) ATE: Tests Depth (ATE_DPT) Functional tests (ATE_FUN) Independent testing (ATE_IND) Covert channel analysis (AVA_CCA) AVA: Vulnerability assessment Misuse (AVA_MSU) Strength of TOE security functions (AVA_SOF) Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) Table 1: Assurance family breakdown and mapping” C-3 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 11) “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 11.1) “Table 6 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 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 extended with explicitly stated assurance requirements. C-4 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report Assurance Class Assurance Family Assurance Components by Evaluation Assurance Level EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7 Configuration management ACM_AUT 1 1 2 2 ACM_CAP 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 ACM_SCP 1 2 3 3 3 Delivery and operation ADO_DEL 1 1 2 2 2 3 ADO_IGS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Development ADV_FSP 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 ADV_HLD 1 2 2 3 4 5 ADV_IMP 1 2 3 3 ADV_INT 1 2 3 ADV_LLD 1 1 2 2 ADV_RCR 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 ADV_SPM 1 3 3 3 Guidance documents AGD_ADM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AGD_USR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Life cycle support ALC_DVS 1 1 1 2 2 ALC_FLR ALC_LCD 1 2 2 3 ALC_TAT 1 2 3 3 Tests ATE_COV 1 2 2 2 3 3 ATE_DPT 1 1 2 2 3 ATE_FUN 1 1 1 1 2 2 ATE_IND 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Vulnerability assessment AVA_CCA 1 2 2 AVA_MSU 1 2 2 3 3 AVA_SOF 1 1 1 1 1 1 AVA_VLA 1 1 2 3 4 4 Table 6: Evaluation assurance level summary” C-5 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 11.3) “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 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, and that it provides useful protection against identified threats.” Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 11.4) “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 practice. 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 11.5) “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 practices. 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.” C-6 BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report Evaluation assurance level 4 (EAL4) - methodically designed, tested, and reviewed (chapter 11.6) “Objectives EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering based on good commercial development practices 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 11.7) “Objectives EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering based upon rigorous commercial development practices 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 11.8) “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.” C-7 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 C-8 Evaluation assurance level 7 (EAL7) - formally verified design and tested (chapter 11.9) “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.“ Strength of TOE security functions (AVA_SOF) (chapter 19.3) “Objectives Even if a TOE security function cannot be bypassed, deactivated, or corrupted, it may still be possible to defeat it because there is a vulnerability in the concept of its underlying security mechanisms. For those functions a qualification of their security behaviour can be made using the results of a quantitative or statistical analysis of the security behaviour of these mechanisms and the effort required to overcome them. The qualification is made in the form of a strength of TOE security function claim.” Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) (chapter 19.4) "Objectives Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether vulnerabilities identified, during the evaluation of the construction and anticipated operation of the TOE or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses), could allow users to violate the TSP. Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that a user will be able to discover flaws that will allow unauthorised access to resources (e.g. data), allow the ability to interfere with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users.” "Application notes A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer in order to ascertain the presence of security vulnerabilities, and should consider at least the contents of all the TOE deliverables including the ST for the targeted evaluation assurance level. The developer is required to document the disposition of identified vulnerabilities to allow the evaluator to make use of that information if it is found useful as a support for the evaluator's independent vulnerability analysis.” “Independent vulnerability analysis goes beyond the vulnerabilities identified by the developer. The main intent of the evaluator analysis is to determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by an attacker possessing a low (for AVA_VLA.2 Independent vulnerability analysis), moderate (for AVA_VLA.3 Moderately resistant) or high (for AVA_VLA.4 Highly resistant) attack potential.” BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 Certification Report D Annexes List of annexes of this certification report Annex A: Security Target provided within a separate document. D-1 Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0413-2007 D-2 This page is intentionally left blank.