BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
for
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller
P60D080/052/040MVC including IC Dedicated
Software with MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0
from
NXP Semiconductors Germany GmbH
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 V4.72
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Smartcard Controller
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC including
IC Dedicated Software with MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0
from
NXP Semiconductors Germany GmbH
PP Conformance:
Security IC Platform Protection Profile, Version
1.0, 15 June 2007, BSI-CC-PP-0035-2007
Functionality:
PP conformant plus product specific extensions
Common Criteria Part 2 extended
Assurance:
Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 5 augmented by ASE_TSS.2, ALC_DVS.2
and AVA_VAN.5
Common Criteria
Recognition
Arrangement
for components up to
EAL 4
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 extended by advice of the Certification
Body for components beyond EAL 5 and guidance specific for the technology of the product for co nformance
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, 23 October 2013
For the Federal Office for Information Security
Bernd Kowalski
Head of Department
for componen
L.S.
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-0871-2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
4 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
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 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Contents
A Certification........................................................................................................................7
1
2
3
4
5
Specifications of the Certification Procedure.................................................................7
Recognition Agreements................................................................................................7
Performance of Evaluation and Certification..................................................................8
Validity of the Certification Result...................................................................................9
Publication......................................................................................................................9
B Certification Results.........................................................................................................11
1 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................12
2 Identification of the TOE...............................................................................................14
3 Security Policy..............................................................................................................15
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................................15
5 Architectural Information...............................................................................................16
6 Documentation.............................................................................................................17
7 IT Product Testing.........................................................................................................17
8 Evaluated Configuration...............................................................................................18
9 Results of the Evaluation..............................................................................................18
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.......................................................20
11 Security Target............................................................................................................21
12 Definitions...................................................................................................................21
13 Bibliography................................................................................................................23
C Excerpts from the Criteria................................................................................................25
CC Part 1:.......................................................................................................................25
CC Part 3:.......................................................................................................................26
D Annexes...........................................................................................................................35
6 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
A
Certification
1
Specifications of the Certification Procedure
Certification Report
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 3.1 5 [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 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
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.
This evaluation contains the components ADV_FSP.5, ADV_INT.2, ADV_TDS.4,
ALC_CMS.5, ALC_DVS.2, ALC_TAT.2, ASE_TSS.2, ATE_DPT.3 and AVA_VAN.5 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 NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC including IC
Dedicated Software with MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 has undergone the certification
procedure at BSI.
The evaluation of the product NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC
including IC Dedicated Software with MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 was conducted by TÜV
Informationstechnik GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 16 October 2013. TÜV
Informationstechnik GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)6 recognised by the certification
body of BSI.
For this certification procedure the sponsor and applicant is: NXP Semiconductors
Germany GmbH.
The product was developed by: NXP Semiconductors Germany GmbH.
The certification is concluded with the comparability check and the production of this
Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI.
6
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
8 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
4
Certification Report
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, 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.
5
Publication
The product NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC including IC
Dedicated Software with MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 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 developer 7 of the
product. The Certification Report may also be obtained in electronic form at the internet
address stated above.
7
NXP Semiconductors Germany GmbH
Stresemannallee 101
22529 Hamburg
9 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
10 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
B
Certification Report
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 / 38
Certification Report
1
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Executive Summary
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the IC hardware platform NXP Secure Smart Card
Controller P60D080/052/040MVC including IC Dedicated Software with MIFARE Plus
MF1PLUSx0 and documentation describing the Instruction Set and the usage.
The IC hardware platform NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC is a
microcontroller incorporating a central processing unit, memories accessible via a Memory
Management Unit, cryptographic coprocessors, other security components and two
communication interfaces. The central processing unit supports a 32-/24-/16-/8-bit
instruction set optimized for smart card applications, which is a super set of the 80C51
family instruction set. The first and in some cases the second byte of an instruction are
used for operation encoding. On-chip memories are ROM, RAM and EEPROM. The
non-volatile EEPROM can be used as data or program memory. It consists of highly
reliable memory cells, which guarantee data integrity. The EEPROM is optimized for
applications requiring reliable non-volatile data storage for data and program code.
Dedicated security functionality protects the contents of all memories.
The IC Dedicated Software comprises Security IC Dedicated Test Software for test
purposes and Security IC Dedicated Support Software. The Security IC Dedicated Support
Software consists of Boot-ROM Software controlling the boot process of the hardware
platform and Firmware Operating System (FOS) which can be called by the Security IC
Embedded Software. The Firmware Operating System provides an interface for
programming of the internal EEPROM memory, which is mandatory for use by the Security
IC Embedded Software when programming the EEPROM memory. Furthermore FOS
provides an interface for the Post Delivery Configuration functionality. OS Emulation
MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 is included in the FOS and is therefore part of the TOE as
described in this document. The MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 provides a set of functions
used to manage the data stored in the non-volatile EEPROM memory owned by MIFARE
Plus MF1PLUSx0.
NXP has developed MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 to be used with Proximity Coupling
Devices (PCDs) according to ISO14443 Type A. The communication protocol complies to
part ISO 14443-3 and 14443-4. The MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 is primarily designed for
secure contactless transport applications and related loyalty programs as well as access
management systems. It fully complies with the requirements for fast and highly secure
data transmission, flexible data storage and interoperability with existing infrastructures.
As already outlined in the Security Target ([6] and [8]), the configurations MC1 and MC4
are limited to MIFARE classic functionality in Security Level 1. These configurations are
fixed to Security Level1. The functionality provided by the IC Dedicated Software when
configured to MC1 and MC4 was not part of the evaluation. The configuration MP2 and
MP4 provide the Security Funtionalities claimed for MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 in the
Security Target only in Security Level 0 and Security Level 3. In Security Level 1 and
Security Level 2 the configurations MP2 and MP4 support MIFARE classic functionality
that does not support evaluated Security Functionalities. The configuration MP2 and MP4
allow to change from Security Level 1 and the Security Level 2 to the Security Level 3
(MIFARE Plus) in the field (phase 7). However this presumes that the related level switch
keys are configured in Security Level 0 and the constraints described in the guidance
manual are considered.
12 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
The TOE supports the virtual card architecture by providing a selection mechanism for
virtual cards. This allows using the TOE in a complex environment where multiple virtual
cards are stored in one physical object; however the TOE does support only one virtual
card.
The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is based on the certified
Protection Profile Security IC Platform Protection Profile, Version 1.0, 15 June 2007,
BSI-CC-PP-0035-2007 [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 5
augmented by ASE_TSS.2, ALC_DVS.2 and AVA_VAN.5.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the
Security Target [6] and [8], 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 Functions:
TOE Security Functions
Addressed issue
SS.RNG
Random Number Generator
SS.HW_DES
Triple-DES coprocessor
SS.HW_AES
AES coprocessor
SS.CRC
Cyclic Redundancy Check
SS.RECONFIG
Post Delivery Configuration
SS.MFP_AUTH
Authentication
SS.MFP_ENC
Encryption
SS.MFP_MAC
Message Authentication Code
SS.MFP_ACC_CTRL
Access Control
SF.OPC
Control of Operating Conditions
SF.PHY
Protection against Physical Manipulation
SF.LOG
Logical Protection
SF.COMP
Protection of Mode Control
SF.MEM_ACC
Memory Access Control
SF.SFR_ACC
Special Function Register Access Control
SF.FFW
Firmware Firewall
SF.FIRMWARE
Firmware Support
Table 1: TOE Security Functionalities
For more details please refer to the Security Target [6] and [8], chapter 7.
The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6] and [8],
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] and [8], chapter 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.
This certification covers several configurations of the TOE. For details refer to chapter 8.
13 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
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:
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC including IC Dedicated
Software with MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0
The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:
No Type
Identifier
Release
Form of
Delivery
1
HW
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC
nameplate
9049A
wafer,
module,
inlay or
package
2
SW
Test ROM Software (Security IC Dedicated Test
Software),Test-ROM on the chip acc. to
9049A_LA001_TESTROM_v1_btos_0Av05_fos_6v10.hex
Version
0A.05,
2012-05-07
stored in
ROM on
the chip
3
SW
Boot ROM Software (part of the Security IC Dedicated
Support Software), Boot-ROM on the chip acc. to
9049A_LA001_TESTROM_v1_btos_0Av05_fos_6v10.hex
Version
0A.05,
2012-05-07
stored in
ROM on
the chip
4
SW
Firmware Operating System FOS including MIFARE
PlusMF1PLUSx0 (part of the Security IC Dedicated Support
Software), Firmware Operating System on the chip acc. to
9049A_LA001_TESTROM_v1_btos_0Av05_fos_6v10.hex
Version 6.12, stored in
2012- 05-07 ROM on
the chip8
5
DOC
Product Data Sheet, SmartMX2 family P60x040/052/080
VC,NXP Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification
Rev. 3.1,
2013-08-30
electronic
form
6
DOC
Instruction set for the SmartMX2 family, Secure smart card
Rev. 3.1,
controller, NXP Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification 2012-02-02
electronic
form
7
DOC
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60x040/052/080VC,
Information on Guidance and Operation, Guidance and
Operation Manual
Rev. 1.0,
2012-11-22
electronic
form
8
DOC
Wafer and delivery specification, SmartMX2 family
P60x040/052/080 VC, NXP Semiconductors
Rev. 3.0,
2012-10-18
electronic
form
9
DOC
Product Data Sheet Addendum, SmartMX2 family, Post
Delivery Configuration, NXP Semiconductors
Rev. 3.1,
2012-12-12
electronic
form
10
DOC
Product Data Sheet Addendum, SmartMX2 family, Chip
HealthMode, NXP Semiconductors
Rev. 3.0,
2012-05-11
electronic
form
8
FOS version 6.12 includes extensions on top of 9049A_LA001_TESTROM_v1_btos_0Av05_fos_6v10.hex
stored in Firmware Mode EEPROM
14 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
No Type
Identifier
Release
Form of
Delivery
11
DOC
Product Data Sheet Addendum, SmartMX2 family,
FirmwareInterface Specification, Firmware, NXP
Semiconductors
Rev. 3.3,
2012-12-11
electronic
form
12
DOC
MIFARE Plus, Functionality of implementations on smart
cardcontrollers, NXP Semiconductors
Rev. 3.1,
2012-09-24
electronic
form
13
DOC
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60xeeey with
MF1PLUSx0, MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 Guidance,
Delivery and Operation Manual, User Guidance Manual,
NXP Semiconductors
Rev. 1.5,
2013-06-21
electronic
form
Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE
3
Security Policy
The Security Policy is expressed by the set of Security Functional Requirements and is
implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues:
As the TOE is a hardware security platform, the security policy of the TOE provides
countermeasures against: leakage of information, physical probing, malfunctions, physical
manipulations, access to code, access to data memory, abuse of functionality.
Hence the TOE shall maintain
●
the integrity and the confidentiality of code and data stored in its memories,
●
the different CPU modes with the related capabilities for configuration and memory
access and
●
the integrity, the correct operation and the confidentiality of security functionality
provided by the TOE.
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:
Name
Assumption Title
OE.Plat-Appl
Usage of Hardware Platform
OE.Resp-Appl
Treatment of User Data
OE.Process-Sec-IC
Protection during composite product manufacturing
OE.Check-Init
Check of initialisation data by the Security IC Embedded Software
OE.Check-OriginalityKey Check of the Originality Key of the MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0
OE.Secure-Values
Generation of secure values
OE.Terminal-Support
Terminal support to ensure integrity, confidentiality and use of random numbers
Table 3: Objectives for the TOE-Environment
15 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Details can be found in the Security Target [6] and [8], chapter 4.2 and 4.3.
5
Architectural Information
The TOE consists of the following 13 subsystems:
Subsystem
Description
Hardware
IC.LOGIC_BLK
The IC.LOGIC_BLK comprises the instance id_smx2_kernel except the contacts and
the memory blocks. Furthermore, it is stated in the developer documentation that the
hardware instantiation id_smx2_kernel instantiates and connects all digital IPs.
IC.RAM
This subsystem is in charge for the TOE’s RAM memory operations. In comparison to
the previous subsystem, the subsystem IC.RAM is not that complex, nevertheless
several modules are associated to it.
IC.EEPROM
This subsystem is in charge for the TOE’s EEPROM memory and its operations.
IC.ROM
This subsystem is in charge for the TOE’s ROM memory and its operations.
This subsystem consists of two major parts:
•
a power conversion unit including a contactless part with voltage supply for
contactless operation, clock recovery and demodulation of the contactless
signal,
•
various sensors, a part of the random number generator, the internal oscillator
and further circuitry to monitor the operating conditions and provide reference
signals.
IC.ANALOG
IC.PADS
This subsystem contains the physical interfaces of the TOE which can be divided into
ISO contacts and non-ISO contacts.
IC.COVER
This subsystem comprises only passive metal structures. It is not included in the
design hierarchy because it is not part of the functional design of the device.
Software
SW.Iso
The subsystem SW.Iso is part of SW.Framework and implements the IC Dedicated
Support software interface to use the ISO 14443-3 and 14443-4 communication layers.
The evaluator remarks that this subsystem serves merely to group a semantically
similar group of modules and is to be interpreted as part of the subsystem IC.ROM.
This is reasonable, as all firmware resides in the TOE’s ROM.
SW.Framework
The subsystem SW.Framework is part of the IC Dedicated Support Software. It
operates in the firmware mode of M.CPU and is located in IC.ROM protected by
M.MMU, i.e. access from Security IC Embedded Software to the external interface of
the SW.Framework can only be done via an FVEC call. The evaluator remarks that this
subsystem serves merely to group a semantically similar group of modules and is to be
interpreted as part of the subsystem IC.ROM. This is reasonable, as all firmware
resides in the TOE’s ROM.
SW.CommonHal
The SW.CommonHal is part of the IC Dedicated Support Software and implements the
interface to use the hardware blocks M.CRC, M.CIU, M.EEIF_CTRL, M.SBC-IF,
M.RNG-DIG, M.TIMER, M.COPY-MACHINE and M.CPU. The evaluator remarks that
this subsystem serves merely to group a semantically similar group of modules and is
to be interpreted as part of the subsystem IC.ROM. This is reasonable, as all firmware
resides in the TOE’s ROM.
SW.MfpCore
This subsystem implements the core MIFARE Plus functionality and provides the
interface to the different MIFARE Plus security levels.
16 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
Subsystem
Description
SW.MfpOs
This subsystem provides a well-structured implementation of the MIFARE Plus basic
operations needed by SW.MfpCore.
SW.MfpHal
This subsystem implements a hardware abstraction layer for MIFARE Plus related HW
and provides the low-level functions to SW.MfpCore and SW.MfpOs.
Table 4: TOE Subsystems
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 developer’s testing effort can be summarised in the following aspects:
TOE test configuration and Developer’s testing approach:
•
The tests are performed with the TOE in different test environments and
configurations depending on the test classes and groups.
•
All TSF and related security mechanisms, subsystems and modules are tested in
order to assure complete coverage of all SFR.
•
Test categories/classes were:
◦
Production testing on wafers using test functions implemented in the IC
Dedicated Software.
◦
Simulation tests (design verification) which are performed to verify functionality,
which is not visible at the accessible interfaces of the TOE including automated
regression testing and manual simulation tests.
◦
Characterization tests to verify the electrical properties of the device, which are
specified with regard to limiting values, thresholds and timings of several
electrical parameters like voltages, currents, frequencies, capacitors,
resistances and latches.
◦
Verification tests which are performed on single samples of the device to verify
specific security functionality, which is not testable for each device during
production test or within the scope of characterization testing. Such tests include
standard tests of the Random Number Generator, AES coprocessor and
Triple-DES coprocessor.
◦
Test of configurations
◦
Functional verification and validation (MIFARE Plus) including firmware tests,
MIFARE Plus Acceptance/Regression Tests, MIFARE Plus Backwards
Compatibility Tests, Anti-Tearing Test,
17 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
◦
System Stability Verification (MIFARE Plus) including Robot Arm test and
Multiple PICC Test,
◦
Performance Verification (MIFARE Plus) of each individual command and of
standard transactions,
◦
External test (MIFARE Plus), consisting of a “Test plan for MIFARE®
Compatibility for Certification of Terminals and Qualification of Contactless
Readers”.
The independent testing was partly performed in the developer’s testing environment and
partly at TÜViT GmbH, information security department, in Essen. The same platforms and
tools as for the developer tests were used.
The evaluators’ testing effort can be summarised in the following aspects.
Testing approach:
•
The evaluator's objective regarding this aspect was to test the functionality of the
TOE and to verify the developer's test results by repeating developer's tests and
additionally add independent tests.
•
In the course of the evaluation of the TOE the following classes of tests were
carried out:
•
8
◦
Module tests
◦
Simulation tests
◦
Emulation tests
◦
Tests in user mode
◦
Tests in test mode
◦
Hardware tests
With this kind of tests the entire security functionality of the TOE was tested.
Evaluated Configuration
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:
The P60D080/052/040MVC hardware platform was tested including all major
configurations as well as all minor configuration options that can be selected based on
Table 2 and 3 in chapter 1.4.2.2 of [6]. All major and minor configurations are available to
the evaluator. The major configuration does not have dependencies to security features.
All minor configuration options that are part of the evaluation were tested and behave as
specified. Therefore the results described in this document are applicable for the major
configurations P60D080MVC, P60D052MVC and P60D040MVC as well as for all minor
configurations described in [6].
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.
18 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
The Evaluation Methodology CEM [2] was used for those components up to EAL5
extended by advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL 5 and guidance
specific for the technology of the product [4] (AIS 34).
The following guidance specific for the technology was used:
(i)
The Application of CC to Integrated Circuits
(ii)
Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards
(iii)
Guidance, Smartcard Evaluation
(see [4], AIS 25, AIS 25, AIS 37).
For RNG assessment the scheme interpretations AIS 31 was used (see [4]).
To support composite evaluations according to AIS 36 the document ETR for composite
evaluation [10] was provided and approved. This document provides details of this
platform evaluation that have to be considered in the course of a composite evaluation on
top.
As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance
components:
●
All components of the EAL 5 package including the class ASE as defined in the CC (see
also part C of this report)
●
The components ASE_TSS.2, ALC_DVS.2 and AVA_VAN.5 augmented for this TOE
evaluation.
The evaluation has confirmed:
●
PP Conformance:
Security IC Platform Protection Profile, Version 1.0, 15 June
2007, BSI-CC-PP-0035-2007 [10]
●
for the Functionality:
PP conformant plus product specific extensions
Common Criteria Part 2 extended
●
for the Assurance:
Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 5 augmented by ASE_TSS.2, ALC_DVS.2 and AVA_VAN.5
For specific evaluation results regarding the development and production environment see
annex B in part D of this report.
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 strength of the cryptographic algorithms was not rated in the course of this certification
procedure (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2). But Cryptographic Functionalities with
a security level of lower than 100 bits can no longer be regarded as secure without
considering the application context. Therefore for this functionalities it shall be checked
whether the related crypto operations are appropriate for the intended system. Some
further hints and guidelines can be derived from the 'Technische Richtlinie BSI TR-02102'
(https://www.bsi.bund.de).
Any Cryptographic Functionality that is marked in column 'Security Level above 100 Bits'
of the following table with 'no' achieves a security level of lower than 100 Bits (in general
context).
19 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Purpose
Mechanism
Standard of
Implementation
Key Size in Bits
Security Level
above 100 Bits
Authentication (MFP)
AES in CBC
mode
[FIPS-197] (AES),
[SP 800-38A] (CBC)
|K| = 128
yes
Key Agreement
(MFP)
FTP_TRP.1[MFP]
--
--
no
Confidentiality (MFP)
AES in CBC
mode
[FIPS-197] (AES),
[SP 800-38A] (CBC)
|K| = 128
yes
Integrity (MFP)
AES in CMAC
mode
[FIPS-197] (AES),
[SP800-38B] (CMAC)
|K| = 128
yes
Trusted Channel
(MFP)
Mifare Plus
MF1PLUSx0
--
--
no
Cryptographic
Primitives
Two-key TDES
[FIPS-46-3] (DES)
|K| = 112
no
Three-key TDES
[FIPS-46-3] (DES)
|K| = 168
yes
AES
[FIPS-197] (AES)
|K| = 128, 192,
256
yes
Table 5: Cryptographic TOE Security Functionalities
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 for the
TOE is required and thus requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
Some security measures are partly implemented in the hardware and require additional
configuration or control or measures to be implemented by the IC Dedicated Support
Software or Embedded Software.
For this reason the TOE includes guidance documentation (see table 2) which contains
guidelines for the developer of the IC Dedicated Support Software and Embedded
Software on how to securely use the microcontroller chip and which measures have to be
implemented in the software in order to fulfil the security requirements of the Security
Target of the TOE.
In the course of the evaluation of the composite product or system it must be examined if
the required measures have been correctly and effectively implemented by the software.
Additionally, the evaluation of the composite product or system must also consider the
evaluation results as outlined in the document ETR for composite evaluation [10].
20 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
11
Certification Report
Security Target
For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [8] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is
provided within a separate document as Annex A of this report. It is a sanitised version of
the complete Security Target [6] used for the evaluation performed. Sanitisation was
performed according to the rules as outlined in the relevant CCRA policy (see AIS 35 [4]).
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
CPU
Central Processing Unit
EAL
Evaluation Assurance Level
EEPROM
Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory
ETR
Evaluation Technical Report
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
IT
Information Technology
ITSEC
Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria
ITSEF
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
PP
Protection Profile
RAM
Random Access Memory
ROM
Read Only Memory
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.
21 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on
well-established mathematical concepts.
Informal - Expressed in natural language.
Object - An 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.
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
22 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
13
Bibliography
[1]
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
Part 1: Introduction and general model, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 2: Security functional components, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 3: Security assurance components, Revision 3, July 2009
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM),
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Rev. 3, July 2009
[2]
[3]
BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125)
[4]
Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE9.
[5]
German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148), periodically updated list published also
in the BSI Website
[6]
Security Target BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013, Version 1.5, NXP Secure Smart Card
Controller P60D080/052/040MVC Security Target, 11 September 2013, NXP
Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification (confidential document)
[7]
Security IC Platform Protection Profile, Version 1.0, 15 June 2007,
BSI-CC-PP-0035-2007
[8]
Security Target BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013, Version 1.5, NXP Secure Smart Card
Controller P60D080/052/040MVC Security Target Lite, 11 September 2013, NXP
Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification (sanitised public document)
[9]
Evaluation Technical Report, Version 7, 16 October 2013, EVALUATION
TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY (ETR SUMMARY), TÜV Informationstechnik
GmbH – Evaluation Body for IT Security, (confidential document)
[10]
ETR for composite evaluation according to AIS 36, Version 7, 16 October 2013,
ETR FOR COMPOSITE EVALUATION (ETR-COMP), TÜV Informationstechnik
GmbH – Evaluation Body for IT Security (confidential document)
[11]
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC, v01.10, Configuration
List, 10 September 2013, NXP Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC, v01.10, Customer
specific Appendix of the Configuration List, 10 September 2013, NXP
9
specifically
•
AIS 25, Version 7, Anwendung der CC auf Integrierte Schaltungen including JIL Document and CC
Supporting Document
•
AIS 26, Version 8, Evaluationsmethodologie für in Hardware integrierte Schaltungen including JIL
Document and CC Supporting Document
•
AIS 31, Version 2, Funktionalitätsklassen und Evaluationsmethodologie für physikalische
Zufallszahlengeneratoren
•
AIS 32, Version 7, CC-Interpretationen im deutschen Zertifizierungsschema
•
AIS 34, Version 3, Evaluation Methodology for CC Assurance Classes for EAL5+ (CCv2.3 &
CCv3.1) and EAL6 (CCv3.1)
•
AIS 35, Version 2.0, Öffentliche Fassung des Security Targets (ST-Lite) including JIL Document and
CC Supporting Document and CCRA policies
•
AIS 36, Version 3, Kompositionsevaluierung including JIL Document and CC Supporting Document
•
AIS 38, Version 2.9, Reuse of evaluation results
23 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC, v01.10, Appendix of the
Configuration List for composite evaluation, 10 September 2013, NXP
Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification
[12]
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60x040/052/080VC, v1.0, Information on
Guidance and Operation, Guidance and Operation Manual 22 November 2012, NXP
Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification and
NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60xeeey with MF1PLUSx0, v1.5, MIFARE Plus
MF1PLUSx0 Guidance, Delivery and Operation Manual, User Guidance Manual, 21
June 2013, NXP Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification
[13]
Product Data Sheet, Version 3.1, 30 August 2013, SmartMX2 family
P60x040/052/080 VC, Secure high-performance smart card controller, NXP
Semiconductors, Business Unit Identification
24 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
C
Certification Report
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.”
25 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
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
APE_INT.1 PP introduction
APE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
Class APE: Protection
APE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
Profile evaluation
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.”
26 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Assurance Class
Certification Report
Assurance Components
ASE_INT.1 ST introduction
ASE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
Class ASE: Security
ASE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
Target evaluation
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
27 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Assurance Class
Assurance Components
AGD:
AGD_OPE.1 Operational user guidance
Guidance documents
AGD_PRE.1 Preparative procedures
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: Life cycle 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_COV.1 Evidence of coverage
ATE_COV.2 Analysis of coverage
ATE_COV.3 Rigorous analysis of coverage
ATE: Tests
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
28 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 8)
“The Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs) provide an increasing scale that balances the
level of assurance obtained with the cost and feasibility of acquiring that degree of
assurance. The CC approach identifies the separate concepts of assurance in a TOE at
the end of the evaluation, and of maintenance of that assurance during the operational use
of the TOE.
It is important to note that not all families and components from CC Part 3 are included in
the EALs. This is not to say that these do not provide meaningful and desirable
assurances. Instead, it is expected that these families and components will be considered
for augmentation of an EAL in those PPs and STs for which they provide utility.”
Evaluation assurance level (EAL) overview (chapter 8.1)
“Table 1 represents a summary of the EALs. The columns represent a hierarchically
ordered set of EALs, while the rows represent assurance families. Each number in the
resulting matrix identifies a specific assurance component where applicable.
As outlined in the next Section, seven hierarchically ordered evaluation assurance levels
are defined in the CC for the rating of a TOE's assurance. They are hierarchically ordered
inasmuch as each EAL represents more assurance than all lower EALs. The increase in
assurance from EAL to EAL is accomplished by substitution of a hierarchically higher
assurance component from the same assurance family (i.e. increasing rigour, scope,
and/or depth) and from the addition of assurance components from other assurance
families (i.e. adding new requirements).
These EALs consist of an appropriate combination of assurance components as described
in Chapter 7 of this CC Part 3. More precisely, each EAL includes no more than one
component of each assurance family and all assurance dependencies of every component
are addressed.
While the EALs are defined in the CC, it is possible to represent other combinations of
assurance. Specifically, the notion of “augmentation” allows the addition of assurance
components (from assurance families not already included in the EAL) or the substitution
of assurance components (with another hierarchically higher assurance component in the
same assurance family) to an EAL. Of the assurance constructs defined in the CC, only
EALs may be augmented. The notion of an “EAL minus a constituent assurance
component” is not recognised by the standard as a valid claim. Augmentation carries with
it the obligation on the part of the claimant to justify the utility and added value of the
added assurance component to the EAL. An EAL may also be augmented with extended
assurance requirements.
29 / 38
Certification Report
Assurance
Class
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Assurance
Family
Assurance Components by
Evaluation Assurance Level
EAL1
Development
ADV_ARC
ADV_FSP
1
EAL2
EAL3
EAL4
EAL5
EAL6
EAL7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
ADV_IMP
ADV_INT
ADV_SPM
ADV_TDS
1
2
3
4
5
6
Guidance
AGD_OPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Documents
AGD_PRE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Life cycle
ALC_CMC
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
Support
ALC_CMS
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
ALC_DEL
ALC_DVS
ALC_FLR
ALC_LCD
ALC_TAT
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
ASE_SPD
ASE_TSS
Tests
1
ATE_COV
ATE_DPT
ATE_FUN
Vulnerability
assessment
ATE_IND
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
AVA_VAN
1
2
2
3
4
5
5
Table 1: Evaluation assurance level summary”
30 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 8.3)
“Objectives
EAL1 is applicable where some confidence in correct operation is required, but the threats
to security are not viewed as serious. It will be of value where independent assurance is
required to support the contention that due care has been exercised with respect to the
protection of personal or similar information.
EAL1 requires only a limited security target. It is sufficient to simply state the SFRs that the
TOE must meet, rather than deriving them from threats, OSPs and assumptions through
security objectives.
EAL1 provides an evaluation of the TOE as made available to the customer, including
independent testing against a specification, and an examination of the guidance
documentation provided. It is intended that an EAL1 evaluation could be successfully
conducted without assistance from the developer of the TOE, and for minimal outlay.
An evaluation at this level should provide evidence that the TOE functions in a manner
consistent with its documentation.”
Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 8.4)
“Objectives
EAL2 requires the co-operation of the developer in terms of the delivery of design
information and test results, but should not demand more effort on the part of the
developer than is consistent with good commercial practise. As such it should not require a
substantially increased investment of cost or time.
EAL2 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
low to moderate level of independently assured security in the absence of ready
availability of the complete development record. Such a situation may arise when securing
legacy systems, or where access to the developer may be limited.”
Evaluation assurance level 3 (EAL3) - methodically tested and checked (chapter 8.5)
“Objectives
EAL3 permits a conscientious developer to gain maximum assurance from positive
security engineering at the design stage without substantial alteration of existing sound
development practises.
EAL3 is applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a moderate
level of independently assured security, and require a thorough investigation of the TOE
and its development without substantial re-engineering.”
31 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
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.”
32 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 7 (EAL7) - formally verified design and tested
(chapter 8.9)
“Objectives
EAL7 is applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in extremely high
risk situations and/or where the high value of the assets justifies the higher costs. Practical
application of EAL7 is currently limited to TOEs with tightly focused security functionality
that is amenable to extensive formal analysis.”
Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment (chapter 16)
“The AVA: Vulnerability assessment class addresses the possibility of exploitable
vulnerabilities introduced in the development or the operation of the TOE.”
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VAN) (chapter 16.1)
"Objectives
Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether potential vulnerabilities
identified, during the evaluation of the development and anticipated operation of the TOE
or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses or quantitative or statistical analysis of the
security behaviour of the underlying security mechanisms), could allow attackers to violate
the SFRs.
Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that an attacker will be able to discover flaws
that will allow unauthorised access to data and functionality, allow the ability to interfere
with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users.”
33 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
This page is intentionally left blank
34 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
D
Certification Report
Annexes
List of annexes of this certification report
Annex A:
Security Target provided within a separate document.
Annex B:
Evaluation results regarding development
and production environment
35 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
36 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Certification Report
Annex B of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Evaluation results regarding
development and production
environment
The IT product NXP Secure Smart Card Controller P60D080/052/040MVC including IC
Dedicated Software with MIFARE Plus MF1PLUSx0 (Target of Evaluation, TOE) has been
evaluated at an approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for IT
Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 extended by advice of the Certification Body for
components beyond EAL 5 and guidance specific for the technology of the product for
conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1.
As a result of the TOE certification, dated 23 October 2013, the following results regarding
the development and production environment apply. The Common Criteria assurance
requirements ALC – Life cycle support (i.e. ALC_CMC.4, ALC_CMS.5, ALC_DEL.1,
ALC_DVS.2, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.2) are fulfilled for the development and production
sites of the TOE listed below:
Site and address
Function
NXP Semiconductors Hamburg
Business Unit Identification (BU ID)
Stresemannallee 101
22569 Hamburg
Germany
Development, Delivery and
customer support
NXP Semiconductors
Interleuvenlaan 80
3001 Leuven
Belgium
Security Reviews NXP
Firmware
TSMC, Fab 2 and 5
No. 121 Park Ave. III
Hsinchu Science Park
Hsinchu, Taiwan 300, R.O.C.
Mask data processing and
wafer production
TSMC, Fab 7
No. 6, Creation Rd. II
Hsinchu Science Park
Hsinchu, Taiwan 300, R.O.C.
Mask data processing and
wafer production
TSMC, Fab 6 and Fab 14
No. 1, Nan-Ke North Rd.
Tainan Science Park
Tainan, Taiwan 741, R.O.C.
Mask and wafer production
Chipbond Technology Corporation
No. 3, Li-Hsin Rd. V
Science Based Industrial Park
Hsin-Chu City
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Bumping
NXP Semiconductors GmbH Hamburg
Test Center Europe - Hamburg (TCE-H)
Test Center
37 / 38
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0871-2013
Site and address
Function
Stresemannallee 101
22569 Hamburg
Germany
Assembly Plant Bangkok
303 Moo 3 Chaengwattana Rd.
Laksi, Bangkok 10210
Thailand
Test Center and Module
assembly
Assembly Plant Kaohsiung
NXP Semiconductors Taiwan Ltd
#10, Jing 5th Road, N.E.P.Z, Kaohsiung 81170
Taiwan, R.O.C
Module assembly, test
center
SMARTRAC Technology Ltd. Bangkok
142 Moo, Hi-Tech Industrial Estate
Tambon Ban Laean, Amphor Bang-Pa-In
13160 Ayutthaya
Thailand
Inlay assembly
SMARTRAC TECHNOLOGY GERMANY GmbH
Gewerbeparkstr. 10
51580 Reichshof-Wehnrath
Germany
Inlay assembly
Note: The validity period for the site SMARTRAC
Reichshof-Wehnrath expires on October 4, 2013, and no
re-certification is planned here. Therefore the site is out of
evaluation scope from October 4, 2013, on.
HID Global Teoranta
Paic Tionscail na Tulaigh
Balle na hAbhann
Co. Galway
Ireland
Inlay assembly
NXP Semiconductors Austria GmbH Styria
Business Unit Identification (BU ID)
Mikron-Weg 1
8108 Gratkorn
Austria
Document control
NedCard B.V.
Bijsterhuizen 25-29
6604 LM Wijchen
The Netherlands
Module assembly
For the sites listed above, the requirements have been specifically applied in accordance
with the Security Target [6]. The evaluators verified, that the threats, security objectives
and requirements for the TOE life cycle phases up to delivery (as stated in the Security
Target [6] and [8]) are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites.
38 / 38