Certification Report: 20080527_0407a

Certification Report: 20080527_0407a

BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

for

STARCOS 3.2 QES

Version 1.0 from

Giesecke & Devrient GmbH

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

Certification Report V1.0 ZS-01-01-F-326 V4.1

BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

Smart Card with Digital Signature Application

STARCOS

3.2 QES

Version 1.0

from

Functionality:

Assurance:

Giesecke & Devrient GmbH

Product specific Security Target

Common Criteria Part 2 extended

Common Criteria Part 3 conformant

EAL 4 augmented by

AVA_MSU.3 and AVA_VLA.4

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 and guidance specific for the technology of the product 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, 2nd April 2008

For the Federal Office for Information Security

Head of Department

Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik

Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn

Phone +49 (0)228 9582-0 - Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477 - Infoline +49 (0)228 9582-111

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

IV

This page is intentionally left blank.

Preliminary Remarks

Under the BSIG

1

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

Contents

Part A: Certification

Part B: Certification Results

Part C: Excerpts from the Criteria

Part D: Annexes

BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

VI

A Certification

1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure

The certification body conducts the procedure according to the criteria laid down in the following:

• BSIG

2

• BSI Certification Ordinance

3

• BSI Schedule of Costs

4

• 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)

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-0407-2008

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.

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_MSU.3 and AVA_VLA.4 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 STARCOS 3.2 QES, Version 1.0 has undergone the certification procedure at BSI.

The evaluation of the product STARCOS 3.2 QES, Version 1.0 was conducted by TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 21st

A-2

November 2007. The 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: Giesecke &

Devrient GmbH

The product was developed by: Giesecke & Devrient GmbH

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-18 and D1 to D-2.

The product STARCOS 3.2 QES, Version 1.0 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-0407-2008

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

Giesecke & Devrient GmbH

Prinzenregentenstraße 159

81677 München

A-4

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

Contents of the Certification Results

BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope

6 Documentation

9 Results of the Evaluation

9.1 CC specific results

9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment

10 Obligations and notes for the usage of the TOE

12 Definitions

12.1 Acronyms

12.2 Glossary

13 Bibliography

3

4

5

6

6

7

7

8

9

9

10

11

13

13

13

14

16

B-2

The related product of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the STARCOS 3.2

QES, Version 1.0 Smart Card consisting of the Operating System (OS) and the

Digital Signature Applications on a Smart Card Integrated Circuit (IC). The TOE differs from the whole product, as the TOE does not include the optionally other applications (for example the “German Health System Applications”) shown in

Figure 2 on page 10 of the Security Target [6], marked with the dashed line.

The TOE is implemented as a Smart Card on an IC and is intended to be used as Secure Signature Creation Device Type 3. This includes generation and

Secure Storage of a SCD/SVD pair and the generation of Qualified Electronic

Signatures up to a length of 2048 Bit.

The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is based on but not compliant to the certified Secure Signature-Creation Device Protection Profile

Type 3 [9].

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_MSU.3 and AVA_VLA.4

.

The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the Security Target [6] resp. [7], 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] resp. [7], chapter 5.3.

The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following

TOE Security Functions:

TOE Security Function Addressed issue

SF.ADMIN

SF.AUTH

Administration of the TOE

Authentication of the Signatory

SF.PROTECTION

SF.IC_SF

Protection of TSC

Security Functions of the IC

Table 1: TOE Security Funktions

For more details please refer to the Security Target [6] resp. [7], chapter 6.1.

B-3

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

The claimed TOE’s strength of functions ‘high’ (SOF-high) for specific functions as indicated in the Security Target [6] resp. [7], chapter 6.1

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] resp. [7], 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] resp. [7], chapter 3.1 to 3.3.

This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE: STARCOS 3.2

QES, Version 1.0. For details please refer to Chapter 8.

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:

STARCOS 3.2 QES, Version 1.0

The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:

No Type Identifier Release Form of Delivery

1 HW/SW SLE66CX680PE SmartCard modules, ROM mask of the TOE already implemented

Software on the SmartCard 2 SW Card Operating System

STARCOS 3.2 eGK

3.2

3 DOC Administrator Version

STARCOS 3.2 eGK; 0.9/Status

STARCOS 3.2 QES V1.0

[13]

02.07.07

4 DOC Benutzerhandbuch

STARCOS 3.2 QES V1.0

[14]

Version

0.8/Status

24.07.2007

5 DOC Spezifikation Version 0.8/

Applikation STARCOS

3.2 QES V1.0 [15]

Stand

12.09.2007

6 DOC Installation, and start up of the

STARCOS 3.2 eGK /

QES [16]

Version 1.3 /

Status 29-Jan-07

Document in paper / electronic form

Document in paper / electronic form

Document in paper / electronic form

Document in paper / electronic form

Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE

B-4

The initialisation process is as follows: The administrator guidance [13] is delivered from G&D to the card issuer. The card issuer specifies the initialisation table and sends the specification to G&D. The specification of the initialisation table can also be done by G&D. Developers at G&D then implement the initialisation table (including the remaining TOE parts for the

EEPROM) according to the specification.

The initialisation table is sent to the initialisation site. There, the initialisation table is loaded to each card, starting the initialisation process. At the beginning of the initialisation process, the integrity and authenticity of the initialization table is verified by the card.

To verify the ID of the initialisation table of the TOE (and therefore also the composite TOE), the card issuer or any other user executes the command GET

DATA with Parameters P1='DF' P2='20'. A unique reference number of the initialisation table is specified in the bytes 49 to 60 of the returned protocol data.

The numbers of valid initialisation tables are published on the Giesecke &

Devrient GmbH website https://certificates.gi-de.com for comparison.

The TOE is the composition of an IC, IC Dedicated Software and Smart Card

Embedded Software and is intended to be used as a secure signature creation device (SSCD) for the generation of signature creation data (SCD) and the creation of qualified electronic signatures. The security policy is expressed by the set of security functional requirements and implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues:

• modification and disclosure of IC assets / smart card embedded software / application data

• compromise / forge / misuse of confidential user or TSF data including information leakage

• interception of communication

• abuse of TOE functionality (including its SSCD application)

• storing, copying, releasing and deriving the signature creation data by an attacker,

• forgery of the electronic signature, of the signature-verification data, or of the

DTBS-representation,

• repudiation of signatures,

• malfunction due to environmental stress as well as physical tampering

• physical attacks through the TOE interfaces

B-5

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

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:

• The CGA protects the authenticity of the signatory’s name and the SVD in the qualified certificate by an advanced signature of the CSP as stated in

OE.CGA_QCert.

• The CGA verifies that the SSCD is the sender of the received SVD and the integrity of the received SVD, see OE.SVD_Auth_CGA.

• If an external device provides the human interface for user authentication, this device or its environment will ensure confidentiality and integrity of the

VAD as needed by the authentication method employed as stated in

OE.HI_VAD.

• The signatory uses only a trustworthy SCA. The SCA generates and sends the DTBS-representation of data the signatory wishes to sign in a form appropriate for signing by the TOE, see OE.SCA_Data_Intend.

• The environment of the TOE protects the (i) confidentiality and integrity of the VAD entered by the user via the SCA human interface provided and sent to the TOE and (ii) the integrity of the DTBS sent by the SCA to the TOE as specified in OE.SCA_Trusted_Environment.

Details can be found in the Security Target [6] resp. [7], chapter 4.2.

The TOE STARCOS 3.2 QES, Version 1.0 is composed of the already certified integrated circuit from Infineon SLE66CX680PE [11], the operating system

STARCOS 3.2 and the SSCD application from Giesecke & Devrient, see also figure 2 in [7].

The TOE is composed of the following subsystems:

• Setup

• Commands

• Application Data and Basic Functions

• Hardware

B-6

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 tests were performed with the composite smartcard product. The physical format of the test configuration for TOE testing was either

• a card which is usable for all automatic or non-recoverable test cases or

• a simulator which is required for all interactive test cases.

The test targets (TT) were:

• TT1a: Card completed / initialized / personalized with SSCD application,

(TOE TT), plus test applications loaded onto the TOE by the tests.

• TT1b: Simulator completed / initialized / personalized with SSCD application,

(Non-TOE TT), plus test applications loaded onto the TOE by the tests.

• TT2a: Uncompleted card + SSCD application in form of an initialization image, (non-TOE TT).

• TT2b: Simulator in uncompleted state + SSCD application in form of an initialization image, (non-TOE TT)

These four different test targets were necessary to test the single aspects of the

TOE relevant for testing:

• Operating system contained in ROM code and EEPROM patch code

• Applications which were initialised / loaded

• Completion state: card in usage phase or in uncompleted state

7.1 Developer Tests according to ATE_FUN

All TSF as specified in [6] with related sub-functions and subsystems were tested in order to assure complete coverage. The test strategy was that all commands stated in the functional specification were tested to cover the requirements on TSF data, the security functional effects and the most important return codes given there and moreover all interfaces described in the high-level design.

B-7

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

7.2.1 Independent Testing according to ATE_IND

The approach for the evaluator’s independent testing was

• Examination of developer’s testing amount, depth and coverage analysis and of the developer’s test goal and plan for identification of gaps. specified using iterations of developer’s tests.

• Independent testing was performed by the evaluator in the evaluation facility with the TOE development environment using script based developer test tools with automated comparison of expected and actual test results

During sample testing the evaluator has chosen to repeat all developer functional tests at the Evaluation Body for IT-Security. The evaluator has verified the developer’s test results by executing all tests in the developer’s test documentation and verifying the test log files of a sample thereof.

The independent test results demonstrate that the TOE performs as expected.

7.2.2 Penetration Testing according to AVA_VLA

The approach for the evaluator’s penetration testing was:

• Examination of developer’s vulnerability analysis and of the developer’s rationale based on for why the vulnerabilities are not exploitable in the intended environment of the TOE.

• Examination whether the TOE, in its intended environment, is susceptible to vulnerabilities not considered by the developer by considering current information regarding obvious public domain vulnerabilities.

Penetration testing was performed by the evaluator at the Evaluation Body for

IT-Security with the TOE development environment using script based developer test tools with automated comparison of expected and actual test results. All security functions were penetration tested.

During the penetration testing the TOE operated as specified. The vulnerabilities discussed in the vulnerability analysis are not exploitable in the intended environment for the TOE.

This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:

The TOE as a Secure Signature Creation Device only features one fixed configuration STARCOS 3.2 QES, Version 1.0 which cannot be altered by the user. The evaluation is therefore only valid for this configuration of the TOE.

However, to reach this version of the TOE, different initialization tables can be used which differ only in non-security relevant parts (e.g. key length which can

B-8

range between certain given boundaries or other parameters which can be varied). The requirements for those inizialization tables are listed as generic initialization tables in [15]. The initialization tables listed in Table 3 all fulfil the requirements of [15]. Each table name starts with the three Bytes "01 03 23" representing the completion level which corresponds to the release of the card operating system.

Table Name

01 03 23 E1 E5 DC 60 4A 72 1F B5 C9

01 03 23 E2 0B 55 29 12 7A 63 62 10

01 03 23 E3 E0 A9 BB 1C EB 58 23 B1

01 03 23 E4 9B 64 12 F7 02 1B 3A 7B

01 03 23 E5 C8 CC CA CC 3D ED D0 4D

01 03 23 E6 80 03 CA F1 31 6C 9C 20

01 03 23 E7 93 22 14 80 01 E7 08 18

01 03 23 E9 03 46 D8 D8 6E 54 4B 0A

01 03 23 EA 74 2B EF AF 14 7D B5 36

Table 3: List of evaluated initialization tables

The identification of the TOE is described in [14, chapter 5.2]. The relevant identifier for the evaluated initialization table can be found on the dedicated web page: https://certificates.gi-de.com/. New initialization tables have to be checked with the evaluated Verifier-Tool before updating the above mentioned web page.

Please note that the usage of the TOE within the scope of this certification is limited in accordance with the validity of the used cryptographic algorithms, see chapter 10.

9 Results of the Evaluation

9.1 CC specific results

The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR), [8] was provided by the ITSEF according to the Common Criteria [1], the evaluation methodology CEM [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all interpretations and guidelines of the

Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE.

The evaluation methodology CEM [2] was used for those components used up to EAL4 extended by advice of the Certification Body for components beyond

EAL 4 and guidance specific for the technology of the product [4] (AIS 34).

The following guidance specific for the technology was used:

(i) As the evaluation of the TOE was conducted as a composition evaluation, the ETR [8] includes also the evaluation results of the composite evaluation activities in accordance with CC Supporting

B-9

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

Document, ETR-lite for Composition: Annex A Composite smart card evaluation [4, AIS 36].

(ii) The ETR [8] builds up on the ETR-lite for Composition documents of the evaluation of the underlying hardware "Infineon Smart Card IC

SLE66CX680PE/m1534a13 and SLE66CX360PE/m1536a13 both with

RSA 2048 V1.4 and specific IC Dedicated Software" ([11]). The ETR-lite for Composition [10] was provided by the ITSEF TÜV

Informationstechnik GmbH according to CC Supporting Document, ETRlite for Composition ([4, AIS 36]) and was validated by a recent reassessment.

(iii) For smart card specific methodology the scheme interpretations AIS 25 and AIS 26 (see [4]) were used.

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)

AVA_MSU.3 – Analysis and testing for insecure states

AVA_VLA.4 – Highly resistant augmented for this TOE evaluation.

The evaluation has confirmed:

Common Criteria Part 2 extended

• for the assurance:

Common Criteria Part 3 conformant

EAL 4 augmented by

AVA_MSU.3 and AVA_VLA.4

• The following TOE Security Functions fulfil the claimed Strength of Function high:

SF.ADMIN, SF.AUTH, SF.CRYPTO, and SF.IC

In order to assess the strength of function the scheme interpretations AIS 20 and 31 (see [4]) were used.

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 following cryptographic algorithms are used by the TOE to enforce its security policy:

• hash functions:

SHA-1, SHA-224 bit, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, RIPEMD-160

B-10

• algorithms for encryption, decryption and for signature creation and verification:

RSA with bitlength between 1024 and 2048 bit

This holds for the following security functions:

• SF.Sig (Signature Creation)

• SF.Crypto (Cryptographic Support)

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

Bekanntmachung zur elektronischen Signatur nach dem Signaturgesetz und der Signaturverordnung (Übersicht über geeignete Algorithmen) [17] the algorithms are suitable for creation and verification of electronic signatures. The validity period of each algorithm is mentioned in the official catalogue [17] 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.

In particular, the user and administrator guidance makes the following constraints for TOE use:

• The ChipPWD shall be kept confidential ([13, chapter 4.1.4])

• The Initialiser must perform the self tests of the TOE ([13, chapters 6.2, 6.3,

6.15])

• The chosen User PIN has to be random. It should not be possible to guess it

(14, chapter 2.3.1)

In addition, the following aspects need to be fulfilled when using the TOE:

• The identification of the TOE is described in [14, chapter 5.2]. The relevant identifier for the evaluated initialization table can be found on the dedicated web page: https://certificates.gi-de.com/.

• The card issuer is responsible for choosing only values which are permitted by [15].

• When Giesecke & Devrient modifies the non-TOE part of the initialization table (e.g. when Giesecke & Devrient implements the initialisation table with the values of the card issuer), that initialization table has to be checked before updating the above mentioned web page.

• Giesecke & Devrient is supported in this task with an automatic verification tool that checks the consistency to [15], e.g. FCPs for MF/DFs or the access rules for MF/DFs.

B-11

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

As outlined in chapter 9.2 of this report and in the Security Target, the TOE uses the hash functions SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 and

RIPEMD-160. For encryption, decryption and for signature creation and verification the TOE uses RSA with bitlength between 1024 and 2048 bits.

The following table describes the validity period of hash functions according to the Bekanntmachung zur elektronischen Signatur nach dem Signaturgesetz und der Signaturverordnung (Übersicht über geeignete Algorithmen) [17]:

Hash function

SHA-1

Valid until end of

2007 (transition period until end of June 2008)

RIPEMD-160 2010

SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-

512

2014

Table 4: Validity period of hash functions

As the STARCOS 3.2 QES implements certain cryptographic algorithms for

encryption, decryption, signature creation and verification , the following table summarizes the validity period of these algorithms as published in [17].

Algorithm with bitlength

RSA 1024

RSA 1280

RSA 1536

RSA 1728

RSA 1976

Valid until end of

2007 (transition period until end of March 2008)

2008

2009

2010

2014

Table 5: Validity period of cryptographic algorithms

A bitlength of 2048 bits for RSA is recommended for an acceptable long term security level.

For the expiry of the cryptographic algorithms please refer to the relevant and applicable national directives. The usage of the TOE within the scope of this certification is limited in accordance with the validity of the used cryptographic algorithms.

The automatic verification tool cannot check the validity of the used cryptographic algorithms, hence by-and-by less of the initialisation tables on the above mentioned web site will fall under this certificate. If a valid CC certificate is required, the card issuer is responsible for only using initialisation tables where the used cryptoalgorithms are valid according to the then effective

Bekanntmachung zur elektronischen Signatur nach dem Signaturgesetz und der Signaturverordnung (Übersicht über geeignete Algorithmen) [17].

If the TOE is also used as an electronic health card, the obligations and notes for the usage of the TOE in the certification report BSI-DSZ-CC-0406 [18] have to be applied.

B-12

For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [7] 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

ATE Assurance class Test Activity

ATE_IND

Independant testing

AVA

Assurance class Vulnerability Assessment Activity

AVA_VLA

Vulnerability analysis

BSI

BSIG

Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal

Office for Information Security, Bonn, Germany

Act setting up the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-

Errichtungsgesetz, BSIG) of 17 December 1990,

Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2834

CCRA

CC

CGA

CSP

DOC

DTBS

Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement

Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation

Certification generation application

Certification-Service provider

Documentation / documents

Data to be signed

EEPROM Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory

ETR Evaluation Technical Report

HW

IC

ID

IMP

Hardware

Integrated Circuit

Identification number

Implementation Representation

ITSEF

MAC

OE

Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility

Message Authentication Code

Operational Environment

B-13

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

PIN Personal Identification Number

PW Password

QES

qualifizierte elektronische Signatur, qualified electronic signature

RIPEMD RACE Integrity Primitives Evaluation Message Digest, Hash algorithm

ROM

RSA

Read Only Memory

Rivest-Shamir-Adleman Algorithm

SCA

SCD

Signature creation application

Signature creation data

SFP

SFR

SHA

SOF

SSCD

Security Function Policy

Security Functional Requirements

Secure Hash Algorithm

Strength of Function

Secure Signature Creation Device

STARCOS SmarT cARd Chip Operating System

SVD

Signature verification data

SW Software

TDES

TOE

TSC

Triple DES

Target of Evaluation

TSF Scope of Control

TSF

TSP

TOE Security Functions

TOE Security Policy

VAD

Verification authentication data

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.

B-14

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 requirements 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.

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.

B-15

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

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 25, Version 3, 6 August 2007 for: CC Supporting Document, -

The Application of CC to Integrated Circuits, Version 2.0, CCDB-

2006-04-003, April 2006

- AIS 26, Version 3, 6 August 2007 for: CC Supporting Document, -

Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards, Version 2.3, CCDB-

2007-04-001, April 2007

-

- AIS 32, Version 1, 02 July 2001, Übernahme international abgestimmter CC-Interpretationen ins deutsche Zertifizierungsschema.

-

AIS 31, Version 1, 25 Sept. 2001 for: Functionality classes and evaluation methodology of physical random number generators

-

-

AIS 34, Version 1.00, 1 June 2004, Evaluation Methodology for

CC Assurance Classes for EAL5+

AIS 35 ST-lite

AIS 36, Version 1, 29 July 2002 for: CC Supporting Document,

ETR-lite for Composition, Version 1.1, July 2002 and CC

Supporting Document, ETR-lite for Composition: Annex A

Composite smartcard evaluation, Version 1.2 March 2002

-

AIS 38, Version 2.0, 28 September 2007, Reuse of evaluation results

[5] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148, BSI 7149), periodically updated list published also on the BSI Web-site

[6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0407-2008, Version 1.9, Date 19.11.2007,

Security Target of STARCOS 3.2 QES V1.0, G&D (confidential document)

[7] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0407-2008, Version 1.0, Date 19.11.2007,

Security Target Lite STARCOS 3.2 QES V1.0, G&D (sanitised public document)

[8] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 6, Date 2007-11-20, Evaluation

Technical Report (ETR), Evaluation Body for IT Security of TÜV

Informationstechnik GmbH (confidential document)

B-16

[9] Protection Profile Secure Signature Creation Device Type 3, EAL 4+,

BSI-PP-0006-2002, Version 1.05, 25.07.2001, CEN/ISSS

[10] ETR-lite for composition according to AIS 36 for the Product

SLE66CX680PE / m1534a13 SLE66CX360PE / m1536a13 both with

RSA2048 V1.4, Version: 5, Date 13.11.2007, Evaluation Technical

Report (ETR-LITE), Evaluation Body for IT Security of TÜV

Informationstechnik GmbH (confidential document)

(Security Controller) SLE66CX680PE/m1534a13 and

SLE66CX360PE/m1536a13 both with RSA 2048 V1.4 and specific IC

Dedicated Software, 14. September 2005, BSI

[12] Configuration list for the TOE, Version 1.5, Date 19.11.2007,

Configuration List STARCOS 3.2 eGK, G&D (confidential document)

[13] Administrator guidance STARCOS 3.2 eGK; STARCOS 3.2 QES V1.0,

Version 0.9/Status 02.07.07

[14] Benutzerhandbuch STARCOS 3.2 QES V1.0, Version 0.8/Status

24.07.2007

0.8/ Stand 12.09.2007

[16] Installation, generation and start up of the STARCOS 3.2 eGK / QES,

Version 1.3 / Status 29-Jan-07 und der Signaturverordnung (Übersicht über geeignete Algorithmen),

Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

[18] Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0406-2007 for STARCOS 3.2 eGK

Version 1.0 from Giesecke & Devrient GmbH, 18. December 2007, BSI

B-17

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

B-18

This page is intentionally left blank.

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 predefined 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-0407-2008

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

Assurance categorisation (chapter 7.5)

“The assurance classes, families, and the abbreviation for each family are shown in Table 1.

Assurance Class

ACM: Configuration management

ADO: Delivery and operation

ADV: Development

AGD: Guidance documents

ALC: Life cycle support

Assurance Family

CM automation (ACM_AUT)

CM capabilities (ACM_CAP)

CM scope (ACM_SCP)

Delivery (ADO_DEL)

Installation, generation and start-up (ADO_IGS)

Functional specification (ADV_FSP)

High-level design (ADV_HLD)

Implementation representation (ADV_IMP)

TSF internals (ADV_INT)

Low-level design (ADV_LLD)

Representation correspondence (ADV_RCR)

Security policy modeling (ADV_SPM)

Administrator guidance (AGD_ADM)

User guidance (AGD_USR)

Development security (ALC_DVS)

Flaw remediation (ALC_FLR)

Life cycle definition (ALC_LCD)

Tools and techniques (ALC_TAT)

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-0407-2008

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

Assurance Class Assurance

Family

Assurance Components by

Evaluation Assurance Level

EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7

ACM_AUT 1 1 2 2 Configuration management operation

ADV_IMP

ADV_LLD

ADV_SPM

Guidance documents support

ALC_FLR

ALC_LCD

ALC_TAT

Tests

Vulnerability assessment

Table 6: Evaluation assurance level summary”

C-5

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0407-2008

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 reengineering.”

C-6

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 securityspecific 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-0407-2008

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.”

C-8

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-0407-2008

D-2

This page is intentionally left blank.

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement