Certification Report: 0662a_pdf

Certification Report: 0662a_pdf

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

for

IC chip for the reader / writer

RC-S940 (CXD9768GG) Version 4

from

Sony Corporation

BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn

Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111

Certification Report V1.0

ZS-01-01-F-326 V4.29

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

IC chip for the reader / writer

RC-S940 (CXD9768GG), Version 4

from Sony Corporation

PP Conformance: None

Functionality:

Assurance:

Product specific Security Target

Common Criteria Part 2 conformant

Common Criteria Part 3 conformant

EAL 4

Common Criteria

Recognition

Arrangement

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 smart card specific guidance for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT

Security Evaluation, Version 2.3 (ISO/IEC 15408:1999).

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, 16 February 2010

For the Federal Office for Information Security

Bernd Kowalski

Head of Department

L.S.

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-0662-2010

4 / 34

This page is intentionally left blank.

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

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 on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz, BSIG) of 14 August 2009,

Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821

5 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

Contents

A Certification........................................................................................................................7

1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure.................................................................7

2 Recognition Agreements................................................................................................7

2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC - Certificates..................................................8

2.2 International Recognition of CC - Certificates.........................................................8

3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification..................................................................8

4 Validity of the Certification Result...................................................................................9

5 Publication......................................................................................................................9

B Certification Results.........................................................................................................11

1 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................12

2 Identification of the TOE...............................................................................................14

3 Security Policy..............................................................................................................15

4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................................15

5 Architectural Information...............................................................................................15

6 Documentation.............................................................................................................16

7 IT Product Testing.........................................................................................................16

7.1 Developer's Test according to ATE_FUN...............................................................16

7.2 Evaluator Tests......................................................................................................16

8 Evaluated Configuration...............................................................................................17

9 Results of the Evaluation..............................................................................................17

9.1 CC specific results.................................................................................................17

9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment....................................................................18

10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.......................................................18

11 Security Target............................................................................................................18

12 Definitions...................................................................................................................19

12.1 Acronyms.............................................................................................................19

12.2 Glossary...............................................................................................................20

13 Bibliography................................................................................................................21

C Excerpts from the Criteria................................................................................................22

D Annexes...........................................................................................................................31

6 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

A Certification

1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure

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

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) [3]

Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 2.3 (ISO/IEC 15408: 2005)

5

[1]

Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 2.3 [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

3

4

5

Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz, BSIG) of 14 August 2009,

Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821

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

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

Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern of 10 May 2006 in the Bundesanzeiger dated 19

May 2006, p. 3730

7 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

2.1

European Recognition of ITSEC/CC - Certificates

The SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for certificates based on ITSEC became initially effective in March 1998.

This agreement on the mutual recognition of IT security certificates was extended in April

1999 to include certificates based on the Common Criteria for the Evaluation Assurance

Levels (EAL 1 – EAL 7). This agreement was signed by the national bodies of Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United

Kingdom. The German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) recognises certificates issued by the national certification bodies of France and United Kingdom, and from The

Netherlands since January 2009 within the terms of this agreement.

The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the terms of this agreement.

2.2

International Recognition of CC - Certificates

An arrangement (Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement) on the mutual recognition of certificates based on the CC Evaluation Assurance Levels up to and including EAL 4 has been signed in May 2000 (CCRA). It includes also the recognition of Protection Profiles based on the CC.

As of January 2009 the arrangement has been signed by the national bodies of: Australia,

Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,

India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand,

Norway, Pakistan, Republic of Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United

States of America. The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes can be seen on the web site: http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org

The Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement logo printed on the certificate indicates that this certification is recognised under the terms of this agreement.

6

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 IC chip for the reader / writer RC-S940 (CXD9768GG), Version 4 has undergone the certification procedure at BSI. This is a re-certification based on BSI-DSZ-

CC-0590-2009. Specific results from the evaluation process BSI-DSZ-CC-0590-2009 were re-used.

The evaluation of the product IC chip for the reader / writer RC-S940 (CXD9768GG),

Version 4 was conducted by TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 22 January 2010. 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: Sony Corporation

The product was developed by: Sony Corporation

The certification is concluded with the comparability check and the production of this

Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI.

Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility

8 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

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 reassessment 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 product IC chip for the reader / writer RC-S940 (CXD9768GG), Version 4 has been included in the BSI list of the certified products, which is published regularly (see also

Internet: http:// 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 Sony Corporation

Gate City Osaki, Osaki East Tec.

1-11-1 Osaki Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo

141-0032 Japan

9 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

10 / 34

This page is intentionally left blank.

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

B Certification Results

The following results represent a summary of

● the Security Target of the sponsor for the Target of Evaluation,

● the relevant evaluation results from the evaluation facility, and

● complementary notes and stipulations of the certification body.

Certification Report

11 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

1 Executive Summary

The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is an IC chip with the product name “RC-S940” (product

code ”CXD9768GG”, produced at the Oita wafer production site 8 ) Version 4 that will be

embedded into a Smart Card Reader/Writer. The IC chip (refer to figure 1: Block Diagram of TOE) consists of memories (16kBytes ROM, 128kBytes EEPROM, and 4kBytes SRAM), data bus, security logic, peripheral devices, I/O interface, a dedicated CPU, etc. In the

ROM the program for control of the IC chip is stored; in the EEPROM authentication data and a downloadable firmware (which is out of scope of the TOE) are stored; in the SRAM area communication data and other processed data are stored as temporary data. The

TOE contains some security logic (Random Number Generator, CRYPTO Engine and

Illegal Voltage/Frequency/Temperature Detection Sensors) and peripheral devices (Timer,

Interrupt Controller, Clock Gear and Reset Generator) are used for maintaining performance and security. The IC chip provides an UART interface used for communication with the controller (e.g. a PC connected to the Reader/Writer the TOE is built in) and a RF CARD interface used for communication with a contactless Smart Card

(RF CARD interface and an other inactivated circuit is out of scope of the TOE).

This IC chip provides different operating modes. IPL (Initial Program Load) Mode and

STOP Mode are within the scope of this evaluation. Normal Mode (i.e. running a firmware, which was downloaded in IPL Mode) is out of scope of this evaluation.

The IC chip provides the security functionality of mutual authentication and subsequent secure download of some application firmware (which is out of scope of the TOE) to

EEPROM used for activation of the external communication interface in Normal Mode (this interface and Normal Mode are out of scope of the TOE). Furthermore, the TOE provides physical and logical security functionality to prevent disclosing or modification of data stored inside the IC chip. The concrete security functions of the TOE are listed in table 1.

Figure 1: Block diagram of the RC-S940

8 Sony confirms that the RC-S940 will be produced only at the Oita wafer production site, which was part of the evaluation.

12 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

Configuration of the functional blocks of TOE is as listed below:

CPU: TLCS-900/L1 CPU is a 16-bit CPU. It has 16MBytes of linear address space.

SRAM: 4kB SRAM built in the IC chip.

ROM: 16kB ROM built in the IC chip.

ROM program stored in the ROM.

EEPROM: 128kB (64kB x 2) EEPROM built in the IC chip.

A part of data (cryptographic keys) stored in the EEPROM.

Firmware (out of scope of the TOE) stored in the EEPROM.

Security Logic: The security logic contains a cipher co-processor (Triple DES, compatible with ECB Mode / CBC Mode), random number generation function, and detect function (illegal voltage detect function, illegal frequency detect function, illegal temperature detect function).

Peripheral Equipment: Peripheral equipment contains a 16-bit timer, interrupt controller, reset controller and clock gear.

The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is not based on a certified

Protection Profile.

The TOE Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) are based entirely on the assurance components defined in Part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C or [1], Part 3 for details).

The TOE meets the Assurance Requirements of the Evaluation Assurance Level EAL 4.

The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the

Security Target [6] and [9], chapter 5.1.1. They are all selected from Common Criteria Part

2. Thus the TOE is CC Part 2 conformant.

The Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the IT-Environment of the TOE are outlined in the Security Target [6] and [9], chapter 5.2.

The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE

Security Functions:

TOE Security Function Addressed issue

SF.1

Detection of illegal operation

SF.2

SF.3

Protection to information leakage

Physical protection

SF.4

SF.5

SF.6

SF.7

SF.8

Encryption of data

Mutual authentication

Protection of data passing through the interface

Self Test

Protection of internal data

Table 1: TOE Security Functions

For more details please refer to the Security Target [6] and [9], chapter 6.1.

The claimed TOE’s Strength of Functions 'basic' (SOF-basic) for specific functions as indicated in the Security Target [6] and [9], chapter 6.1 is confirmed. The rating of the

13 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

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] and [9], chapter 3.1. Based on these assets the TOE Security Environment is defined in terms of

Assumptions and Threats. This is outlined in the Security Target [6] and [9], chapter 3.2 and 3.3.

This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE: The Security Target [6] and [9] identifies only one configuration of the TOE, the IC chip for the reader / writer RC-

S940 (CXD9768GG) Version 4. 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:

IC chip for the reader / writer

RC-S940 (CXD9768GG), Version 4

The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:

No Type Identifier Relea se

4 1 HW /

FW

IC chip RC-S940 (product code

CXD9768GG produced at the Oita wafer production site), i.e. the TOE

(including ROM program version 3,

Mask set version 3)

2 DOC Document RC-S940 IPL Users Manual

[10]

1.0

3 DOC Document RC-S940 Operation

Guideline [11]

4 DOC Document RC-S940 Administrator

Tools Manual [12]

1.1

2.0

5 DOC Shipping key and program signature N/A

6 DOC Correspondence table: serial no. vs. ID number IDm

N/A

Form of Delivery

Trusted carrier and sealed packaging

Electronic transfer,

PGP-encrypted

Electronic transfer,

PGP-encrypted

Electronic transfer,

PGP-encrypted

Electronic transfer,

PGP-encrypted

Electronic transfer,

PGP-encrypted

Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE

14 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

3 Security Policy

The security policy of the TOE is to provide security functionality for a secure download of firmware to the EEPROM and for secure communication between a controller and the

IC chip.

4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope

The Assumptions defined in the Security Target and some aspects of the Threats 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: Secure communication channel, management of external TOE data, personnel and delivery procedures. Details can be found in the Security Target [6] and [9] chapter 4.2.

5 Architectural Information

C P U R O M S R A M E E P R O M

D a t a u s

S e c u r i t y L E q u i p m e n t

Figure 2: Block diagram of TOE

The configuration of the functional blocks of the TOE are:

CPU: 16bit CPU with 16MBytes of linear address space.

SRAM: 4kB SRAM built in the IC chip.

ROM: 16kB ROM built in the IC chip.

ROM program stored in the ROM.

EEPROM: 128kB (64kB x 2) EEPROM built in the IC chip.

A part of data (cryptographic key) stored in the EEPROM.

Firmware (out of scope of the TOE) stored in the EEPROM.

Security Logic: The security logic contains a cipher co-processor (Triple DES), random number generation function, and detect function (illegal voltage detect function, illegal frequency detect function, illegal temperature detect function).

Peripheral Equipment: Peripheral equipment contains a timer, interrupt controller, reset controller and clock gear.

15 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

6 Documentation

The evaluated documentation as outlined in table 2 is being provided with the product to the customer. This documentation contains the required information for secure usage of the TOE in accordance with the Security Target.

Additional obligations and notes for secure usage of the TOE as outlined in chapter 10 of this report have to be followed.

7 IT Product Testing

7.1

Developer's Test according to ATE_FUN

The developers testing effort can be summarized in the following four aspects.

TOE test configuration:

The tests are performed with the chip RC-S940 Version 4. To be able to test all TSF in detail for some tests special prepared chips are used.

Testing approach:

All TSF and related sub-functions and subsystems are tested in order to assure complete coverage of all SFR, addressing both hardware and ROM program functionalities of the TOE. The developer combines automated test tools and manual test procedures, as appropriate for the item under test.

Testing depth:

The tests are performed on (sub-) function level and can be mapped to mechanisms interfaces and subsystems.

The developer has tested the TOE systematically at the level of TSF functionalities as given in the functional specification.

The developer has tested the TOE systematically at the level of the subsystems as given in the high level design.

The entire test set comprises 756 individual test cases.

Testing result:

All testing strategies of the TSF passed all tests of individual tests.

Overall the TSF have been tested systematically against the functional specification and the high-level design.

The developer tests demonstrate that the security functions perform as specified.

All test results are as expected and no test failed.

For re-evaluation:

The developer did not repeat any developer testing, as the TOE is unchanged.

7.2

Evaluator Tests

Independent testing according to ATE_IND:

The independent testing was partly performed in the developer’s testing environment in

Tokyo, Japan and partly at TNO (name has changed to Brightsight in the meantime) in

16 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

Delft, Netherlands. During the testing at the developer’s site the same platforms and tools as for the developer tests were used.

The evaluator's objective regarding this aspect was to test the functionality of the TOE as described in functional specification and the high level design, and to verify the developer's test results by sampling a representative set from the developer's tests and additionally add independent tests.

The results of the specified and conducted independent evaluator tests confirm the TOE functionality as described in functional specification and the high level design. The TOE security functions were found to behave as specified.

The results of the developer tests, which have been repeated by the evaluator, matched the results the developer stated in the developer test documentation.

For re-evaluation:

The evaluator did not repeat any developer testing, as the TOE is unchanged.

Penetration testing according to AVA_VLA:

The penetration testing was performed by the subcontracted hardware evaluation facility of

TNO (Brightsight). Due to the nature of this testing, specific hardware investigation and electronic lab equipment was used. As result of the Summary Report Theoretical

Vulnerability Analysis the evaluator conducted Evaluation Body Testing.

The conducted penetration testing confirms that the TOE in the intended environment of use does not feature any exploitable vulnerability for attackers with low attack potential.

For re-evaluation:

The evaluator did not conduct evaluation body testing, as the TOE is unchanged.

8 Evaluated Configuration

This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE: The Security Target [6] and [9] identifies only one configuration of the TOE. The tests are performed with the chip

RC-S940, product code CXD9768GG, Version 4 (ROM ver.3, mask set ver.3). This is in consistence to the configuration identified in the Security Target [6] and [9].

9 Results of the Evaluation

9.1

CC specific results

The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [7] was provided by the ITSEF according to the

Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE.

The Evaluation Methodology CEM [2] was used.

The following guidance specific for the technology was used:

Functionality classes and evaluation methodology for deterministic random number generators

The Application of CC to Integrated Circuits

17 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards

(see [4], AIS 20, AIS 25, AIS 26).

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)

As the evaluation work performed for this certification procedure was carried out as a reevaluation based on the certificate BSI-DSZ-CC-0590-2009, re-use of specific evaluation tasks was possible. The focus of this re-evaluation was on two sites that have moved since the last certification.

The evaluation has confirmed:

PP Conformance: for the Assurance:

None for the Functionality: Product specific Security Target

Common Criteria Part 2 conformant

Common Criteria Part 3 conformant

EAL 4

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

SF4-1, SF4-3: Pseudo Random Number Generator part

SF5: Mutual authentication

In order to assess the Strength of Function the scheme interpretations AIS 20, AIS 25 and

AIS 26 (see [4]) were used.

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 rating of the Strength of Functions does not include the cryptoalgorithms suitable for encryption and decryption (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2). This holds for :

● the TOE Security Function SF4-2 (Triple DES Cipher system).

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.

11 Security Target

For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [9] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is provided within a separate document as Annex A of this report. It is a sanitised version of

18 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

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

BSI

Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for

Information Security, Bonn, Germany

SF

SFP

SOF

SRAM

ST

TOE

TSC

TSF

TSP

UART

IT

ITSEF

PP

RAM

RF

RNG

ROM

BSIG

CBC

CC

CCRA

CPU

DES

BSI-Errichtungsgesetz

Cipher Block Chaining

Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation

Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement

Central Processing Unit

Data Encryption Standard; symmetric block cipher algorithm

EAL

ECB

Evaluation Assurance Level

Electrical Code Block

EEPROM Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory

ETR

IC

IPL

Evaluation Technical Report

Integrated Circuit

Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards

Information Technology

Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility

Protection Profile

Random Access Memory

Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards

Random Number Generator

Read Only Memory

Security Function

Security Function Policy

Strength of Function

Static Random Access Memory

Security Target

Target of Evaluation

TSF Scope of Control

TOE Security Functions

TOE Security Policy

Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter

19 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

12.2 Glossary

Augmentation - The addition of one or more assurance component(s) from CC Part 3 to an EAL or assurance package.

Extension - The addition to an ST or PP of functional requirements not contained in part 2 and/or assurance requirements not contained in part 3 of the CC.

Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on wellestablished 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.

20 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

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.

9

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

[6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0308-2005, Version 2.04, 13 May 2005, RC-S940 Security

Target (confidential document)

[7] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 1, Date: 06.10.2009, Product: RC-S940

Version 4 Reader/Writer IC, Evaluation Body for IT-Security of TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH (confidential document)

[8] RC-S940 Configuration List, Version 4.8, 26.08.2009, Sony Corporation

(confidential document)

[9] Security Target (Public Version) BSI-DSZ-0308-2005, Version 2.04, 13 May 2005,

RC-S940 Security Target (sanitised public document)

[10] RC-S940 IPL Users Manual Version 1.0 , 4 March 2004, Sony Corporation

[11] RC-S940 Operation Guideline, Version 1.1, May 26, 2004

[12] RC-S940 Administrator Tools Manual, Version 2.0, June 21, 2005

9 specifically

• AIS 20, Version 1, 2 December 1999, Funktionalitätsklassen und Evaluationsmethodologie für deterministische Zufallszahlengeneratoren

AIS 25, Version 6, 7 September 2009, Anwendung der CC auf Integrierte Schaltungen including JIL Document and CC Supporting Document

AIS 26, Version 6, 7 May 2009, Evaluationsmethodologie für in Hardware integrierte

Schaltungen including JIL Document and CC Supporting Document

AIS 32, Version 1, 2 July 2001, Übernahme international abgestimmter CC-Interpretationen ins deutsche Zertifizierungsschema.

AIS 35, Version 2.0, 12 November 2007, Öffentliche Fassung des Security Targets (ST-Lite) including JIL Document and CC Supporting Document and CCRA policies

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

21 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

C Excerpts from the Criteria

CC Part1:

Conformance results (chapter 7.4)

„The conformance result indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is met by a TOE or PP that passes its evaluation. This conformance result is presented with respect to CC Part 2 (functional requirements), CC Part 3 (assurance requirements) and, if applicable, to a pre-defined set of requirements (e.g., EAL, Protection Profile).

The conformance result consists of one of the following:

CC Part 2 conformant - A PP or TOE is CC Part 2 conformant if the functional requirements are based only upon functional components in CC Part 2.

CC Part 2 extended - A PP or TOE is CC Part 2 extended if the functional requirements include functional components not in CC Part 2. plus one of the following:

CC Part 3 conformant - A PP or TOE is CC Part 3 conformant if the assurance requirements are based only upon assurance components in CC Part 3.

CC Part 3 extended - A PP or TOE is CC Part 3 extended if the assurance requirements include assurance requirements not in CC Part 3.

Additionally, the conformance result may include a statement made with respect to sets of defined requirements, in which case it consists of one of the following:

Package name Conformant - A PP or TOE is conformant to a pre-defined named functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements (functions or assurance) include all components in the packages listed as part of the conformance result.

Package name Augmented - A PP or TOE is an augmentation of a pre-defined named functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements

(functions or assurance) are a proper superset of all components in the packages listed as part of the conformance result.

Finally, the conformance result may also include a statement made with respect to

Protection Profiles, in which case it includes the following:

PP Conformant - A TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the conformance result.“

22 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

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)

Class ASE: Security Target evaluation

Security environment (ASE_ENV)

ST introduction (ASE_INT)

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 ”

23 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

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

ATE: Tests

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)

Coverage (ATE_COV)

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”

24 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

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.

25 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

Assurance

Class

Configuration management

Delivery and operation

Development

Assurance

Family

ACM_AUT

ACM_CAP 1

ACM_SCP

ADO_DEL

ADO_IGS

ADV_FSP

ADV_HLD

ADV_IMP

ADV_INT

ADV_LLD

ADV_RCR

ADV_SPM

1

1

1

Guidance documents

AGD_ADM

AGD_USR

Life cycle support

ALC_DVS

ALC_FLR

1

1

Assurance Components

Evaluation Assurance Level

EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7

by

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

3

2

1

3

3

2

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

2

5

3

2

1

3

4

3

1

3

2

2

2

1

2

2

5

3

3

1

4

5

3

1

3

3

2

3

1

2

Tests

ALC_LCD

ALC_TAT

ATE_COV

ATE_DPT

ATE_FUN

ATE_IND 1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

Vulnerability assessment

AVA_CCA 1 2 2

AVA_MSU 1 2 2 3 3

AVA_SOF

AVA_VLA

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

Table 6: Evaluation assurance level summary”

1

4

1

4

26 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 11.3)

“Objectives

EAL1 is applicable where some confidence in correct operation is required, but the threats to security are not viewed as serious. It will be of value where independent assurance is required to support the contention that due care has been exercised with respect to the protection of personal or similar information.

EAL1 provides an evaluation of the TOE as made available to the customer, including independent testing against a specification, and an examination of the guidance documentation provided. It is intended that an EAL1 evaluation could be successfully conducted without assistance from the developer of the TOE, and for minimal outlay.

An evaluation at this level should provide evidence that the TOE functions in a manner consistent with its documentation, and that it provides useful protection against identified threats.”

Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 11.4)

“Objectives

EAL2 requires the co-operation of the developer in terms of the delivery of design information and test results, but should not demand more effort on the part of the developer than is consistent with good commercial practice. As such it should not require a substantially increased investment of cost or time.

EAL2 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a low to moderate level of independently assured security in the absence of ready availability of the complete development record. Such a situation may arise when securing legacy systems, or where access to the developer may be limited.”

Evaluation assurance level 3 (EAL3) - methodically tested and checked

(chapter 11.5)

“Objectives

EAL3 permits a conscientious developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering at the design stage without substantial alteration of existing sound development practices.

EAL3 is applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a moderate level of independently assured security, and require a thorough investigation of the TOE and its development without substantial re-engineering.”

27 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

Evaluation assurance level 4 (EAL4) - methodically designed, tested, and reviewed

(chapter 11.6)

“Objectives

EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering based on good commercial development practices which, though rigorous, do not require substantial specialist knowledge, skills, and other resources. EAL4 is the highest level at which it is likely to be economically feasible to retrofit to an existing product line.

EAL4 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a moderate to high level of independently assured security in conventional commodity TOEs and are prepared to incur additional security-specific engineering costs.”

Evaluation assurance level 5 (EAL5) - semiformally designed and tested

(chapter 11.7)

“Objectives

EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering based upon rigorous commercial development practices supported by moderate application of specialist security engineering techniques. Such a TOE will probably be designed and developed with the intent of achieving EAL5 assurance. It is likely that the additional costs attributable to the EAL5 requirements, relative to rigorous development without the application of specialised techniques, will not be large.

EAL5 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a high level of independently assured security in a planned development and require a rigorous development approach without incurring unreasonable costs attributable to specialist security engineering techniques.”

Evaluation assurance level 6 (EAL6) - semiformally verified design and tested

(chapter 11.8)

“Objectives

EAL6 permits developers to gain high assurance from application of security engineering techniques to a rigorous development environment in order to produce a premium TOE for protecting high value assets against significant risks.

EAL6 is therefore applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in high risk situations where the value of the protected assets justifies the additional costs.”

28 / 34

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

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.”

29 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

30 / 34

This page is intentionally left blank.

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

D 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

Certification Report

31 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

32 / 34

This page is intentionally left blank.

BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010 Certification Report

Annex B of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

Evaluation results regarding development and production environment

The IT product IC chip for the reader / writer RC-S940 (CXD9768GG), Version 4 (Target of

Evaluation, TOE) 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 smart card specific guidance for conformance to the

Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 2.3 (ISO/IEC 15408:1999).

As a result of the TOE certification, dated 16 February 2010, the following results regarding the development and production environment apply. The Common Criteria

Security Assurance Requirements

ACM – Configuration management (i.e. ACM_AUT.1, ACM_CAP.4, ACM_SCP.2),

ADO – Delivery and operation (i.e. ADO_DEL.2, ADO_IGS.1) and

ALC – Life cycle support (i.e. ALC_DVS.1, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.1), are fulfilled for the development and production sites of the TOE listed below: a) FeliCa Business Division, Sony Corporation (GCO Site)

Role: Development of hardware / ROM program

Gate City Osaki West Tower, 9F, 1-11-1 Osaki Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-0032,

Japan b) Ofuna Development Center, Toshiba Corporation (Ofuna Site)

Role: Development of hardware, design of masks

2-5-1, Kasama-cho, Sakae-ku, Yokohama-city, Kanagawa-pref., Japan c) Oita Factory, Toshiba Corporation (Oita Site)

Role: Manufacture of wafers

3500, Matsuoka, Oita-city Oita-pref., Japan d) Toshiba LSI Package Solutions Corporation (Kitsuki Site)

Role: Manufacture of LSI

2820-2, Minami-Kitsuki, Kitsuki-city, Oita-pref., Japan e) Sony EMCS Kisarazu Tec (Kisarazu Site)

Role: Initialization of the LSI / Installation of the customer's information to the LSI

8-4, Shiomi Kisarazu-shi, Chiba-pref., Japan

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 [9]) are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites.

33 / 34

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0662-2010

34 / 34

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