Certification Report: 0383a

Certification Report: 0383a

Certification Report

Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik

BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

for

Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0

from

Sdu Identification bv

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

Phone +49 (0)3018 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)3018 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)3018 9582-111

Certification Report V1.0 ZS-01-01-F-326 V3.4

BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

Security IC with MRTD BAC Application

Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0

from

Sdu Identification bv

Common Criteria Arrangement for components up to EAL4

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

(ISO/IEC 15408:2005) extended by advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL4 and smart card specific guidance for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security

Evaluation, version 2.3 (ISO/IEC 15408:2005).

Evaluation Results:

PP Conformance:

Functionality:

Machine Readable Travel Document with „ICAO Application", Basic

Access Control, version 1.0 (BSI-PP-0017-2005)

BSI-PP-0017-2005 conformant plus product specific extensions

Common Criteria Part 2 extended

Assurance Package: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant

EAL4 augmented by:

ADV_IMP.2 (Implementation of the TSF) and

ALC_DVS.2 (Sufficiency of security measures)

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.

The notes mentioned on the reverse side are part of this certificate.

Bonn, 02 May 2007

The President of the Federal Office for Information Security

Dr. Helmbrecht 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)3018 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)3018 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)3018 9582-111

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)

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.

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-0383-2007

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

5

• Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), version 2.3

• BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS)

• Advice from the Certification Body on methodology for assurance components above EAL4 (AIS 34)

2

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-0383-2007

In order to avoid multiple certification of the same product in different countries a mutual recognition of IT security certificates - as far as such certificates are based on ITSEC or CC - under certain conditions was agreed.

2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC - Certificates

The SOGIS-Agreement on the mutual recognition of certificates based on

ITSEC became effective in March 1998. This agreement has been 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) recognizes certificates issued by the national certification bodies of France and the United Kingdom within 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.

This evaluation contains the components ADV_IMP.2 (Implementation of the

TSF) and ALC_DVS.2 (Sufficiency of security measures) 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.

A-2

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 Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0 has undergone the certification procedure at BSI.

The evaluation of the product Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0 was conducted by

TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH. The TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)

6

recognised by BSI.

The sponsor and vendor is Sdu Identification bv

The certification is concluded with

• the comparability check and

• the production of this Certification Report.

This work was completed by the BSI on 02 May 2007.

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.

This Certification Report only applies to the version of the product indicated here. The validity can be extended to new versions and releases of the product, provided the sponsor applies for re-certification of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural requirements, and the evaluation does not reveal any security deficiencies.

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.

6

Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility

A-3

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

4 Publication

The following Certification Results contain pages B-1 to B-22 and D1 to D-4.

The product Sdu ICAO eMRTD 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.

Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the vendor

7

of the product. The Certification Report can also be downloaded from the abovementioned website.

7

Sdu Identification bv

Oudeweg 32

2031 CG Haarlem

The Netherlands

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-0383-2007

4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope

6 Documentation

9 Results of the Evaluation

10 Comments/Recommendations

11 Annexes

13 Definitions

14 Bibliography

13

14

15

17

17

18

18

20

3

11

12

12

13

13

B-2

Target of Evaluation (TOE) and subject of the Security Target (ST) [6] resp. [7] is the Security IC with a Machine Readable Travel Document, Basic Access

Control Application Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0 including Active

Authentication.

The Security Target is based on the Common Criteria Protection Profile

Machine Readable Travel Document with „ICAO Application", Basic Access

Control [9] extended by Active Authentication.

The TOE is the contactless integrated circuit chip of machine readable travel documents (MRTD’s chip) programmed according to the Logical Data Structure

(LDS) [10] and providing the Basic Access Control according to ICAO document

[11]. It will be embedded as an inlay chip module into a passport booklet.

The TOE comprises

• the Philips P5CD072V0Q including the circuitry of the MRTD’s chip (the integrated circuit, IC) with hardware for the contactless interface, e.g. antennae, capacitors,

• the IC Dedicated Software with the parts IC Dedicated Test Software and

IC Dedicated Support Software,

JCOP 31 v2.2, the IC Embedded Software (operating system),

Sdu eMRTD LDS Applet v1.2.3, the MRTD application, and the associated guidance documentation.

The TOE is a Smart Device with an operating system (JCOP) and a dedicated file-system, that contains all data relevant for the ICAO application.

For details on the MRTD chip and IC Dedicated Software see certification report

BSI-DSZ-CC-0294-2006-MA-01 Smartcard with Java Card Platform Philips

P531G072V0Q (JCOP 31 v2.2) [13] and related baseline report BSI-DSZ-CC-

0294-2006.

According to the MRTD BAC PP [9] the TOE life cycle is described in terms of the four life cycle phases.

• Life cycle phase 1 “Development”: Development of Hardware and

Software. This life cycle phase 1 covers Phase 1 and Phase 2 of PP0002

[12].

• Life cycle phase 2 “Manufacturing”: IC Production, Initialisation and Pre-

Personalization of the MRTD Application. This life cycle phase 2 corresponds to Phase 3 and Phase 4 of PP0002 [12] and may include for flexibility reasons Phase 5 and some production processes from Phase 6 as well.

B-3

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

Life cycle phase 3 “Personalization of the MRTD”: This life cycle phase corresponds to the remaining initialisation and personalization processes not covered yet from Phase 6 of the PP0002 [12].

Life cycle phase 4 “Operational Use”. This life cycle phase corresponds to the Phase 7 of the PP0002 [12].

The TOE is finished after initialisation, testing the OS, loading the MRTD applet and creation of the dedicated file system with security attributes and ready made for the import of LDS. This corresponds to the end of life cycle phase 2 of the Protection Profile MRTD BAC PP [9].

The IT product Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0 was evaluated by TÜV

Informationstechnik GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 13 March 2007.

The TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)

8

recognised by BSI.

The TOE security assurance requirements are based entirely on the assurance components defined in part 3 of the Common Criteria (see Annex C or [1], part

3 for details). The TOE meets the assurance requirements of assurance level

EAL4+ (Evaluation Assurance Level 4 augmented). The following table shows the augmented assurance components.

Requirement Identifier

EAL4 TOE evaluation: methodically designed, tested, and reviewed

+: ADV_IMP.2 Development – Implementation of the TSF

+: ALC_DVS.2 Life cycle support – Sufficiency of security measures

Table 1: Assurance components and EAL-augmentation

1.2 Functionality

The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) selected in the Security

Target are Common Criteria Part 2 extended as shown in the following tables.

The following SFRs are taken from CC part 2:

Security Functional Requirement Identifier and addressed issue

FCS_CKM.1/BAC_MRTD

FCS_CKM.4

FCS_COP.1/SHA_MRTD

Cryptographic key generation – Generation of Document Basic Access Keys by the TOE

Cryptographic key destruction - MRTD

Cryptographic operation – Hash for Key

Derivation by MRTD

8

Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility

B-4

Security Functional Requirement

FCS_COP.1/TDES_MRTD

FCS_COP.1/MAC_MRTD

FCS_COP.1/RSA

FDP

FDP_ACC.1 (PRIM)

FDP_ACC.1 (BASIC)

FDP_ACF.1 (PRIM)

FDP_ACF.1 (Basic)

FDP_ITC.1

FDP_UCT.1/MRTD

FDP_UIT.1/MRTD

FIA

FIA_UID.1

FIA_UAU.1

Identifier and addressed issue

Cryptographic operation – Encryption /

Decryption Triple-DES

Cryptographic operation – Retail MAC

Cryptographic operation – RSA Signature

User data protection

Subset access control – Primary Access

Control

Subset access control – Basic Access control

Security attribute based access control –

Primary Access Control

Security attribute based access control –

Basic Access Control

Import of user data without security attributes

Basic data exchange confidentiality - MRTD

Data exchange integrity - MRTD

Identification and authentication

Timing of identification

Timing of authentication

Single-use authentication of the Terminal by the TOE

Multiple authentication mechanisms FIA_UAU.5

FIA_UAU.6/MRTD Re-authenticating – Re-authenticating of

Terminal by the TOE

FMT_MOF.1

FMT_SMF.1

FMT_MTD.1/INI_ENA

FMT_MTD.1/INI_DIS

FMT_MTD.1/KEY_WRITE

FMT_MTD.1/KEY_READ

FPT

FPT_FLS.1

Management of functions in TSF

Specification of Management Functions

Management of TSF data – Writing of

Initialization Data and Pre-personalization

Data

Management of TSF data – Disabling of

Read Access to Initialization Data and Prepersonalization Data

Management of TSF data – Key Write

Management of TSF data – Key Read

Protection of the TOE Security Functions

Failure with preservation of secure state

B-5

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

Security Functional Requirement

FPT_PHP.3

FPT_RVM.1

Identifier and addressed issue

Resistance to physical attack

Non-bypassability of the TSP

Table 2: SFRs for the TOE taken from CC Part 2

The following CC part 2 extended SFRs are defined:

Security Functional Requirement Identifier and addressed issue

FCS_RND.1/MRTD Quality metric for random numbers

FPT Protection of the TOE Security Functions

Table 3: SFRs for the TOE, CC part 2 extended

Note: only the titles of the Security Functional Requirements are provided. For more details and application notes please refer to the ST chapter 5.1.

The following Security Functional Requirements are defined for the IT-

Environment of the TOE:

Security Functional Requirement Identifier and addressed issue

FCS_CKM.1/AAKGS

FCS_COP.1/AAIS

FCS_CKM.1/BAC_BT

FCS_CKM.4/BT

FCS_COP.1/SHA_BT

FCS_COP.1/ENC_BT

FCS_COP.1/MAC_BT

Cryptographic key generation – Generation of Active Authentication Keys

Cryptographic operation – RSA Signature

Cryptographic key generation – Generation of Document Basic Access Keys by the

Basic Terminal

Cryptographic key destruction – BT

Cryptographic operation – Hash Function by the Basic Terminal

Cryptographic operation – Secure

Messaging Encryption / Decryption by the

Basic Terminal

Cryptographic operation – Secure

B-6

Security Functional Requirement

FCS_RND.1/BT

FDP

FDP_DAU.1/DS

FDP_UCT.1/BT

FDP_UIT.1/BT

FIA

Identifier and addressed issue

messaging Message Authentication Code by the Basic Terminal

Quality metric for random numbers - Basic

Terminal

User data protection

Basic data authentication – Passive

Authentication

Basic data exchange confidentiality - Basic

Terminal

Data exchange integrity - Basic Terminal

Identification and authentication

Basic Terminal

FIA_UAU.6/BT Re-authentication - Basic Terminal

FIA_API.1/SYM_PT Authentication Proof of Identity -

Personalization Terminal Authentication with

Symmetric Key

Table 4: SFRs for the IT-Environment

Note: only the titles of the Security Functional Requirements are provided. For more details and application notes please refer to the ST chapter 5.3.

These Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the TOE Security

Functions:

TOE Security Function Addressed issue

SF.ACCESS

SF.MANAGEMENT

SF.CRYPTO

SF.AUTH

SF.PLATFORM

Realisation of either the Primary Access Control or the Basic

Access Control (configured by the Personalization Agent).

Providing of management functions in support of initialization

(installing the MRTD applet), personalization (write User Data) and configuring (Primary Access Control or Basic Access

Control mode) the TOE.

Providing of cryptographic functions

Identification and authentication based on roles

(Manufacturer, Personalization Agent, Primary Inspection

System, Basic Inspection System), access keys and challenge authentication methods.

Security functions from the JCOP platform

Table 5: Security Functions

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

B-7

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

The TOE’s strength of functions is claimed high (SOF-High) for the following security functions: SF.AUTH (Identification and Authentication).

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.

1.4 Summary of threats and Organisational Security Policies

(OSPs) addressed by the evaluated IT product

The ST defines the following assets taken from the MRTD BAC PP [9]:

Logical MRTD Data consisting of the data groups DG1 to DG16 and the

Document security object according to LDS [10]. These data are user data of the TOE. The data groups DG1 to DG14 and DG 16 contain personal data of the MRTD holder. The Active Authentication Public Key

Info in DG 15 is used by the inspection system for Active Authentication of the chip. The Document security object is used by the inspection system for Passive Authentication of the logical MRTD.

Authenticity of the MRTD’s chip

Assets have to be protected in terms of confidentiality and/or integrity.

The ST considers the following subjects taken from the MRTD BAC PP [9]:

Manufacturer, MRTD Holder, Traveller, Personalization Agent, Inspection

System (split into Primary Inspection System (PIS), Basic Inspection System

(BIS), and Extended Inspection System (EIS)), the Terminal and the Attacker. In addition the ST defines the subject Active Authentication Inspection System

(AAIS). For details refer to the Security Target chapter 3.1.1.

The following list of considered threats for the TOE is defined in the Security

Target taken from the MRTD BAC PP [9].

T.Chip_ID: Identification of MRTD’s chip

An attacker trying to trace the movement of the MRTD by identifying remotely the MRTD’s chip by establishing or listening a communication through the contactless communication interface. The attacker can not read and does not know in advance the MRZ data printed on the MRTD data page.

T.Skimming: Skimming the logical MRTD

An attacker imitates the inspection system to read the logical MRTD or parts of it via the contactless communication channel of the TOE. The attacker can not read and does not know in advance the MRZ data printed on the MRTD data page.

T.Eavesdropping: Eavesdropping to the communication between TOE and inspection system

An attacker is listening to the communication between the MRTD’s chip and an inspection system to gain the logical MRTD or parts of it. The inspection system

B-8

uses the MRZ data printed on the MRTD data page but the attacker does not know this data in advance.

An attacker alters fraudulently the complete stored logical MRTD or any part of it including its security related data in order to impose on an inspection system by means of the changed MRTD holder’s identity or biometric reference data.

This threat comprises several attack scenarios of MRTD forgery.

T.Abuse-Func: Abuse of Functionality

An attacker may use functions of the TOE which shall not be used in TOE operational phase in order (i) to manipulate User Data, (ii) to manipulate

(explore, bypass, deactivate or change) security features or functions of the

TOE or (iii) to disclose or to manipulate TSF Data. This threat addresses the misuse of the functions for the initialisation and the personalization in the operational state after delivery to MRTD holder.

T.Information_Leakage: Information Leakage from MRTD’s chip

An attacker may exploit information which is leaked from the TOE during its usage in order to disclose confidential TSF data. The information leakage may be inherent in the normal operation or caused by the attacker.

An attacker may perform physical probing of the MRTD’s chip in order to disclose TSF Data to disclose/reconstruct the MRTD’s chip Embedded

Software. An attacker may physically modify the MRTD’s chip in order to (i) modify security features or functions of the MRTD’s chip, (ii) modify security functions of the MRTD’s chip Embedded Software, (iii) to modify User Data or

(iv) to modify TSF data.

An attacker may cause a malfunction of TSF or of the MRTD’s chip Embedded

Software by applying environmental stress in order to (i) deactivate or modify security features or functions of the TOE or (ii) circumvent or deactivate or modify security functions of the MRTD’s chip Embedded Software.

The following threat is defined in the Security Target in addition to the MRTD

BAC PP [9]:

T.Clone: Attempt to Clone with public information

An attacker may attempt to clone a valid passport using the MRTD read from the valid passport’s IC. If an attacker holds the MRTD IC, they can read both

BAC enabled or disabled passports

For more details refer to the Security Target chapter 3.3.

The TOE shall comply to the following organisation security policies as security rules, procedures, practices, or guidelines imposed by an organisation upon its operations:

B-9

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

P.Manufact: Manufacturing of the MRTD’s chip

The IC Manufacturer and MRTD Manufacturer ensure the quality and the security of the manufacturing process and control the MRTD’s material in the

Phase 2 Manufacturing. The Initialisation Data are written by the IC

Manufacturer to identify the IC uniquely. The MRTD Manufacturer writes the

Pre-personalization Data which contains at least the Personalization Agent Key.

P.Personalization: Personalization of the MRTD by issuing State or

Organisation only

The issuing State or Organisation guarantees the correctness of the biographical data, the printed portrait and the digitised portrait, the biometric reference data and other data of the logical MRTD with respect to the MRTD holder. The personalization of the MRTD for the holder is performed by authorised agents of the issuing State or Organisation only.

P.Personal_Data: Personal data protection policy

The biographical data and their summary printed in the MRZ and stored on the

MRTD’s chip (DG1), the printed portrait and the digitised portrait (DG2), the biometric reference data of finger(s) (DG3), the biometric reference data of iris image(s) (DG4) and data according to LDS (DG5 to DG14, DG16) stored on the

MRTD’s chip are personal data of the MRTD holder. These data groups are intended to be used only with agreement of the MRTD holder by inspection systems to which the MRTD is presented. The MRTD’s chip shall provide the possibility for the Basic Access Control to allow read access to these data only for terminals successfully authenticated based on knowledge of the Document

Basic Access Keys as defined in [11].

The issuing State or Organisation decides (i) to enable the Basic Access

Control and Active Authentication for the protection of the MRTD holder personal data or (ii) to disable the Basic Access Control to allow Primary

Inspection Systems of the receiving States and all other terminals to read the logical MRTD. This configuration is performed during the personalization phase

3 of the TOE life cycle.

1.6 Assumptions about the operating environment

The assumptions describe the security aspects of the environment in which the

TOE will be used or is intended to be used. The ST defines the following assumptions taken from the MRTD BAC PP [9]:

A.Pers_Agent Personalization of the MRTD’s chip

The Personalization Agent ensures the correctness of (i) the logical MRTD with respect to the MRTD holder, (ii) the Document Basic Access Keys, (iii) the

Active Authentication Public Key Info (DG15) if stored on the MRTD’s chip, and

(iv) the Document Signer Public Key Certificate (if stored on the MRTD’s chip).

The Personalization Agent signs the Document Security Object. The

B-10

Personalization Agent bears the Personalization Agent Authentication to authenticate himself to the TOE by symmetric cryptographic mechanisms.

A.Insp_Sys

The Inspection System is used by the border control officer of the receiving

State (i) examining an MRTD presented by the traveller and verifying its authenticity and (ii) verifying the traveller as MRTD holder. The Primary

Inspection System for global interoperability contains the Country Signing Public

Key and the Document Signer Public Key of each issuing State or Organization

[11]. The Primary Inspection System performs the Passive Authentication to verify the logical MRTD if the logical MRTD is not protected by Basic Access

Control. The Basic Inspection System in addition to the Primary Inspection

System implements the terminal part of the Basic Access Control and reads the logical MRTD being under Basic access Control.

To be considered an Active Authentication Inspection System, a Primary

Inspection System or Basic Inspection System must be able to verify that the

Active Authentication private key (stored on the MRTD IC) matches the Active

Authentication public key contained in the logical MRTD using a challenge response mechanism in the TOE, [11] section 2.3.2.

1.7 Disclaimers

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:

Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0

The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:

No Type Identifier

SW

Release Form of Delivery eMRTD LDS Applet v1.2.3 and JCOP 31 v2.2 Java

Card Platform

9

Version 1.0 SW completely contained in ROM and EEPROM memory, chip mounted into an inlay package initialised and tested

9

For details on the MRTD chip, IC Dedicated Software and operating system see certification report BSI-DSZ-CC-0294-2006-MA-01 Smartcard with Java Card Platform

Philips P531G072V0Q (JCOP 31 v2.2) from IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH [13].

B-11

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

No Type Identifier Release Form of Delivery

2 DOC Electronic Passport Admin

Guidance for Sdu ICAO 12 September eMRTD [14] 2006 as pdf file, encrypted

3 DOC Electronic Passport User Document in paper / electronic form

Guidance for Sdu ICAO 12 September as pdf file, encrypted eMRTD [15] 2006

Table 6: Deliverables of the TOE

For this TOE, only one applet is present on the IC, namely the MRTD

Application. The TOE is finalized at the end of phase 2 as an initialized and prepersonalized inlay module according to the MRTD BAC PP. Delivery is performed from the Initialization facility to the personalization facility (Sdu) by a secured transport. Furthermore, the Personalization Agent receives information about the personalization commands and process requirements to be followed.

The Personalization Agent can check the identification data of the chip by the

GET DATA CPLC command and the applet version by the GET INFO command

(the VERSION field of LDS applet v1.2.3 is set to the value: 0155-0300-

01.02.03.0012). The GET_INFO command can be executed in personalization phase and optional (configurable by Personalization Agent) in operational phase. The JCOP platform can be identified by using the IDENTIFY command during all life cycle phases as outlined in the Electronic Passport Admin

Guidance document [14].

The security policy of the TOE is defined according to the MRTD BAC PP by the security objectives and requirements for the contactless chip of machine readable travel documents (MRTD) based on the requirements and recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). It addresses the advanced security methods Basic Access Control in the

Technical reports of the ICAO New Technology Working Group. The Security

Target extends the PP by including Active Authentication as specified in [11].

4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope

The assumptions on Personalization of the MRTD’s chip and on Inspection

Systems for global interoperability as outlined above are of relevance.

The state or organisation issues the MRTD to be used by the holder for international travel. The traveller presents a MRTD to the inspection system to prove his or her identity. The authentication of the traveller is based on (i) the possession of a valid MRTD personalized for a holder with the claimed identity as given on the biographical data page and (ii) biometrics using the reference data stored in the MRTD. The issuing State or Organisation ensure the authenticity of the data of genuine MRTD’s. The receiving State trust a genuine

MRTD of a issuing State or Organisation.

B-12

The TOE consists of the subsystems LdsApplet, TransparentEF and due to usage of the underlying platform (JCOP Platform) the subsystem JCOP-

Platform.

The LdsApplet handles all personalization and operational APDU calls, starting with the SELECT DF by AID, where the AID is the AID specified in the LDS 1.7 specification. This command is handled mostly by the Global Platform Card

Manager, which is part of the JCOP Platform. The ATS is also part of the JCOP

Platform, and is not handled by the LdsApplet class. All the other APDUs needed for performing the personalization and handling of the LDS functionality are implemented by the LdsApplet.

TransparentEF is a class that implements an ISO 7816-4 compliant Transparent

EF. The file-system, which is part of the LdsApplet is responsible for identification and/or access control. Therefore, this class does not offer any methods or fields for identification or access control.

Only the API of the Java Card 2.2.1, which is part of the evaluated JCOP

Platform runtime environment, is used by the LdsApplet implementation to provide the required standard interfaces.

External interface of the composite TOE used in the MRTD application is a specific set of commands operating on a defined file-system of the application.

This interface is available to the inspection system via the contactless chip interface.

6 Documentation

The Electronic Passport Admin Guidance for Sdu ICAO eMRTD [14] is provided for the Personalization Agent of the TOE who needs information about security procedures and how the TOE supports the personalization process.

The Electronic Passport User Guidance for Sdu ICAO eMRTD [15] is provided for the developer of an inspection system who needs information how the TOE interacts with the inspection system.

7 IT Product Testing

Developer tests, independent evaluator tests and penetration tests were performed using MRTD chips as defined in table 6, no.1.

TOEs in the configuration LDS (Logical Data Structure) and BAC (Basic Access

Control) were tested.

The physical configuration tested was equal to the physical configuration described in Security Target except that the plastic wrapping and by that the visual readable data including personal data of the MRTD holder was missing.

The separate data summary (MRZ data) for visual and machine reading using

B-13

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

OCR methods in the Machine readable zone was emulated by the test environment.

Besides the used file system consisting of EF.COM, EF.DG1 and EF.DG12, combinations of configuration options were tested, as related to Basic Access

Control to the logical MRTD, Active Authentication of the MRTD’s chip and the

CPLC readability.

Testing is performed on the final TOE, consisting of the platform specified and the LDS applet, accessed through a contact less card reader. All developer’s tests address the observable behaviour of the TOE, with one single exception of a test case which reverts to code inspection of the applet code.

The testing approach for each security function of the TSF is suitable to demonstrate the expected behaviour. Test of SF.PLATFORM itself were reused from the platform certification. Testing was performed with the composite product using the certified platform.

Testing covers the TOE life cycle phases Manufacturing (limited to Prepersonalization), Personalization and Operation. Each script moves the TOE to a defined state by reloading and, if needed, personalizing the LDS.

The analysis of coverage and depth of developer testing is demonstrated in the test documentation. The developer has tested the TOE systematically tested on the level of the Functional Specification (FSP) and on High Level Design (HLD) subsystem level. The test cases defined showed the conformance to the expected behaviour of the TOE in the personalization and operational phase.

The evaluators testing approach has been to repeat all developer’s tests, to test all TSF either completely newly designed or as iterations from developer’s tests to show the correctness of the implemented TSFs using the contact less APDU

Interface used to test logical interface to the LDS Applet. A JCWorkBench tool was used. The TOE operated as specified. Independent evaluator tests were performed in all relevant TOE life-cycle phases after TOE delivery as described in Security Target. The tests confirmed the expected behaviour as specified.

The evaluators penetration tests confirmed the effectiveness of all security functions of the TOE. During these tests the different life cycle phases were considered. The penetration tests were performed based on the developers vulnerability analysis and based on the independent vulnerability analysis of the evaluator. Potential vulnerabilities were assessed upon their exploitability by analysis and tests. Analysis results and tests results showed that potential vulnerabilities are not exploitable in the intended operational environment of the

TOE and that the TOE is resistant against low attack potential AVA_VLA.2 as specified.

The TOE is delivered at the end of phase 2 in form of initialised and tested inlay module as outlined in the Protection Profile MRTD BAC PP [9].

B-14

All procedures for personalization and configuration for the end-user necessary after delivery are described in the Administrator Guidance document [14].

9 Results of the Evaluation

The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR), [8] 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.

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 Document, ETR-lite for Composition:

Annex A Composite smart card evaluation [4, AIS 36]. The ETR [8] builds up on the ETR-lite for Composition document of the evaluation of the underlying platform BSI-DSZ-CC-0294-2006-MA-01 [13] and the related baseline certification BSI-DSZ-CC-0249-2006.

The evaluation methodology CEM [2] was used for those components identical with EAL4. For components beyond EAL4 the methodology was defined in coordination with the Certification Body [4, AIS 34]). For smart card specific methodology the scheme interpretations AIS 25, AIS 26 and AIS 36 (see [4]) were used.

The verdicts for the CC, Part 3 assurance components (according to EAL4 augmented and the class ASE for the Security Target evaluation) are summarised in the following table.

Assurance classes and components

Security Target evaluation CC Class ASE

Verdict

PASS

IT security requirements

Explicitly stated IT security requirements

TOE summary specification

ASE_REQ.1 PASS

ASE_SRE.1 PASS

ASE_TSS.1 PASS

Configuration management

Partial CM automation

CC Class ACM PASS

ACM_AUT.1 PASS

Generation support and acceptance procedures ACM_CAP.4 PASS

Problem tracking CM coverage ACM_SCP.2 PASS

Delivery and operation

Detection of modification

CC Class ADO

ADO_DEL.2

PASS

PASS

B-15

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

Assurance classes and components

Installation, ADO_IGS.1

Development

Fully defined external interfaces

CC Class ADV

ADV_FSP.2

Security enforcing high-level design

Implementation of the TSF

Descriptive low-level design

ADV_HLD.2

ADV_IMP.2

ADV_LLD.1

Verdict

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

Informal TOE security policy model

Guidance documents

Life cycle support

Sufficiency of security measures

Developer defined life-cycle model

Well-defined development tools

ADV_SPM.1 PASS

CC Class AGD PASS

AGD_ADM.1 PASS

AGD_USR.1 PASS

CC Class ALC

ALC_DVS.2

ALC_LCD.1

ALC_TAT.1

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

Analysis of coverage

Testing: high-level design

Functional testing

Independent testing - sample

ATE_COV.2

ATE_DPT.1

ATE_FUN.1

ATE_IND.2

PASS

PASS

PASS

PASS

Validation of analysis

Strength of TOE security function evaluation

Independent vulnerability analysis

AVA_MSU.2

AVA_SOF.1

AVA_VLA.2

Table 7: Verdicts for the assurance components

PASS

PASS

PASS

The evaluation has shown that:

• the TOE is conformant to the PP Machine Readable Travel Document with „ICAO Application", Basic Access Control, version 1.0 (BSI-PP-

0017-2005) [9]

• Security Functional Requirements specified for the TOE are PP conformant plus product specific extensions and are Common Criteria

Part 2 extended

• the assurance of the TOE is Common Criteria Part 3 conformant, EAL4 augmented by ADV_IMP.2 (Implementation of the TSF) and ALC_DVS.2

(Sufficiency of security measures).

B-16

The following TOE Security Functions fulfil the claimed Strength of Function

SOF-high: SF.AUTH, SF.PLATFORM (see table 5 above). The RNG was tested by using AIS20 class K3 requirements.

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).

This holds for the Triple-DES functionality.

For specific evaluation results regarding the development and production environment see annex A in part D of this report.

The results of the evaluation are only applicable to Sdu ICAO eMRTD version

1.0 as defined in table 6 above. The validity can be extended to new versions and releases of the product, provided the sponsor applies for re-certification or assurance continuity of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural requirements, and the evaluation of the modified product does not reveal any security deficiencies.

10 Comments/Recommendations

The operational documents [14] and [15] contain necessary information about the usage of the TOE and all security hints therein have to be considered.

The TOEs implemented security functions meet the claimed strength of function

SOF-high from design and construction point of view. The strength of function available in a specific system context where the TOE is used depends on the selection of the data used to set up the communication to the TOE. Therefore the issuing state or organisation is responsible for the strength of function that can be achieved in a specific system context. This has to be assessed in the specific system context. Then, the administrator (Personalization Agent) is in collaboration with the issuing state or organisation responsible to provide keys with sufficient entropy, as required by the specific system context.

Only chips from the production sites (waferfabs, module and inlay production sites) as outlined in the certification reports for BSI-DSZ-CC-0294-2006-MA-01

[13] and the related baseline certification BSI-DSZ-CC-0249-2006 shall be used.

The Personalization Agent has to verify that they got the correct version of the

TOE. TOE version identification by the GET_INFO command shall be possible in operational phase.

Defect chips and invalid passports including a chip must be destroyed in a way that the chip itself is destructed.

11 Annexes

Annex A: Evaluation results regarding the development and production environment (see part D of this report).

B-17

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

For the purpose of publishing, the security target [7] of the target of evaluation

(TOE) is provided within a separate document. It is a sanitized version of the complete security target [6] used for the evaluation performed.

13 Definitions

13.1 Acronyms

APDU

BAC

BSI

CC

CEM

Application Protocol Data Unit

Basic Access Control

Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal

Office for Information Security, Bonn, Germany

Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation

Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation

DES Data Encryption Standard; symmetric block cipher algorithm

DOC Document

EEPROM Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory

ICAO

ITSEF

MRTD

RAM

RNG

ROM

SFP

SOF

TOE

International Civil Aviation Organisation

Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility

Machine Readable Travel Document

Random Access Memory

Random Number Generator

Read Only Memory

Security Function Policy

Strength of Function

Target of Evaluation

B-18

TSC

TSF

TSP

TSS

TSF Scope of Control

TOE Security Functions

TOE Security Policy

TOE Summary Specification

13.2 Glossary

Augmentation - The addition of one or more assurance component(s) from CC

Part 3 to an EAL or assurance package.

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

CC.

Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on well-established mathematical concepts.

Informal - Expressed in natural language.

Object - An entity within the TSC that contains or receives information and upon which subjects perform operations.

Protection Profile - An implementation-independent set of security 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.

B-19

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

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.

14 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 2, 29 July 2002 for: CC Supporting Document, -

The Application of CC to Integrated Circuits, Version 1.2, July

2002

- AIS 26, Version 2, 6 August 2002 for: CC Supporting Document, -

Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards, Version 1.1, July

2002

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

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

CC Assurance Classes for EAL5+

- 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

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

[6] Electronic Passport SECURITY TARGET for Sdu ICAO eMRTD, BSI-

DSZ-CC-0383 Version 1.5.4, Sdu (confidential document)

B-20

[7] Electronic Passport SECURITY TARGET LITE for Sdu ICAO eMRTD,

BSI-DSZ-CC-0383, Version 1.0.0, Sdu (sanitized public document)

0383 for Sdu ICAO eMRTD 1.0, TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH

(confidential document) with „ICAO Application", Basic Access Control, BSI-PP-0017, Version

1.0, 18 August 2005, BSI a Logical Data Structure – LDS, For Optional Capacity Expansion

Technologies, Revision –1.7, published by authority of the secretary general, International Civil Aviation Organisation, LDS 1.7, 18 May 2004

Readable Travel Documents Offering ICC Read-Only Access, Version -

1.1, 01 October 2004, published by authority of the secretary general,

International Civil Aviation Organisation

[12] Smartcard IC Platform Protection Profile, Version 1.0, July 2001, BSI registration ID: BSI-PP-0002-2001, developed by Atmel Smart Card ICs,

Hitachi Ltd., Infineon Technologies AG, Philips Semiconductors

Card Platform Philips P531G072V0Q (JCOP 31 v2.2) from IBM

Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, 01 September 2006, BSI

[14] Electronic Passport Admin Guidance for Sdu ICAO eMRTD, BSI-DSZ-

CC-0383, Version 1.1, 12 September 2006, Sdu

[15] Electronic Passport User Guidance for Sdu ICAO eMRTD, BSI-DSZ-CC-

0383, Version 1.1, 12 September 2006, Sdu

B-21

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

B-22

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: a) 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. b) 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: a) 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. b) 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: a) Package name Conformant - A PP or TOE is conformant to a predefined 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. b) 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: a) PP Conformant - A TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the conformance result.“

C-1

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

CC Part 3:

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

AVA: Vulnerability assessment

Depth (ATE_DPT)

Functional tests (ATE_FUN)

Independent testing (ATE_IND)

Covert channel analysis (AVA_CCA)

Misuse (AVA_MSU)

Strength of TOE security functions (AVA_SOF)

Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA)

Table 1: Assurance family breakdown and mapping”

C-2

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-3

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

Assurance Class Assurance

Family

EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7

Configuration management

ACM_AUT 1 1 2 2

ACM_CAP

ACM_SCP

Delivery and operation

Assurance Components by

Evaluation Assurance Level

ADO_DEL 1 1 2 2 2 3

ADO_IGS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ADV_HLD 1 2 2 3 4 5

ADV_IMP

ADV_INT

ADV_LLD

ADV_RCR

ADV_SPM

Guidance documents

AGD_USR

Life cycle support

ALC_DVS 1 1 1 2 2

ALC_FLR

ALC_LCD

ALC_TAT

Tests ATE_COV 1 2 2 2 3 3

ATE_DPT

ATE_FUN 1 1 1 1 2 2

ATE_IND 1 2 2 2 2 2 3

Vulnerability assessment

AVA_CCA 1 2 2

AVA_MSU

AVA_SOF 1 1 1 1 1 1

AVA_VLA 1 1 2 3 4 4

Table 6: Evaluation assurance level summary”

C-4

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-5

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

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-6

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.“

C-7

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

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: Evaluation results regarding development and production environment D-3

D-1

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

D-2

This page is intentionally left blank.

Annex A of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

Evaluation results regarding development and production environment

The IT product Sdu ICAO eMRTD version 1.0 (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 (ISO/IEC

15408:2005), extended by advice of the Certification Body for components beyond EAL4 and smart card specific guidance, for conformance to the

Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, version 2.3 (ISO/IEC15408: 2005).

As a result of the TOE certification, dated 02 May 2007, the following results regarding the development and production environment apply. The Common

Criteria 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.2, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.1), are fulfilled for the development and production sites of the TOE listed below: a) Sdu Identification bv, Oudeweg 32, 2031 GH Haarlem, The Netherlands

(Development environment and production (initialization, prepersonalization) environment)

Note: The personalization process was not part of the evaluation. b) Aontec Teotorante, Pairc Tionscail na Tulaigh, Baile na hAbhann,

Co.Galway, Ireland (inlay assembly) c) PAV Card, Hamburger Strasse 6, D-22952 Lütjensee, Germany (inlay assembly)

For development and productions sites regarding the JCOP platform refer to the certification report BSI-DSZ-CC-0294-2006-MA-01 [13] and the related baseline certification BSI-DSZ-CC-0249-2006 chapter 9.

For the sites listed above, the requirements have been specifically applied in

accordance with the Security Target (Electronic Passport SECURITY TARGET for Sdu ICAO eMRTD, BSI-DSZ-CC-0383 Version 1.5.4, Sdu (confidential document) [6]). The evaluators verified, that the requirements for the TOE life

cycle phases up to delivery (as stated in the Security Target [6]) are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites.

D-3

Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0383-2007

D-4

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