Security Target: 0802b_pdf
PUBLIC
Common Criteria
Information Technology
Security Evaluation
Project Crow IV
Security Target Lite of
Samsung S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7
16-bit RISC Microcontroller
for Smart Card with
specific IC Dedicated Software
Version 1.1
22nd March 2012
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
REVISION HISTORY
UPDATES:
Version
Date
Modification
1.0
19th December 2011
Creation
1.1
22nd March 2012
ITSEF comments
Version 1.1
Page 2 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
CONTENTS
1
ST INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2
CONFORMANCE CLAIMS ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3
SECURITY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOE ........................................................................ 33
TOE ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................... 40
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS RATIONALE ............................................................................................... 41
TOE SUMMARY SPECIFICATION ......................................................................................................... 49
7.1
8
DEFINITION OF THE FAMILY FCS_RNG ............................................................................................... 29
DEFINITION OF THE FAMILY FMT_LIM ................................................................................................. 30
DEFINITION OF THE FAMILY FAU_SAS ................................................................................................ 31
IT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 33
6.1
6.2
6.3
7
SECURITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE TOE ................................................................................................. 21
SECURITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE SECURITY IC EMBEDDED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT .... 24
SECURITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................. 25
SECURITY OBJECTIVES RATIONALE ..................................................................................................... 26
EXTENDED COMPONENTS DEFINITION ............................................................................................. 29
5.1
5.2
5.3
6
DESCRIPTION OF ASSETS ................................................................................................................... 12
THREATS ........................................................................................................................................... 13
ORGANIZATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES ................................................................................................ 18
ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 19
SECURITY OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
CC CONFORMANCE CLAIM ................................................................................................................. 10
PP CLAIM .......................................................................................................................................... 10
PACKAGE CLAIM ................................................................................................................................ 10
CONFORMANCE CLAIM RATIONALE...................................................................................................... 10
SECURITY PROBLEM DEFINITION ...................................................................................................... 12
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4
SECURITY TARGET AND TOE REFERENCE............................................................................................. 4
TOE OVERVIEW AND TOE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4
INTERFACES OF THE TOE ..................................................................................................................... 9
TOE INTENDED USAGE ........................................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF SECURITY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................. 49
ANNEX .................................................................................................................................................... 53
8.1
8.2
8.3
GLOSSARY......................................................................................................................................... 53
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 54
LITERATURE....................................................................................................................................... 56
Version 1.1
Page 3 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
1 ST INTRODUCTION
2
This introductory chapter contains the following sections:
1.1 Security Target and TOE Reference
1.2 TOE Overview and TOE Description
1.3 Interfaces of the TOE
1.4 TOE Intended Usage
1.1
Security Target and TOE Reference
3
The Security Target Lite version is 1.1 and dated 22nd March 2012.
4
The Security Target is based on
[5] Eurosmart, Security IC Platform Protection Profile, Version 1.0, June 2007, BSI-PP-0035.
5
The Protection Profile and the Security Target are built on Common Criteria version 3.1.
Title: Security Target of S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 16-Bit RISC Microcontroller for Smart
Cards with specific IC Dedicated Software
Target of Evaluation: S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 16-Bit RISC Microcontroller for Smart
Cards, Revision 0 with specific IC Dedicated Software
Provided by: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Common Criteria version :
[1] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 1:
Introduction and general model, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-001.
[2] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Security
Functional Components, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-002.
[3] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security
Assurance Components, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-003.
[4] Common Criteria, Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Evaluation
Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-004.
1.2
TOE Overview and TOE Description
1.2.1
Introduction
6
The Target of Evaluation (TOE), the S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 revision 0 microcontroller is a
smartcard integrated circuit which is composed of a processing unit, security components, contact
based I/O ports, hardware circuit for testing purpose during the manufacturing process and volatile
and non-volatile memories (hardware). The TOE also includes any IC Designer/Manufacturer
proprietary IC Dedicated Software as long as it physically exists in the smartcard integrated circuit
after being delivered by the IC Manufacturer. Such software (also known as IC firmware) is used for
testing purpose during the manufacturing process but also provides additional services to facilitate
the usage of the hardware and/or to provide additional services, including an AIS31 compliant
random number generator ([6]). All other software is called Smartcard Embedded Software and is not
part of the TOE. The TOEs S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CC9A7 are identical in hardware and only its
EEPROM memory size is different. EEPROM size can be selected by hardware circuit before wafer
testing in TEST mode. Therefore compared to the S3CT9AC (physical EEPROM size: 72KB, logical
EEPROM size: 72KB) the unused EEPROM area of S3CT9AA (physical EEPROM size: 72KB, logical
Version 1.1
Page 4 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
EEPROM size: 40KB) and S3CT9A7 (physical EEPROM size: 72KB, logical EEPROM size: 20KB) is
blocked and protected by SFR4: FDP_ACC.1: Subset access control (Invalid address access).
1.2.2
TOE Definition
7
The S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 single-chip CMOS micro-controller is designed and packaged
specifically for "Smart Card" applications.
8
The CalmRISC16 CPU architecture of the S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 microcontroller follows the
Harvard style, that is, it has separate program memory and data memory. Both instruction and data
can be fetched simultaneously without causing a stall, using separate paths for memory access.
9
The main security features of the S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 integrated circuit are:
Security sensors or detectors including High and Low Temperature detectors, High and Low
Frequency detectors, High and Low Supply Voltage detectors, Supply Voltage Glitch detectors,
Light detector and the Passivation Removing Detector
Active Shields against physical intrusive attacks
Dedicated tamper-resistant design based on synthesizable glue logic and secure topology
Dedicated hardware mechanisms against side-channel attacks such as Internal Variable Clock,
Random Current Generator, Random Waits Generator, RAM and EEPROM encryption
mechanisms
Secure DES Symmetric Cryptography support
A Hardware True Random Number Generator (DTRNG) that meet P2 class of BSI-AIS31
(German Metric)
The IC Dedicated Software includes:
- A DTRNG library built around Hardware DTRNG together with a DTRNG application note
that meets the P2 class of BSI-AIS31 (German Metric)
10
The main hardware blocks of the S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 Integrated Circuit are described in
Figure 1 below:
11
12
Figure 1 S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 Block Diagram
Version 1.1
Page 5 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
13
*Note that only the Triple DES algorithm belongs to the TOE, not the Single DES.
14
The TOE consists of the following Hardware and Software:
TOE Hardware
•
72K bytes (S3CT9AC), 40K bytes (S3CT9AA), 20K bytes (S3CT9A7) EEPROM/4K bytes
RAM/128K User ROM/4K bytes Test ROM
•
16-bit Central Processing Unit (CPU)
•
Power Control
•
Detectors & Security control(DSC)
•
Random number generator
•
Memory Protection Unit (MPU)
•
Triple DES cryptographic coprocessor with 112 or 168 bits key size
•
Hardware UART for contact I/O modes (IO)
•
Address & data buses(BUS)
•
Clock control
•
Reset Control
•
Timers
TOE Software
15
16
The TOE software comprises the following components:
•
Test ROM code that is used for testing the chip during production
•
A True Random Number Generator (DTRNG) that fulfills the requirements of AIS 31, Class P2
The TOE configuration is summarized in table 1 below:
Item Type
Item
Version
S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3C
T9A7 16-Bit RISC
Microcontroller for Smart
Card
0
Software
Test ROM Code
1.0
Included
in
S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 Test
ROM
Software
DTRNG
2.0
Software Library
Document
DTRNG Application Note
1.3
Softcopy
Document
Hardware User’s manual
1.21
Softcopy
Document
Security Application Note
1.4
Softcopy
Document
Delivery Specification
0.1
Softcopy
Document
Architecture Reference:
SecuCalm16 CPU Core
AR14
Softcopy
Hardware
Form of delivery
Wafer or Module
Table 1 TOE Configuration
Version 1.1
Page 6 of 56
CROW IV
1.2.3
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
TOE Features
CPU
• 16-bit SecuCalm core
Memory
• 128K-byte Program Memory (ROM)
•
4K- byte Test ROM
•
72K-byte(S3CT9AC),
(EEPROM)
•
4K-byte Data Memory (RAM)
40K-byte(S3CT9AA),
20K-byte(S3CT9A7)
Data/Program
Memory
EEPROM Write Operations
• Min. 500,000 write/erase cycles
•
Data retention for min. 10 years
Triple DES
• Built-in hardware Triple DES accelerator
•
Circuit for resistance against SPA and DPA attacks
Abnormal Condition Detectors
• Abnormal Voltage/Frequency/Light/Temperature detectors
•
Power glitch detector (internal/external)
•
Inner insulation removal detector
•
Active shield removal detector
Interrupts
• Two interrupt sources and vectors (FIQ,IRQ)
Serial I/O Interface
• UART for handling serial I/O interface in accordance with the ISO 7816 communication
protocols
Reset and Power Down Mode
• Stop mode
Random Number Generator
• A Digtial True random number generator (DTRNG)
Memory Protection Unit
The MPU allow the CPU to access memories through channels. Each channel can allow the access to
a contiguous range of address.
Memory Encryption and Bus Scrambling
• Dynamic Data encryption for bus
Timers
• 16-Bit Timer
Version 1.1
Page 7 of 56
CROW IV
•
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
20-bit Watchdog Timer
Clock Sources
• External clock: 1 MHz–7.5 MHz
Operating Voltage Range
• 1.62 V - 5.5 V
Operating Temperature
• - 25°C to 85°C
Package
• Wafer
•
1.2.4
17
8-pin COB (compliant with ISO 7816)
TOE Life cycle
The complex development and manufacturing processes of a Composite Product can be separated
into seven distinct phases. The phases 2 and 3 of the Composite Product life cycle cover the IC
development and production:
-
IC Development (Phase 2):
-
-
IC design,
-
IC Dedicated Software development,
the IC Manufacturing (Phase 3):
-
integration and photomask fabrication,
-
IC production,
-
IC testing,
-
preparation and
-
Pre-personalisation if necessary
The Composite Product life cycle phase 4 can be included in the evaluation of the IC as an option:
- the IC Packaging (Phase 4):
- Security IC packaging (and testing),
- Pre-personalisation if necessary.
18
In addition, three important stages have to be considered in the Composite Product life cycle:
-
Security IC Embedded Software Development (Phase 1),
-
the Composite Product finishing process, preparation and shipping to the personalisation line
for the Composite Product (Composite Product Integration Phase 5),
-
the Composite Product personalisation and testing stage where the User Data is loaded into the
Security IC's memory (Personalisation Phase 6),
-
the Composite Product usage by its issuers and consumers (Operational Usage Phase 7) which
may include loading and other management of applications in the field.
Version 1.1
Page 8 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Figure 2 Definition of “TOE Delivery” and responsible Parties
19
1.3
1.4
20
The Security IC Embedded Software is developed outside the TOE development in Phase 1. The TOE
is developed in Phase 2 and produced in Phase 3. Then the TOE is delivered in form of wafers.
Interfaces of the TOE
•
The physical interface of the TOE with the external environment is the entire surface of the IC
•
The electrical interface of the TOE with the external environment is made of the chip’s pads
including the VDD, RESETB, XCLK, GND and IO1
•
The data interface of the TOE is made of the Contact I/O pads.
•
The software interface of the TOE with the hardware consists of Special Function Registers (SFR)
and CPU instructions.
•
The TRNG interface of the TOE is defined by the DTRNG library interface.
TOE Intended Usage
The TOE is dedicated to applications such as:
Banking and finance applications for credit or debit cards, electronic purse (stored value cards)
and electronic commerce.
Network based transaction processing such a mobile phones (GSM SIM cards), pay TV
(subscriber and pay-per-view cards), communication highways (Internet access and transaction
processing).
Transport and ticketing applications (access control cards).
Governmental cards (ID cards, health cards, driving licenses).
Multimedia applications and Digital Right Management protection.
Version 1.1
Page 9 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
2 CONFORMANCE CLAIMS
21
This chapter 2 contains the following sections:
2.1 CC Conformance Claim
2.2 PP Claim
2.3 Package Claim
2.4 Conformance Claim Rationale
2.1
CC Conformance Claim
22
This Security target claims to be conformant to the Common Criteria version 3.1.
23
Furthermore it claims to be CC Part 2 extended and CC Part 3 conformant. The extended Security
Functional Requirements are defined in chapter 5.
24
This Security Target has been built with the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation; Version 3.1 which comprises
[1] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 1: Introduction
and general model, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-001.
[2] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Security
Functional Components, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-002.
[3] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security
Assurance Components, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-003.
[4] Common Criteria, Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Evaluation
Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009, CCMB-2009-07-004.
25
2.2
has been taken into account.
PP Claim
26
This Security Target is strict compliant to the Security IC Platform Protection Profile [5]. The Security
IC Platform Protection Profile is registered and certified by the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der
Informationstechnik (BSI) under the reference BSI-PP-0035, Version 1.0, dated 15.06.2007.
27
This ST does not claim conformance to any other PP.
2.3
28
2.4
Package Claim
The assurance level for this Security Target is EAL5 augmented with AVA_VAN.5 and ALC_DVS.2.
Conformance Claim Rationale
29
This security target claims strict conformance only to one PP, the Security IC Platform Protection
Profile [5].
30
The Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) of the PP [5] is EAL 4 augmented with the assurance
components ALC_DVS.2 and AVA_VAN.5. The Assurance Requirements of the TOE obtain the
Evaluation Assurance Level 5 augmented with the assurance components ALC_DVS.2 and
AVA_VAN.5 for the TOE.
Version 1.1
Page 10 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
31
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is a complete solution implementing a security integrated circuit
(security IC) as defined in the PP ([5], section 1.3.1), so the TOE is consistent with the TOE type in the
PP [5].
32
The security problem definition of this security target is consistent with the statement of the security
problem definition in the PP [5], as the security target claimed strict conformance to the PP [5].
Additional threats, organisational security policies and assumptions are introduced in chapter 3 of this
ST, a rationale is given in chapter 4.4.
33
The security objectives of this security target are consistent with the statement of the security
objectives in the PP [5], as the security target claimed strict conformance to the PP [5]. Additional
security objectives are added in chapter 4.1 of this ST, a rationale is given in chapter 4.4.
34
The security requirements of this security target are consistent with the statement of the security
requirements in the PP [5], as the security target claimed strict conformance to the PP [5]. Additional
security requirements are added in chapter 6.1 of this ST, a rationale is given in chapter 6.3. All
assignments and selections of the security functional requirements are done in the PP [5] and in this
security target section 6.1.
Version 1.1
Page 11 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
3 SECURITY PROBLEM DEFINITION
35
This chapter 3 contains the following sections:
3.1 Description of Assets
3.2 Threats
3.3 Organizational Security Policies
3.4 Assumptions
3.1
Description of Assets
Assets regarding the Threats
36
37
The assets (related to standard functionality) to be protected are
•
the User Data,
•
the Security IC Embedded Software,
•
the security services provided by the TOE for the Security IC Embedded Software.
The user (consumer) of the TOE places value upon the assets related to high-level security concerns:
SC1
integrity of User Data and of the Security IC Embedded Software (while being
executed/processed and while being stored in the TOE’s memories),
SC2
confidentiality of User Data and of the Security IC Embedded Software (while being
processed and while being stored in the TOE’s memories)
SC3
correct operation of the security services provided by the TOE for the Security IC Embedded
Software.
38
The Security IC may not distinguish between User Data which are public known or kept confidential.
Therefore the security IC shall protect the confidentiality and integrity of the User Data, unless the
Security IC Embedded Software chooses to disclose or modify it.
39
In particular integrity of the Security IC Embedded Software means that it is correctly being executed
which includes the correct operation of the TOE’s functionality. Though the Security IC Embedded
Software (normally stored in the ROM) will in many cases not contain secret data or algorithms, it
must be protected from being disclosed, since for instance knowledge of specific implementation
details may assist an attacker.
40
The Protection Profile requires the TOE to provide one security service: the generation of random
numbers by means of a physical Random Number Generator. The Security Target may require
additional security services. It is essential that the TOE ensures the correct operation of all security
services provided by the TOE for the Security IC Embedded Software.
41
According to the Protection Profile there is the following high-level security concern related to
security service:
SC4
42
deficiency of random numbers.
To be able to protect these assets the TOE shall protect its security functionality. Therefore critical
information about the TOE shall be protected. Critical information includes:
•
logical design data, physical design data, IC Dedicated Software, and configuration data,
•
Initialisation Data and Pre-personalisation Data, specific development aids, test and
characterisation related data, material for software development support, and photomasks.
Version 1.1
Page 12 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Such information and the ability to perform manipulations assist in threatening the above assets.
43
Note that there are many ways to manipulate or disclose the User Data: (i) An attacker may
manipulate the Security IC Embedded Software or the TOE. (ii) An attacker may cause malfunctions
of the TOE or abuse Test Features provided by the TOE. Such attacks usually require design
information of the TOE to be obtained. They pertain to all information about (i) the circuitry of the IC
(hardware including the physical memories), (ii) the IC Dedicated Software with the parts IC
Dedicated Test Software (if any) and IC Dedicated Support Software (if any), and (iii) the
configuration data for the security functionality. The knowledge of this information enables or
supports attacks on the assets. Therefore the TOE Manufacturer must ensure that the development
and production of the TOE are secure so that no information is unintentionally made available for the
operational phase of the TOE.
44
The TOE Manufacturer must apply protection to support the security of the TOE. This not only
pertains to the TOE but also to all information and material exchanged with the developer of the
Security IC Embedded Software. This covers the Security IC Embedded Software itself if provided by
the developer of the Security IC Embedded Software or any authentication data required to enable the
download of software. This includes the delivery (exchange) procedures for Phase 1 and the Phases
after TOE Delivery as far as they can be controlled by the TOE Manufacturer. These aspects enforce
the usage of the supporting documents and the refinements of SAR defined in the protection profile.
45
The information and material produced and/or processed by the TOE Manufacturer in the TOE
development and production environment (Phases 2 up to TOE Delivery) can be grouped as follows:
•
logical design data,
•
physical design data,
•
IC Dedicated Software, Security IC Embedded Software, Initialisation Data and Prepersonalisation Data,
•
specific development aids,
•
test and characterisation related data,
•
material for software development support, and
•
photomasks and products in any form
as long as they are generated, stored, or processed by the TOE Manufacturer.
3.2
46
Threats
The following explanations help to understand the focus of the threats and objectives defined below.
For example, certain attacks are only one step towards a disclosure of assets, others may directly lead
to a compromise of the application security.
•
Manipulation of data (which may comprise any data, including code, stored in or processed by
the Security IC) means that an attacker is able to alter a meaningful block of data. This should be
considered for the threats T.Malfunction, T.Phys-Manipulation and T.Abuse-Func.
•
Manipulation of the TOE means that an attacker is able to deliberately deactivate or otherwise
change the behaviour of a specific function in a manner which enables exploitation. This should
be considered for the threat T.Malfunction, T.Phys-Manipulation and T.Abuse-Func.
•
Disclosure of data (which may comprise any data, including code, stored in or processed by the
Security IC) means that an attacker is realistically able to determine a meaningful block of data.
This should be considered for the threats T.Leak-Inherent, T.Phys-Probing, T.Leak-Forced and
T.Abuse-Func.
Version 1.1
Page 13 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
47
The cloning of the functional behaviour of the Security IC on its physical and command interface is the
highest level security concern in the application context.
48
The cloning of that functional behaviour requires to (i) develop a functional equivalent of the Security
IC Embedded Software, (ii) disclose, interpret and employ the secret User Data stored in the TOE, and
(iii) develop and build a functional equivalent of the Security IC using the input from the previous
steps.
49
The Security IC is a platform for the Security IC Embedded Software which ensures that especially the
critical User Data are stored and processed in a secure way (refer to below). The Security IC
Embedded Software must also ensure that critical User Data are treated as required in the application
context. In addition, the personalisation process supported by the Security IC Embedded Software
(and perhaps by the Security IC in addition) must be secure. This last step is beyond the scope of the
Protection Profile. As a result the threat “cloning of the functional behaviour of the Security IC on its
physical and command interface” is averted by the combination of measures which split into those
being evaluated according to the Protection Profile (Security IC) and those being subject to the
evaluation of the Security IC Embedded Software or Security IC and the corresponding
personalisation process. Therefore, functional cloning is indirectly covered by the security concerns
and threats described below.
50
The high-level security concerns are refined below by defining threats as required by the Common
Criteria (refer to Figure 3). Note that manipulation of the TOE is only a means to threaten User Data or
the Security IC Embedded Software and is not a success for the attacker in itself.
T.Phys-Manipulation
T.Leak-Inherent
T.Phys-Probing
T.Leak-Forced
T.Malfunction
T.Abuse-Func
Figure 3 Standard Threats
51
The high-level security concern related to security service is refined below by defining threats as
required by the Common Criteria (refer to Figure 4).
T.RND
T.Mem-Access
Figure 4 Threats related to security service
52
The Security IC Embedded Software must contribute to averting the threats: At least it must not
undermine the security provided by the TOE.
Version 1.1
Page 14 of 56
CROW IV
53
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
The above security concerns are derived from
fro considering the end-usage
usage phase (Phase 7) since
Phase 1 and the Phases from TOE Delivery up to the end of Phase 6 are covered by assumptions
and
the development and production environment starting with Phase 2 up to TOE Delivery are
covered by an organizational
ational security policy.
54
The TOE’s countermeasures are designed to avert the threats described below. Nevertheless, they may
be effective in earlier phases (Phases 4 to 6).
55
The TOE is exposed to different types of influences or interactions with its outer world. Some of them
may result from using the TOE only but others may also indicate an attack. The different types of
influences or interactions are visualised in Figure 5.. Due to the intended usage of the TOE all
interactions are considered as possible.
Figure 5 Interactions between the TOE and its outer world
56
An interaction with the TOE can be done through the physical interfaces (Number 7 – 9 in Figure 5)
which are realized
ed using contacts interface. Influences or interactions with the TOE also occur through
the chip surface (Number 1 – 6 in Figure 5). In Number 1 and 6 galvanic contacts are used. In
Number 2 and 5 the influence (arrow directed to the chip) or the measurement (arrow starts from the
chip) does not require a contact. Number 3 and 4 refer to specific situations where the TOE and its
functional behaviour is not only influenced but definite changes are made by applying mechanical,
chemical and other methods (such as 1, 2). Many attacks require a prior inspection and some reversereverse
engineering (Number 3). This demonstrates the basic building blocks of attacks. A practical attack will
use a combination of these elements.
Version 1.1
Page 15 of 56
CROW IV
3.2.1
57
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Standard Threats
The TOE shall avert the threat “Inherent Information Leakage (T.Leak-Inherent)” as specified below.
T.Leak-Inherent
Inherent Information Leakage
An attacker may exploit information which is leaked from the TOE during
usage of the Security IC in order to disclose confidential data as part of the
assets.
No direct contact with the Security IC internals is required here. Leakage may occur through
emanations, variations in power consumption, I/O characteristics, clock frequency, or by changes in
processing time requirements. One example is the Differential Power Analysis (DPA). This leakage
may be interpreted as a covert channel transmission but is more closely related to measurement of
operating parameters, which may be derived either from direct (contact) measurements (Numbers 6
and 7 in Figure 5) or measurement of emanations (Number 5 in Figure 5) and can then be related to
the specific operation being performed.
58
The TOE shall avert the threat “Physical Probing (T.Phys-Probing)” as specified below.
T.Phys-Probing
Physical Probing
An attacker may perform physical probing of the TOE in order (i) to disclose
User Data, (ii) to disclose/reconstruct the Security IC Embedded Software or
(iii) to disclose other critical information about the operation of the TOE.
Physical probing requires direct interaction with the Security IC internals (Numbers 5 and 6 in
Figure 5). Techniques commonly employed in IC failure analysis and IC reverse engineering efforts
may be used. Before that hardware security mechanisms and layout characteristics need to be
identified (Number 3 in Figure 5). Determination of software design including treatment of User Data
may also be a pre-requisite.
This pertains to “measurements” using galvanic contacts or any type of charge interaction whereas
manipulations are considered under the threat “Physical Manipulation (T.Phys-Manipulation)”. The
threats “Inherent Information Leakage (T.Leak-Inherent)” and “Forced Information Leakage
(T.Leak-Forced)“ may use physical probing but require complex signal processing in addition.
59
The TOE shall avert the threat “Malfunction due to Environmental Stress (T.Malfunction)” as specified
below.
T.Malfunction
Malfunction due to Environmental Stress
An attacker may cause a malfunction of TSF or of the Security IC Embedded
Software by applying environmental stress in order to (i) deactivate or
modify security features or security services of the TOE or (ii) deactivate or
modify functions of the Security IC Embedded Software. This may be
achieved by operating the Security IC outside the normal operating
conditions (Numbers 1, 2 and 9 in Figure 5).
The modification of security services of the TOE may e.g. affect the quality of random numbers
provided by the random number generator up to undetected deactivation when the random number
generator does not produce random numbers and the Security IC Embedded Software gets constant
values. In another case errors are introduced in executing the Security IC Embedded Software. To
exploit this, an attacker needs information about the functional operation, e.g. to introduce a
temporary failure within a register used by the Security IC Embedded Software with light or a power
glitch.
60
The TOE shall avert the threat “Physical Manipulation (T.Phys-Manipulation)” as specified below.
Version 1.1
Page 16 of 56
CROW IV
T.Phys-Manipulation
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Physical Manipulation
An attacker may physically modify the Security IC in order to (i) modify
security features or security services of the TOE, (ii) modify functions of the
Security IC Embedded Software or (iii) to modify User Data.
The modification may be achieved through techniques commonly employed in IC failure analysis
(Numbers 1, 2 and 4 in Figure 8) and IC reverse engineering efforts (Number 3 in Figure 8). The
modification may result in the deactivation of a security feature. Before that hardware security
mechanisms and layout characteristics need to be identified. Determination of software design
including treatment of User Data may also be a pre-requisite. Changes of circuitry or data can be
permanent or temporary.
In contrast to malfunctions (refer to T.Malfunction) the attacker requires gathering significant
knowledge about the TOE’s internal construction here (Number 3 in Figure 5).
61
The TOE shall avert the threat “Forced Information Leakage (T.Leak-Forced)“ as specified below:
T.Leak-Forced
Forced Information Leakage
An attacker may exploit information which is leaked from the TOE during
usage of the Security IC in order to disclose confidential data as part of the
assets even if the information leakage is not inherent but caused by the
attacker.
This threat pertains to attacks where methods described in “Malfunction due to Environmental Stress”
(refer to T.Malfunction) and/or “Physical Manipulation” (refer to T.Phys-Manipulation) are used to
cause leakage from signals (Numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Figure 5) which normally do not contain
significant information about secrets.
62
The TOE shall avert the threat “Abuse of Functionality (T.Abuse-Func)” as specified below.
T.Abuse-Func
Abuse of Functionality
An attacker may use functions of the TOE which may not be used after TOE
Delivery in order to (i) disclose or manipulate User Data, (ii) manipulate
(explore, bypass, deactivate or change) security services of the TOE or (iii)
manipulate (explore, bypass, deactivate or change) functions of the Security
IC Embedded Software or (iv) enable an attack disclosing or manipulating
the User Data or the Security IC Embedded Software.
3.2.2
63
Threats related to security services
The TOE shall avert the threat “Deficiency of Random Numbers (T.RND)” as specified below.
T.RND
Deficiency of Random Numbers
An attacker may predict or obtain information about random numbers
generated by the TOE for instance because of a lack of entropy of the
random numbers provided.
An attacker may gather information about the produced random numbers
which might be a problem because they may be used for instance to generate
cryptographic keys.
Here the attacker is expected to take advantage of statistical properties of the
random numbers generated by the TOE without specific knowledge about
Version 1.1
Page 17 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
the TOE’s generator. Malfunctions or premature ageing are also considered
which may assist in getting information about random numbers.
3.2.3
64
Threats related to additional TOE Specific Functionality
The TOE shall avert the additional threat “Memory Access Violation (T.Mem-Access)” as specified
below.
T.Mem-Access
Memory Access Violation
Parts of the Smartcard Embedded Software may cause security violations by
accidentally or deliberately accessing restricted data (which may include
code). Any restrictions are defined by the security policy of the specific
application context and must be implemented by the Smartcard Embedded
Software.
3.3
65
Organizational Security Policies
The following Figure 6 shows the policies applied in this Security Target.
P.Process-TOE
P.Add-Functions
Figure 6 Policies
66
The IC Developer / Manufacturer must apply the policy “Protection during TOE Development and
Production (P.Process-TOE)” as specified below.
P.Process-TOE
Protection during TOE Development and Production
An accurate identification must be established for the TOE. This requires
that each instantiation of the TOE carries this unique identification.
67
The accurate identification is introduced at the end of the production test in phase 3. Therefore the
production environment must support this unique identification.
68
The information and material produced and/or processed by the TOE Manufacturer in the TOE
development and production environment (Phases 2 up to TOE Delivery) can be grouped as follows:
•
logical design data,
•
physical design data,
•
IC Dedicated Software, Security IC Embedded Software, Initialisation Data and Prepersonalisation Data,
•
specific development aids,
•
test and characterisation related data,
•
material for software development support, and
•
photomasks and products in any form
as long as they are generated, stored, or processed by the TOE Manufacturer.
69
The TOE provides specific security functionality which can be used by the Smartcard Embedded
Software. In the following specific security functionality is listed which is not derived from threats
identified for the TOE’s environment because it can only be decided in the context of the smartcard
Version 1.1
Page 18 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
application, against which threats the Smartcard Embedded Software will use the specific security
functionality.
70
The IC Developer / Manufacturer must apply the policy “Additional Specific Security Functionality
(P.Add-Functions)” as specified below.
P.Add-Functions
Additional Specific Security Functionality
The TOE shall provide the following specific security functionality to the
Smartcard Embedded Software:
3.4
Triple Data Encryption Standard (3DES)
Assumptions
71
The intended usage of the TOE is twofold, depending on the Life Cycle Phase: (i) The Security IC
Embedded Software developer uses it as a platform for the Security IC software being developed. The
Composite Product Manufacturer (and the consumer) uses it as a part of the Security IC. The
Composite Product is used in a terminal which supplies the Security IC (with power and clock) and
(at least) mediates the communication with the Security IC Embedded Software.
72
Before being delivered to the consumer the TOE is packaged. Many attacks require the TOE to be
removed from the carrier. Though this extra step adds difficulties for the attacker no specific
assumptions are made here regarding the package.
73
Appropriate “Protection during Packaging, Finishing and Personalisation (A.Process-Sec-IC)” must be
ensured after TOE Delivery up to the end of Phase 6, as well as during the delivery to Phase 7 as
specified below.
A.Process-Sec-IC
Protection during Packaging, Finishing and Personalisation
It is assumed that security procedures are used after delivery of the TOE by
the TOE Manufacturer up to delivery to the consumer to maintain
confidentiality and integrity of the TOE and of its manufacturing and test
data (to prevent any possible copy, modification, retention, theft or
unauthorised use).
This means that the Phases after TOE Delivery are assumed to be protected
appropriately.
74
The information and material produced and/or processed by the Security IC Embedded Software
Developer in Phase 1 and by the Composite Product Manufacturer can be grouped as follows:
•
the Security IC Embedded Software including specifications, implementation and related
documentation,
•
pre-personalisation and personalisation data including specifications of formats and memory
areas, test related data,
•
the User Data and related documentation, and
•
material for software development support
as long as they are not under the control of the TOE Manufacturer. Details must be defined in the
Protection Profile or Security Target for the evaluation of the Security IC Embedded Software and/or
Security IC.
75
The developer of the Security IC Embedded Software must ensure the appropriate “Usage of
Hardware Platform (A.Plat-Appl)” while developing this software in Phase 1 as specified below.
Version 1.1
Page 19 of 56
CROW IV
A.Plat-Appl
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Usage of Hardware Platform
The Security IC Embedded Software is designed so that the requirements
from the following documents are met: (i) TOE guidance documents (refer to
the Common Criteria assurance class AGD) such as the hardware data sheet,
and the hardware application notes, and (ii) findings of the TOE evaluation
reports relevant for the Security IC Embedded Software as documented in
the certification report.
76
Note that particular requirements for the Security IC Embedded Software are often not clear before
considering a specific attack scenario during vulnerability analysis of the Security IC (AVA_VAN). A
summary of such results is provided in the document "ETR for composite evaluation" (ETR-COMP).
This document can be provided for the evaluation of the composite product. The ETR-COMP may also
include guidance for additional tests being required for the combination of hardware and software.
The TOE evaluation must be completed before evaluation of the Security IC Embedded Software can
be completed. The TOE evaluation can be conducted before and independent from the evaluation of
the Security IC Embedded Software.
77
The developer of the Security IC Embedded Software must ensure the appropriate “Treatment of User
Data (A.Resp-Appl)” while developing this software in Phase 1 as specified below.
A.Resp-Appl
Treatment of User Data
All User Data are owned by Security IC Embedded Software. Therefore, it
must be assumed that security relevant User Data (especially cryptographic
keys) are treated by the Security IC Embedded Software as defined for its
specific application context.
The application context specifies how the User Data shall be handled and protected. The evaluation of
the Security IC according to this Protection Profile is conducted on generalized application context.
The concrete requirements for the Security IC Embedded Software shall be defined in the Protection
Profile respective Security Target for the Security IC Embedded Software. The Security IC cannot
prevent any compromise or modification of User Data by malicious Security IC Embedded Software.
The assumption A.Resp-Appl ensures that the Security IC Embedded Software follows the security
rules of the application context. Examples are given in Section 7.2.1, all being directly related to and
covered by A.Resp-Appl.
78
The developer of the Smartcard Embedded Software must ensure the appropriate “Usage of Keydependent Functions (A.Key-Function)” while developing this software in Phase 1 as specified below.
A.Key-Function
Usage of Key-dependent Functions
Key-dependent functions (if any) shall be implemented in the Smartcard
Embedded Software in a way that they are not susceptible to leakage attacks
(as described under T.Leak-Inherent and T.Leak-Forced).
Note that here the routines which may compromise keys when being executed are part of the
Smartcard Embedded Software. In contrast to this the threats T.Leak-Inherent and T.Leak-Forced
address (i) the cryptographic routines which are part of the TOE and (ii) the processing of User Data
including cryptographic keys.
Version 1.1
Page 20 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
4 SECURITY OBJECTIVES
79
This chapter Security Objectives contains the following sections:
4.1 Security Objectives for the TOE
4.2 Security Objectives for the IC Embedded Software development Environment
4.3 Security Objectives for the operational Environment
4.4 Security Objectives Rationale
4.1
80
Security objectives for the TOE
According to the Protection Profile [5] there are the following standard high-level security goals:
SG1
maintain the integrity of User Data and of the Security IC Embedded Software (when being
executed/processed and when being stored in the TOE’s memories) as well as
SG2
maintain the confidentiality of User Data and of the Security IC Embedded Software (when
being processed and when being stored in the TOE’s memories).
The Security IC may not distinguish between User Data which are public known or kept
confidential. Therefore the security IC shall protect the confidentiality and integrity of the User
Data, unless the Security IC Embedded Software chooses to disclose or modify it.
In particular integrity of the Security IC Embedded Software means that it is correctly being
executed which includes the correct operation of the TOE’s functionality. Though the Security
IC Embedded Software (normally stored in the ROM) will in many cases not contain secret
data or algorithms, it must be protected from being disclosed, since for instance knowledge of
specific implementation details may assist an attacker.
81
SG3
maintain the correct operation of the security services provided by the TOE for the Security IC
Embedded Software.
SG4
provide random numbers.
These standard high-level security goals are refined below by defining security objectives as required
by the Common Criteria. Note that the integrity of the TOE is a mean to reach these objectives.
Standard Security Objectives
82
The TOE shall provide “Protection against Inherent Information Leakage (O.Leak-Inherent)” as
specified below.
O.Leak-Inherent
Protection against Inherent Information Leakage
The TOE must provide protection against disclosure of confidential data
(User Data or TSF data) stored and/or processed in the Smartcard IC
by measurement and analysis of the shape and amplitude of signals (for
example on the power, clock, or I/O lines) and
by measurement and analysis of the time between events found by
measuring signals (for instance on the power, clock, or I/O lines).
This objective pertains to measurements with subsequent complex signal
processing whereas O.Phys-Probing is about direct measurements on
Version 1.1
Page 21 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
elements on the chip surface. Details correspond to an analysis of attack
scenarios which is not given here.
83
The TOE shall provide “Protection against Physical Probing (O.Phys-Probing)” as specified below.
O.Phys-Probing
Protection against Physical Probing
The TOE must provide protection against disclosure of User Data, against
the disclosure/reconstruction of the Smartcard Embedded Software or
against the disclosure of other critical operational information. This includes
protection against
measuring through galvanic contacts which is direct physical probing
on the chips surface except on pads being bonded (using standard tools
for measuring voltage and current) or
measuring not using galvanic contacts but other types of physical
interaction between charges (using tools used in solid-state physics
research and IC failure analysis)
with a prior
reverse-engineering to understand the design and its properties and
functions.
The TOE must be designed and fabricated so that it requires a high
combination of complex equipment, knowledge, skill, and time to be able to
derive detailed design information or other information which could be
used to compromise security through such a physical attack.
84
The TOE shall provide “Protection against Malfunctions (O.Malfunction)” as specified below.
O.Malfunction
Protection against Malfunctions
The TOE must ensure its correct operation.
The TOE must prevent its operation outside the normal operating conditions
where reliability and secure operation has not been proven or tested. This is
to prevent errors. The environmental conditions may include voltage, clock
frequency, temperature, or external energy fields.
Remark: A malfunction of the TOE may also be caused using a direct
interaction with elements on the chip surface. This is considered as being a
manipulation (refer to the objective O.Phys-Manipulation) provided that
detailed knowledge about the TOE´s internal construction is required and
the attack is performed in a controlled manner.
85
The TOE shall provide “Protection against Physical Manipulation (O.Phys-Manipulation)” as
specified below.
O.Phys-Manipulation
Protection against Physical Manipulation
The TOE must provide protection against manipulation of the TOE
(including its software and TSF data), the Smartcard Embedded Software
and the User Data. This includes protection against
reverse-engineering (understanding the design and its properties and
functions),
Version 1.1
Page 22 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
manipulation of the hardware and any data, as well as
controlled manipulation of memory contents (User Data).
The TOE must be designed and fabricated so that it requires a high
combination of complex equipment, knowledge, skill, and time to be able to
derive detailed design information or other information which could be
used to compromise security through such a physical attack.
86
The TOE shall provide “Protection against Forced Information Leakage (O.Leak-Forced)“ as specified
below:
O.Leak-Forced
Protection against Forced Information Leakage
The Security IC must be protected against disclosure of confidential data
processed in the Security IC (using methods as described under O.LeakInherent) even if the information leakage is not inherent but caused by the
attacker
by forcing a malfunction (refer to “Protection against Malfunction due
to Environmental Stress (O.Malfunction)” and/or
by a physical manipulation (refer to “Protection againstPhysical
Manipulation (O.Phys-Manipulation)”.
If this is not the case, signals which normally do not contain significant
information about secrets could become an information channel for a
leakage attack.
87
The TOE shall provide “Protection against Abuse of Functionality (O.Abuse-Func)” as specified below.
O.Abuse-Func
Protection against Abuse of Functionality
The TOE must prevent that functions of the TOE which may not be used
after TOE Delivery can be abused in order (i) to disclose critical User Data,
(ii) to manipulate critical User Data of the Smartcard Embedded Software,
(iii) to manipulate Soft-coded Smartcard Embedded Software or (iv) bypass,
deactivate, change or explore security features or functions of the TOE.
Details depend, for instance, on the capabilities of the Test Features
provided by the IC Dedicated Test Software which are not specified here.
88
The TOE shall provide “TOE Identification (O.Identification)“ as specified below:
O.Identification
TOE Identification
The TOE must provide means to store Initialization Data and Prepersonalization Data in its non-volatile memory. The Initialization Data (or
parts of them) are used for TOE identification.
Security Objectives related to Specific Functionality (referring to SC4)
89
The TOE shall provide “Random Numbers (O.RND)” as specified below.
O.RND
Random Numbers
Version 1.1
Page 23 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
The TOE will ensure the cryptographic quality of random number
generation. For instance random numbers shall not be predictable and shall
have sufficient entropy.
The TOE will ensure that no information about the produced random
numbers is available to an attacker since they might be used for instance to
generate cryptographic keys.
Security Objectives for Added Function
90
The TOE shall provide “Additional Specific Security Functionality (O.Add-Functions)” as specified
below.
O.Add-Functions
Additional Specific Security Functionality
The TOE must provide the following specific security functionality to the
Smartcard Embedded Software:
91
Triple Data Encryption Standard (3DES)
The TOE shall provide “Area based Memory Access Control (O.Mem-Access)” as specified below.
O.Mem-Access
Area based Memory Access Control
The TOE must provide the Smartcard Embedded Software with the
capability to define restricted access memory areas. The TOE must then
enforce the partitioning of such memory areas so that access of software to
memory areas is controlled as required, for example, in a multi-application
environment.
4.2
Security Objectives for the Security IC Embedded software development
Environment
Phase 1
92
The Security IC Embedded Software shall provide “Usage of Hardware Platform (OE.Plat-Appl)” as
specified below.
OE.Plat-Appl
Usage of Hardware Platform
To ensure that the TOE is used in a secure manner the Security IC
Embedded Software shall be designed so that the requirements from the
following documents are met: (i) hardware data sheet for the TOE, (ii) data
sheet of the IC Dedicated Software of the TOE, (iii) TOE application notes,
other guidance documents, and (iv) findings of the TOE evaluation reports
relevant for the Security IC Embedded Software as referenced in the
certification report.
93
The Security IC Embedded Software shall provide “Treatment of User Data (OE.Resp-Appl)” as
specified below.
OE.Resp-Appl
Treatment of User Data
Security relevant User Data (especially cryptographic keys) are treated by
the Smartcard Embedded Software as required by the security needs of the
specific application context.
Version 1.1
Page 24 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
For example the Smartcard Embedded Software will not disclose security
relevant user data to unauthorized users or processes when communicating
with a terminal
4.2.1
Clarification of “Usage of Hardware Platform (OE.Plat-Appl)”
94
Regarding the cryptographic services this objective of the environment has to be clarified. The TOE
supports cipher schemes as additional specific security functionality. If required the Smartcard
Embedded Software shall use these cryptographic services of the TOE and their interface as specified.
When key-dependent functions implemented in the Smartcard Embedded Software are just being
executed, the Smartcard Embedded Software must provide protection against disclosure of
confidential data (User Data) stored and/or processed in the TOE by using the methods described
under “Inherent Information Leakage (T.Leak-Inherent)” and “Forced Information Leakage (T.LeakForced)“.
95
Regarding the area based access control this objective of the environment has to be clarified. For the
separation of different applications the Smartcard Embedded Software (Operating System) may
implement a memory management scheme based upon security mechanisms of the TOE.
96
For the separation of different applications the Smartcard Embedded Software may implement a
memory management scheme based upon security mechanisms of the TOE as required by the security
policy defined for the specific application context.
4.2.2
Clarification of “Treatment of User Data (OE.Resp-Appl)”
97
Regarding the cryptographic services this objective of the environment has to be clarified. By
definition cipher or plain text data and cryptographic keys are User Data. The Smartcard Embedded
Software shall treat these data appropriately, use only proper secret keys (chosen from a large key
space) as input for the cryptographic function of the TOE and use keys and functions appropriately in
order to ensure the strength of cryptographic operation.
98
This means that keys are treated as confidential as soon as they are generated. The keys must be
unique with a very high probability, as well as cryptographically strong. For example, it must be
ensured that it is beyond practicality to derive the private key from a public key if asymmetric
algorithms are used. If keys are imported into the TOE and/or derived from other keys, quality and
confidentiality must be maintained. This implies that appropriate key management has to be realised
in the environment.
99
Regarding the area based access control this objective of the environment has to be clarified. The
treatment of User Data is also required when a multi-application operating system is implemented as
part of the Smartcard Embedded Software on the TOE. In this case the multi-application operating
system should not disclose security relevant user data of one application to another application when
it is processed or stored on the TOE.
100
The treatment of User Data is still required when a multi-application operating system is implemented
as part of the Smartcard Embedded Software on the TOE. In this case the multi-application operating
system should not disclose security relevant user data of one application to another application when
it is processed or stored on the TOE.
4.3
Security objectives for the operational Environment
TOE Delivery up to the end of Phase 6
101
Appropriate “Protection during Packaging, Finishing and Personalisation (OE.Process-Sec-IC)” must
be ensured after TOE Delivery up to the end of Phases 6, as well as during the delivery to Phase 7 as
specified below.
Version 1.1
Page 25 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
OE.Process-Sec-IC
PUBLIC
Protection during composite product manufacturing
Security procedures shall be used after TOE Delivery up to delivery to the
"consumer" to maintain confidentiality and integrity of the TOE and of its
manufacturing and test data (to prevent any possible copy, modification,
retention, theft or unauthorized use).
This means that Phases after TOE Delivery up to the end of Phase 6 must be
protected appropriately.
4.3.1 Clarification of “Protection during Composite product manufacturing (OE.ProcessSec-IC)”
102
The protection during packaging, finishing and personalization includes also the personalization
process and the personalization data during Phase 4, Phase 5 and Phase 6.
103
Since OE.Process-Sec-IC requires the Composite Product Manufacturer to implement those measures
assumed in A.Process-Sec-IC, the assumption is covered by this objective.
4.4
104
Security Objectives Rationale
Table 3 below gives an overview, how the assumptions, threats, and organisational security policies
are addressed by the objectives. The text following after the table justifies this in detail.
Assumption, Threat or
Organizational Security
Policy
Security Objective
Notes
A.Plat-Appl
OE.Plat-Appl
Phase 1
A.Resp-Appl
OE.Resp-Appl
Phase 1
P.Process-TOE
O.Identification
Phase 2 – 3
optional Phase 4
A.Process-Sec-IC
OE.Process-Sec-IC
Phase 5 – 6
optional Phase 4
T.Leak-Inherent
O.Leak-Inherent
T.Phys-Probing
O.Phys-Probing
T.Malfunction
O.Malfunction
T.Phys-Manipulation
O.Phys-Manipulation
T.Leak-Forced
O.Leak-Forced
T.Abuse-Func
O.Abuse-Func
T.RND
O.RND
T.Mem-Access
O.Mem-Access
P.Add-Functions
O.Add-Functions
A.Key-Function
OE.Plat-Appl
OE.Resp-Appl
Table 3 Security Objectives versus Assumptions, Threats or Policies
Version 1.1
Page 26 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
105
The justification related to the assumption “Usage of Hardware Platform (A.Plat-Appl)” is as follows:
106
Since OE.Plat-Appl requires the Smartcard Embedded Software developer to implement those
measures assumed in A.Plat-Appl, the assumption is covered by the objective.
107
The justification related to the assumption “Treatment of User Data (A.Resp-Appl)” is as follows:
108
Since OE.Resp-Appl requires the developer of the Smartcard Embedded Software to implement
measures as assumed in A.Resp-Appl, the assumption is covered by the objective.
109
The justification related to the organisational security policy “Protection during TOE Development
and Production (P.Process-TOE)” is as follows:
110
O.Identification requires that the TOE has to support the possibility of a unique identification. The
unique identification can be stored on the TOE. Since the unique identification is generated by the
production environment the production environment must support the integrity of the generated
unique identification. The technical and organisational security measures that ensure the security of
the development environment and production environment are evaluated based on the assurance
measures that are part of the evaluation. For a list of material produced and processed by the TOE
Manufacturer refer to paragraph 43 (page 15). All listed items and the associated development and
production environments are subject of the evaluation. Therefore, the organisational security policy
P.Process-TOE is covered by this objective, as far as organisational measures are concerned.
111
The justification related to the assumption “Protection during Packaging, Finishing and
Personalisation (A.Process-Sec-IC)” is as follows:
112
Since OE.Process-Sec-IC requires the Composite Product Manufacturer to implement those measures
assumed in A.Process-Sec-IC, the assumption is covered by this objective.
113
The justification related to the threats “Inherent Information Leakage (T.Leak-Inherent)”, “Physical
Probing (T.Phys-Probing)”, “Malfunction due to Environmental Stress (T.Malfunction)”, “Physical
Manipulation (T.Phys-Manipulation)”, “Forced Information Leakage (T.Leak-Forced)“, “Abuse of
Functionality (T.Abuse-Func)” and “Deficiency of Random Numbers (T.RND)” is as follows:
114
For all threats the corresponding objectives are stated in a way, which directly corresponds to the
description of the threat. It is clear from the description of each objective, that the corresponding
threat is removed if the objective is valid. More specifically, in every case the ability to use the attack
method successfully is countered, if the objective holds.
115
The justification related to the threat “Memory Access Violation (T.Mem-Access)” is as follows:
116
According to O.Mem-Access the TOE must enforce the partitioning of memory areas so that access of
software to memory areas is controlled. Any restrictions are to be defined by the Smartcard
Embedded Software. Thereby security violations caused by accidental or deliberate access to restricted
data (which may include code) can be prevented (refer to T.Mem-Access). The threat T.Mem-Access is
therefore removed if the objective is met.
117
The clarification of “Usage of Hardware Platform (OE.Plat-Appl)” makes clear that it is up to the
Smartcard Embedded Software to implement the memory management scheme by appropriately
administrating the TSF. This is also expressed both in T.Mem-Access and O.Mem-Access. The TOE
shall provide access control functions as a means to be used by the Smartcard Embedded Software.
This is further emphasised by the clarification of “Treatment of User Data (OE.Resp-Appl)” which
reminds that the Smartcard Embedded Software must not undermine the restrictions it defines.
Therefore, the clarifications contribute to the coverage of the threat T.Mem-Access.
118
The justification related to the security objective “Additional Specific Security Functionality
(O.Add-Functions)” is as follows:
119
Since O.Add-Functions requires the TOE to implement exactly the same specific security functionality
as required by P.Add-Functions, the organisational security policy is covered by the objective.
120
Nevertheless the security objectives O.Leak-Inherent, O.Phys-Probing, O.Malfunction, O.PhysManipulation and O.Leak-Forced define how to implement the specific security functionality required
by P.Add-Functions. (Note that these objectives support that the specific security functionality is
Version 1.1
Page 27 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
provided in a secure way as expected from P.Add-Functions.) Especially O.Leak-Inherent and O.LeakForced refer to the protection of confidential data (User Data or TSF data) in general. User Data are
also processed by the specific security functionality required by P.Add-Functions.
121
Compared to Smartcard IC Platform Protection Profile a clarification has been made for the security
objective “Usage of Hardware Platform (OE.Plat-Appl)”: If required the Smartcard Embedded
Software shall use these cryptographic services of the TOE and their interface as specified. In addition,
the Smartcard Embedded Software must implement functions which perform operations on keys (if
any) in such a manner that they do not disclose information about confidential data. The non
disclosure due to leakage A.Key-Function attacks is included in this objective OE.Plat-Appl. This
addition ensures that the assumption A.Plat-Appl is still covered by the objective OE.Plat-Appl
although additional functions are being supported according to O.Add-Functions.
122
Compared to Smartcard IC Platform Protection Profile a clarification has been made for the security
objective “Treatment of User Data (OE.Resp-Appl)”: By definition cipher or plain text data and
cryptographic keys are User Data. So, the Smartcard Embedded Software will protect such data if
required and use keys and functions appropriately in order to ensure the strength of cryptographic
operation. Quality and confidentiality must be maintained for keys that are imported and/or derived
from other keys. This implies that appropriate key management has to be realised in the environment.
That is expressed by the assumption A.Key—Function which is covered from OE.Resp–Appl. These
measures make sure that the assumption A.Resp-Appl is still covered by the security objective
OE.Resp-Appl although additional functions are being supported according to P.Add-Functions.
123
The justification of the additional policy and the additional assumption show that they do not
contradict to the rationale already given in the Protection Profile for the assumptions, policy and
threats defined there.
Version 1.1
Page 28 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
5 EXTENDED COMPONENTS DEFINITION
124
This chapter 5 Extended Components Definition contains the following sections:
5.1 Definition of the family FCS_RNG
5.2 Definition of the Family FMT_LIM
5.3 Definition of the Family FAU_SAS
5.1
125
Definition of the Family FCS_RNG
To define the IT security functional requirements of the TOE an additional family (FCS_RNG) of the
Class FCS (cryptographic support) is defined here. This family describes the functional requirements
for random number generation used for cryptographic purposes.
FCS_RNG Generation of random numbers
Family behaviour
This family defines quality requirements for the generation of random numbers which are intended
to be use for cryptographic purposes.
Component levelling:
FCS_RNG.1
Generation of random numbers requires that random numbers meet a
defined quality metric.
Management:
FCS_RNG.1
There are no management activities foreseen.
Audit:
FCS_RNG.1
There are no actions defined to be auditable.
FCS_RNG.1
Random number generation
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
Dependencies:
No dependencies.
FCS_RNG.1.1
The TSF shall provide a [selection: physical, non-physical true, deterministic,
hybrid] random number generator that implements: [assignment: list of
security capabilities].
FCS_RNG.1.2
The TSF shall provide random numbers that meet [assignment: a defined
quality metric].
Version 1.1
Page 29 of 56
CROW IV
5.2
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Definition of the Family FMT_LIM
126
To define the IT security functional requirements of the TOE an additional family (FMT_LIM)
(FMT_LI
of the
Class FMT (Security Management) is defined here. This family describes the functional requirements
for the Test Features of the TOE. The new functional requirements were defined in the class FMT
because this class addresses the management of functions
functions of the TSF. The examples of the technical
mechanism used in the TOE appropriate to address the specific issues of preventing the abuse of
functions by limiting the capabilities of the functions and by limiting their availability.
127
The family “Limited capabilities and availability (FMT_LIM)” is specified as follows.
FMT_LIM Limited capabilities and availability
Family behavior
This family defines requirements that limit the capabilities and availability of functions in a
combined manner. Note that FDP_ACF restricts the access to functions whereas the component
Limited Capability of this family requires the functions themselves to
to be designed in a specific
manner.
Component levelling:
FMT_LIM.1
Limited capabilities require that the TSF is built to provide only the
capabilities (perform action, gather information) necessary for its genuine
purpose.
FMT_LIM.2
Limited availability requires that the TSF restrict the use of functions (refer
to Limited capabilities (FMT_LIM.1)). This can be achieved, for instance, by
removing or by disabling functions in a specific phase of the TOE’s life-cycle.
life
Management:
FMT_LIM.1, FMT_LIM.2
There are no management activities foreseen.
Audit:
FMT_LIM.1, FMT_LIM.2
There are no actions defined to be auditable.
128
The TOE Functional Requirement “Limited capabilities (FMT_LIM.1)” is specified as follows.
FMT_LIM.1
Limited capabilities
Hierarchical to:
No other
o
components.
FMT_LIM.1.1
The TSF shall be designed and implemented in a manner that limits their
capabilities so that in conjunction with “Limited availability (FMT_LIM.2)”
the following policy is enforced [assignment: Limited capability and
availabili policy].
availability
Version 1.1
Page 30 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
Dependencies:
129
130
PUBLIC
FMT_LIM.2 Limited availability.
The TOE Functional Requirement “Limited availability (FMT_LIM.2)” is specified as follows.
FMT_LIM.2
Limited availability
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FMT_LIM.2.1
The TSF shall be designed in a manner that limits their availability so that in
conjunction with “Limited capabilities (FMT_LIM.1)” the following policy is
enforced [assignment: Limited capability and availability policy].
Dependencies:
FMT_LIM.1 Limited capabilities.
Application note: The functional requirements FMT_LIM.1 and FMT_LIM.2 assume that there are two
types of mechanisms (limited capabilities and limited availability) which together shall provide
protection in order to enforce the policy. This also allows that
(i) the TSF is provided without restrictions in the product in its user environment but its
capabilities are so limited that the policy is enforced
or conversely
(ii) the TSF is designed with high functionality but is removed or disabled in the product in its user
environment.
The combination of both requirements shall enforce the policy.
5.3
Definition of the Family FAU_SAS
131
To define the security functional requirements of the TOE an additional family (FAU_SAS) of the
Class FAU (Security Audit) is defined here. This family describes the functional requirements for the
storage of audit data. It has a more general approach than FAU_GEN, because it does not necessarily
require the data to be generated by the TOE itself and because it does not give specific details of the
content of the audit records.
132
The family “Audit data storage (FAU_SAS)” is specified as follows.
FAU_SAS Audit data storage
Family behavior
This family defines functional requirements for the storage of audit data.
Component levelling
FAU_SAS.1
Requires the TOE to provide the possibility to store audit data.
Management:
FAU_SAS.1
Version 1.1
Page 31 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
There are no management activities foreseen.
Audit:
FAU_SAS.1
There are no actions defined to be auditable.
FAU_SAS.1
Audit storage
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FAU_SAS.1.1
The TSF shall provide [assignment: list of subjects] with the capability to
store [assignment: list of audit information] in the [assignment: type of
persistent memory].
Dependencies:
No dependencies.
Version 1.1
Page 32 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
6 IT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
133
This chapter 6 IT Security Requirements contains the following sections:
6.1 Security Functional Requirements for the TOE
6.2 Security Assurance Requirements for the TOE
6.3 Security Requirements Rationale
6.1
134
Security Functional Requirements for the TOE
In order to define the Security Functional Requirements the Part 2 of the Common Criteria was used.
However, some Security Functional Requirements have been refined. The refinements are described
below the associated SFR. The operations completed in the ST are marked in italic font.
Malfunctions
135
136
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Limited fault tolerance (FRU_FLT.2)” as specified below.
FRU_FLT.2
Limited fault tolerance
Hierarchical to:
FRU_FLT.1
FRU_FLT.2.1
The TSF shall ensure the operation of all the TOE’s capabilities when the
following failures occur: exposure to operating conditions which are not
detected according to the requirement Failure with preservation of secure
state (FPT_FLS.1).
Dependencies:
FPT_FLS.1 Failure with preservation of secure state
Refinement:
The term “failure” above means “circumstances”. The TOE prevents failures
for the “circumstances” defined above.
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Failure with preservation of secure state (FPT_FLS.1)” as
specified below.
FPT_FLS.1
Failure with preservation of secure state
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FPT_FLS.1.1
The TSF shall preserve a secure state when the following types of failures
occur: exposure to operating conditions which may not be tolerated
according to the requirement Limited fault tolerance (FRU_FLT.2) and
where therefore a malfunction could occur.
Dependencies:
No dependencies
Refinement:
The term “failure” above also covers “circumstances”. The TOE prevents
failures for the “circumstances” defined above.
Application note:
The secure state is maintained by TOE’s detectors. The TOE’s detectors are
monitoring the failure occurs. The failures are abnormal frequency,
abnormal voltage, abnormal temperature, and power glitch detectors that
detect out of the specified range. If the failures are happen, the TOE goes
Version 1.1
Page 33 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
into RESET state. This satisfies the FPT_FLS.1 “Failure with preservation of
secure state.”
Abuse of Functionality
137
138
139
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Limited capabilities (FMT_LIM.1)” as specified below (Common
Criteria Part 2 extended).
FMT_LIM.1
Limited capabilities
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FMT_LIM.1.1
The TSF shall be designed in a manner that limits their capabilities so that in
conjunction with “Limited availability (FMT_LIM.2)” the following policy is
enforced: Deploying Test Features after TOE Delivery does not allow User
Data to be disclosed or manipulated, TSF data to be disclosed or
manipulated, software to be reconstructed and no substantial information
about construction of TSF to be gathered which may enable other attacks.
Dependencies:
FMT_LIM.2 Limited availability.
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Limited availability (FMT_LIM.2)” as specified below (Common
Criteria Part 2 extended).
FMT_LIM.2
Limited availability
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FMT_LIM.2.1
The TSF shall be designed in a manner that limits their availability so that in
conjunction with “Limited capabilities (FMT_LIM.1)” the following policy is
enforced: Deploying Test Features after TOE Delivery does not allow User
Data to be disclosed or manipulated, TSF data to be disclosed or
manipulated, software to be reconstructed and no substantial information
about construction of TSF to be gathered which may enable other attacks.
Dependencies:
FMT_LIM.1 Limited capabilities.
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Audit storage (FAU_SAS.1)” as specified below (Common
Criteria Part 2 extended).
FAU_SAS.1
Audit storage
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FAU_SAS.1.1
The TSF shall provide the test process before TOE Delivery with the
capability to store the Initialisation Data and/or Pre-personalisation Data
and/or supplements of the Smartcard Embedded Software in a Test ROM
area.
Dependencies:
No dependencies.
Physical Manipulation and Probing
140
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Resistance to physical attack (FPT_PHP.3)” as specified below.
FPT_PHP.3
Resistance to physical attack
Version 1.1
Page 34 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FPT_PHP.3.1
The TSF shall resist physical manipulation and physical probing to the TSF
by responding automatically such that the SFRs are always enforced.
Dependencies:
No dependencies.
Refinement:
The TSF will implement appropriate mechanisms to continuously counter
physical manipulation and physical probing. Due to the nature of these
attacks (especially manipulation) the TSF can by no means detect attacks on
all of its elements. Therefore, permanent protection against these attacks is
required ensuring that security functional requirements are enforced. Hence,
“automatic response” means here (i) assuming that there might be an attack
at any time and (ii) countermeasures are provided at any time.
Application Note:
This requirement is achieved by security feature as the Active shield must be
removed and bypassed in order to perform physical intrusive attacks. The
TOE makes a reset or FIQ occurs to stops operation if a physical
manipulation or physical probing attack is detected. And also Static
Address/Data scrambling for bus and memory & Synthesizable processor
core make the reverse-engineering of the TOE layout unpractical. So these
functionalities meet the security functional requirement of FPT_PHP.3:
Resistance to physical attack.
Leakage
141
142
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Basic internal transfer protection (FDP_ITT.1)” as specified
below.
FDP_ITT.1
Basic internal transfer protection
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FDP_ITT.1.1
The TSF shall enforce the Data Processing Policy to prevent the disclosure of
user data when it is transmitted between physically-separated parts of the
TOE.
Dependencies:
[FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control, or FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow
control]
Refinement:
The different memories, the CPU and other functional units of the TOE (e.g.
a cryptographic co-processor) are seen as physically-separated parts of the
TOE.
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Basic internal TSF data transfer protection (FPT_ITT.1)” as
specified below.
FPT_ITT.1
Basic internal TSF data transfer protection
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FPT_ITT.1.1
The TSF shall protect TSF data from disclosure when it is transmitted
between separate parts of the TOE.
Version 1.1
Page 35 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Dependencies:
No dependencies.
Refinement:
The different memories, the CPU and other functional units of the TOE (e.g.
a cryptographic co-processor) are seen as separated parts of the TOE.
This requirement is equivalent to FDP_ITT.1 above but refers to TSF data
instead of User Data. Therefore, it should be understood as to refer to the
same Data Processing Policy defined under FDP_IFC.1 below.
143
144
The TOE shall meet the requirement “ Subset information flow control (FDP_IFC.1)”as specified
below:
FDP_IFC.1
Subset information flow control
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FDP_IFC.1.1
The TSF shall enforce the Data Processing Policy on all confidential data
when they are processed or transferred by the TOE or by the Security IC
Embedded Software.
Dependencies:
FDP_IFF.1 Simple security attributes
The following Security Function Policy (SFP) Data Processing Policy is defined for the requirement
“ Subset information flow control (FDP_IFC.1)”:
User Data and TSF data shall not be accessible from the TOE except when the Security IC Embedded
Software decides to communicate the User Data via an external interface. The protection shall be
applied to confidential data only but without the distinction of attributes controlled by the Security
IC Embedded Software.
Random Numbers (DTRNG)
145
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Quality metric for random numbers (FCS_RNG.1)” as specified
below (Common Criteria Part 2 extended).
FCS_RNG.1
Random number generation
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FCS_RNG.1.1
The TSF shall provide a physical random number generator that implements
total failure test of the random source.
FCS_RNG.1.2
The TSF shall provide random numbers together with a post processing
described in DTRNG application note and DTRNG library that meet the AIS
31 version 1 Functional Classes and Evaluation Methodology for Physical Random
Number Generators, 25 September 2001, Class P2.
Dependencies:
No dependencies.
Application Note:
The DTRNG library version 1 comprises some functions that performs
statistical test on the DTRNG output in order to ensure that the DTRNG is
working properly. If test fails, the function returns an error value and the
DTRNG is shuttled down. Those functions are described in DTRNG
Application note rev 1.0.
Memory access control
Version 1.1
Page 36 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
146
Usage of multiple applications in one Smartcard often requires separating code and data in order to
prevent that one application can access code and/or data of another application. To support this, the
TOE provides Area based Memory Access Control.
147
The security service being provided is described in the Security Function Policy (SFP) Memory Access
Control Policy. The security functional requirement “Subset access control (FDP_ACC.1)” requires
that this policy is in place and defines the scope were it applies. The security functional requirement
“Security attribute based access control (FDP_ACF.1)” defines addresses security attribute usage and
characteristics of policies. It describes the rules for the function that implements the Security Function
Policy (SFP) as identified in FDP_ACC.1. The decision whether an access is permitted or not is taken
based upon attributes allocated to the software. The user software defines the attributes and memory
areas. The corresponding permission control information is evaluated “on-the-fly” by the hardware so
that access is granted/effective or denied/inoperable.
148
The security functional requirement “Static attribute initialization (FMT_MSA.3)” ensures that the
default values of security attributes are appropriately either permissive or restrictive in nature.
Alternative values can be specified by any subject provided that the Memory Access Control Policy
allows that. This is described by the security functional requirement “Management of security
attributes (FMT_MSA.1)”. The attributes are determined during TOE manufacturing (FMT_MSA.3)
or set at run-time (FMT_MSA.1).
149
From TOE´s point of view the different roles in the user software can be distinguished according to
the memory based access control. However the definition of the roles belongs to the user software.
150
The following Security Function Policy (SFP) Memory Access Control Policy is defined for the
requirement “Security attribute based access control (FDP_ACF.1)”:
Memory Access Control Policy
The TOE shall control read, write, delete, execute accesses of software running at
between two different modes (privilege and user mode) on data including code
stored in memory areas.
The TOE shall restrict the ability to define, to change or at least to finally
accept the applied rules (as mentioned in FDP_ACF.1) to software with
privilege mode).
151
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Subset access control (FDP_ACC.1)” as specified below.
FDP_ACC.1
Subset access control
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FDP_ACC.1.1
The TSF shall enforce the Memory Access Control Policy on all subjects (software
with privilege mode and user mode), all objects (data including code stored in
memories) and all the operations defined in the Memory Access Control Policy.
Subjects are software codes in Privilege and User mode.
Object are data stored in ROM, RAM and EEPROM memories.
Dependencies:
152
FDP_ACF.1 Security attribute based access control
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Security attribute based access control (FDP_ACF.1)” as
specified below.
FDP_ACF.1
Security attribute based access control
The attributes are all the operations related to the data stored in memories,
which are the read, write, delete and execute operations.
Version 1.1
Page 37 of 56
CROW IV
153
154
155
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FDP_ACF.1.1
The TSF shall enforce the Memory Access Control Policy to objects based on
the memory area where the software is executed from and/or the memory area where
the access is performed to and/or the operation to be performed.
FDP_ACF.1.2
The TSF shall enforce the following rules to determine if an operation among
controlled subjects and controlled objects is allowed: evaluate the
corresponding permission control information before the access so that accesses to be
denied can not be utilised by the subject attempting to perform the operation.
FDP_ACF.1.3
The TSF shall explicitly authorise access of subjects to objects based on the
following additional rules: none.
FDP_ACF.1.4
The TSF shall explicitly deny access of subjects to objects based on the
following additional rules: none.
Dependencies:
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control
FMT_MSA.3 Static attribute initialisation
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Static attribute initialisation (FMT_MSA.3)” as specified below.
FMT_MSA.3
Static attribute initialisation
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FMT_MSA.3.1
The TSF shall enforce the Memory Access Control Policy to provide well defined
default values for security attributes that are used to enforce the SFP.
FMT_MSA.3.2
The TSF shall allow any subject (provided that the Memory Access Control Policy
is enforced and the necessary access is therefore allowed) to specify alternative
initial values to override the default values when an object or information is
created.
Dependencies:
FMT_MSA.1 Management of security attributes
FMT_SMR.1 Security roles
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Management of security attributes (FMT_MSA.1)” as specified
below:
FMT_MSA.1
Management of security attributes
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FMT_MSA.1.1
The TSF shall enforce the Memory Access Control Policy to restrict the ability
to change default, modify or delete the security attributes permission control information to running at privilege mode.
Dependencies:
[FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control or
FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow control]
FMT_SMF.1 Specification of management functions
FMT_SMR.1 Security roles
The TOE shall meet the requirement “Specification of management functions (FMT_SMF.1)” as
specified below:
FMT_SMF.1
Specification of management functions
Version 1.1
Page 38 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Hierarchical to:
No other components
FMT_SMF.1.1
The TSF shall be capable of performing the following security management
functions: access the control registers of the MPU.
Dependencies:
No dependencies
Note regarding cryptographic assessment
156
The strength of the cryptographic algorithms was not rated in the course of the product certification
(see "Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821" Section 9, Para.4, Clause 2). But cryptographic functionalities with a
security level of 80 bits or lower can no longer be regarded as secure against attacks with high attack
potential without considering the application context. Therefore for these functions it shall be checked
whether the related cryptographic operations are appropriate for the intended system. Some further
hints and guidelines can be derived from the "Technische Richtlinie BSI TR-02102", www.bsi.bund.de.
157
The cryptographic functionality 2-key Triple-DES provided by the TOE achieves a security level of
maximum 80 Bits (in general context).
Cryptographic Support
158
FCS_COP.1 Cryptographic operation requires a cryptographic operation to be performed in
accordance with a specified algorithm and with a cryptographic key of specified sizes. The specified
algorithm and cryptographic key sizes can be based on an assigned standard.
159
The following additional specific security functionality is implemented in the TOE:
Triple Data Encryption Standard (3DES) with 112bit or 168bit key size,
Triple-DES Operation
160
The Triple DES (3DES) operation of the TOE shall meet the requirement “Cryptographic operation
(FCS_COP.1)” as specified below.
FCS_COP.1/3DES
Cryptographic operation
Hierarchical to:
No other components.
FCS_COP.1.1/3DES
The TSF shall perform encryption and decryption in accordance with a
specified cryptographic algorithm Triple Data Encryption Standard (3DES) ECB mode and cryptographic key sizes 112 bit or 168 bit key size that meet
the standard ([9], chapter 2 and 3). TOE implements 3DES with key option 1
and 2 with ECB mode.
Dependencies:
[FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without security attributes or
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with security attributes, or
FCS_CKM.1 Cryptographic key generation]
FCS_CKM.4 Cryptographic key destruction
Summary of Security Functional Requirements
Security Functional Requirements
Limited fault tolerance (FRU_FLT.2)
Version 1.1
Page 39 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Failure with preservation of secure state (FPT_FLS.1)
Audit storage (FAU_SAS.1)
Limited capabilities(FMT_LIM.1)
Limited availability (FMT_LIM.2)
Resistance to physical attack (FPT_PHP.3)
Basic internal transfer protection (FDP_ITT.1)
Basic internal TSF data transfer protection (FPT_ITT.1)
Subset information flow control (FDP_IFC.1)
Quality metric for random numbers (FCS_RNG.1)
Table 4 Security Functional Requirements defined in Smart Card IC Protection Profile
Security Functional Requirements
Subset access control (FDP_ACC.1)
Security attribute based access control (FDP_ACF.1)
Static attribute initialization (FMT_MSA.3 )
Management of security attributes (FMT_MSA.1)
Specification of management functions (FMT_SMF.1)
Cryptographic operation (FCS_COP.1/3DES)
Table 5 Augmented Security Functional Requirements
6.2
161
TOE Assurance Requirements
The Security Target will be evaluated according to
Security Target evaluation (Class ASE)
162
The TOE Assurance Requirements for the evaluation of the TOE and its development and operating
environment are those taken from the
Evaluation Assurance Level 5 (EAL5)
and augmented by the following components
ALC_DVS.2 and AVA_VAN.5
163
corresponding to level “EAL5+”.
164
All refinements from Protection Profile BSI-PP-0035 version 1.0 for the assurance requirements
(ALC_DEL, ALC_DVS, ALC_CMS, ALC_CMC, ADV_ARV, ADV_FSP, ADV_IMP, ATE_COV,
AGD_OPE, AGD_PRE and ADV_VAN) have to be taken into consideration. In particular the document
[10] is used in the context of vulnerability analysis
Class ADV: Development
Architectural design
Functional Specification
Implementation Representation
TSF Internals
TOE Design
Version 1.1
(ADV_ARC.1)
(ADV_FSP.5)
(ADV_IMP.1)
(ADV_INT.2)
(ADV_TDS.4)
Page 40 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Class AGD: Guidance documents activities
Operational User Guidance
(AGD_OPE.1)
Preparative procedures (AGD_PRE.1)
Class ALC: Life-cycle support
CM Capabilities
CM Scope
Delivery
Development Security
Life Cycle Definition
Tools and Techniques
(ALC_CMC.4)
(ALC_CMS.5)
(ALC_DEL.1)
(A LC _DVS.2)
(ALC_LCD.1)
(ALC_TAT.2)
U
U
Class ASE: Security Target evaluation
Conformance claims
(ASE_CCL.1)
Extended components definition (ASE_ECD.1)
ST introduction
(ASE_INT.1)
Security objectives
(ASE_OBJ.2)
Derived security requirements (ASE_REQ.2)
Security problem definition
(ASE_SPD.1)
TOE summary specification
(ASE_TSS.1)
Class ATE: Tests
Coverage
Depth
Functional Tests
Independent Testing
(ATE_COV.2)
(ATE_DPT.3)
(ATE_FUN.1)
(ATE_IND.2)
Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment
Vulnerability Analysis
(AVA_VAN.5)
6.3
Security Requirements Rationale
6.3.1
Rationale for the security functional requirements
165
Table 6 below gives an overview, how the security functional requirements are combined to meet the
security objectives. The detailed justification follows after the table.
Objective
O.Leak-Inherent
TOE Security Functional and Assurance Requirements
- FDP_ITT.1 “Basic internal transfer protection”
- FPT_ITT.1 “Basic internal TSF data transfer protection”
- FDP_IFC.1
“Subset information flow control”
- AVA_VAN.5 “Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis”
O.Phys-Probing
- FPT_PHP.3 “Resistance to physical attack”
O.Malfunction
- FRU_FLT.2 “Limited fault tolerance
- FPT_FLS.1 “Failure with preservation of secure state”
- ADV_ARC.1 “Architectural Design with domain separation and
non-bypassability”
O.Phys-Manipulation
- FPT_PHP.3 “Resistance to physical attack”
O.Leak-Forced
All requirements listed for O.Leak-Inherent
- FDP_ITT.1, FPT_ITT.1, FDP_IFC.1, AVA_VAN.5
plus those listed for O.Malfunction and
O.Phys-Manipulation
- FRU_FLT.2, FPT_FLS.1, FPT_PHP.3, ADV_ARC.1
Version 1.1
Page 41 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
Objective
O.Abuse-Func
PUBLIC
TOE Security Functional and Assurance Requirements
- FMT_LIM.1 “Limited capabilities”
- FMT_LIM.2 “Limited availability”
plus those for O.Leak-Inherent, O.Phys-Probing, O.Malfunction,
O.Phys-Manipulation, O.Leak-Forced
- FDP_ITT.1, FPT_ITT.1, FDP_IFC.1, FPT_PHP.3, FRU_FLT.2,
FPT_FLS.1, ADV_ARC.1
O.Identification
- FAU_SAS.1
“Audit storage”
O.RND
- FCS_RNG.1 “Quality metric for random numbers”
plus those for O.Leak-Inherent, O.Phys-Probing, O.Malfunction,
O.Phys-Manipulation, O.Leak-Forced
- FDP_ITT.1, FPT_ITT.1, FDP_IFC.1, FPT_PHP.3, FRU_FLT.2,
FPT_FLS.1, AVA_VAN.5, ADV_ARC.1
OE.Plat-Appl
not applicable
OE.Resp-Appl
not applicable
OE.Process-Sec-IC
not applicable
O.Mem-Access
- FDP_ACC.1 “Subset access control”
- FDP_ACF.1 “Security attribute based access control”
- FMT_MSA.3 “Static attribute initialisation”
- FMT_MSA.1 “Management of security attributes”
- FMT_SMF.1 “Specification of Management Functions”
O.Add-Functions
- FCS_COP.1 „Cryptographic operation“
Table 6 Security Requirements versus Security Objectives
166
The justification related to the security objective “Protection against Inherent Information Leakage
(O.Leak-Inherent)” is as follows:
167
The refinements of the security functional requirements FPT_ITT.1 and FDP_ITT.1 together with the
policy statement in FDP_IFC.1 explicitly require the prevention of disclosure of secret data (TSF data
as well as User Data) when transmitted between separate parts of the TOE or while being processed.
This includes that attackers cannot reveal such data by measurements of emanations, power
consumption or other behaviour of the TOE while data are transmitted between or processed by TOE
parts.
168
Of course this has also to be supported by the Security IC Embedded Software. For example timing
attacks were possible if the processing time of algorithms implemented in the software would depend
on the content of secret variables.
169
The justification related to the security objective “Protection against Physical Probing
(O.Phys-Probing)” is as follows:
170
The scenario of physical probing as described for this objective is explicitly included in the assignment
chosen for the physical tampering scenarios in FPT_PHP.3. Therefore, it is clear that this security
functional requirement supports the objective.
171
It is possible that the TOE needs additional support by the Security IC Embedded Software (e. g. to
send data over certain buses only with appropriate precautions). In this case the combination of the
Security IC Embedded Software together with FPT_PHP.3 is suitable to meet the objective.
Version 1.1
Page 42 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
172
The justification related to the security objective “Protection against Malfunctions (O.Malfunction)” is
as follows:
173
The definition of this objective shows that it covers a situation, where malfunction of the TOE might
be caused by the operating conditions of the TOE (while direct manipulation of the TOE is covered
O.Phys-Manipulation). There are two possibilities in this situation: Either the operating conditions are
inside the tolerated range or at least one of them is outside of this range. The second case is covered by
FPT_FLS.1, because it states that a secure state is preserved in this case. The first case is covered by
FRU_FLT.2 because it states that the TOE operates correctly under normal (tolerated) conditions. To
support this, the functions implementing FRU_FLT.2 and FPT_FLS.1 must work independently so that
their operation can not affected by the Security IC Embedded Software (refer to the refinement).
Therefore, there is no possible instance of conditions under O.Malfunction, which is not covered. The
suitability of the implementation is subject of the evaluation of the assurance component ADV_ARC.1
174
The justification related to the security objective “Protection against Physical Manipulation
(O.Phys-Manipulation)” is as follows:
175
The scenario of physical manipulation as described for this objective is explicitly included in the
assignment chosen for the physical tampering scenarios in FPT_PHP.3. Therefore, it is clear that this
security functional requirement supports the objective.
176
It is possible that the TOE needs additional support by the Embedded Software (for instance by
implementing FDP_SDI.1 to check data integrity with the help of appropriate checksums). This
support must be addressed in the Guidance Documentation. Together with this FPT_PHP.3 is suitable
to meet the objective.
177
The justification related to the security objective “Protection against Forced Information Leakage
(O.Leak-Forced)“ is as follows:
178
This objective is directed against attacks, where an attacker wants to force an information leakage,
which would not occur under normal conditions. In order to achieve this, the attacker has to combine
a first attack step, which modifies the behaviour of the TOE (either by exposing it to extreme operating
conditions or by directly manipulating it) with a second attack step measuring and analysing some
output produced by the TOE. The first step is prevented by the same measures which support
O.Malfunction and O.Phys-Manipulation, respectively. The requirements covering O.Leak-Inherent
also support O.Leak-Forced because they prevent the attacker from being successful if he tries the
second step directly.
179
The justification related to the security objective “Protection against Abuse of Functionality
(O.Abuse-Func)” is as follows:
180
This objective states that abuse of functions (especially provided by the IC Dedicated Test Software,
for instance in order to read secret data) must not be possible in Phase 7 of the life-cycle. There are two
possibilities to achieve this: (i) They cannot be used by an attacker (i. e. its availability is limited) or
(ii) using them would not be of relevant use for an attacker (i. e. its capabilities are limited) since the
functions are designed in a specific way. The first possibility is specified by FMT_LIM.2 and the
second one by FMT_LIM.1. Since these requirements are combined to support the policy, which is
suitable to fulfil O.Abuse-Func, both security functional requirements together are suitable to meet the
objective.
181
Other security functional requirements which prevent attackers from circumventing the functions
implementing these two security functional requirements (for instance by manipulating the hardware)
also support the objective. The relevant objectives are also listed in Table 0.
182
It was chosen to define FMT_LIM.1 and FMT_LIM.2 explicitly (not using Part 2 of the Common
Criteria) for the following reason: Though taking components from the Common Criteria catalogue
makes it easier to recognize functions, any selection from Part 2 of the Common Criteria would have
made it harder for the reader to understand the special situation meant here. As a consequence, the
statement of explicit security functional requirements was chosen to provide more clarity.
183
The justification related to the security objective “TOE Identification (O.Identification)“ is as follows:
Version 1.1
Page 43 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
184
Obviously the operations for FAU_SAS.1 are chosen in a way that they require the TOE to provide the
functionality needed for O.Identification. The Initialization Data (or parts of them) are used for TOE
identification. The technical capability of the TOE to store Initialization Data and/or Prepersonalisation Data is provided according to FAU_SAS.1.
185
It was chosen to define FAU_SAS.1 explicitly (not using a given security functional requirement from
Part 2 of the Common Criteria) for the following reason: The security functional requirement
FAU_GEN.1 in Part 2 of the CC requires the TOE to generate the audit data and gives details on the
content of the audit records (for instance data and time). The possibility to use the functions in order
to store security relevant data which are generated outside of the TOE, is not covered by the family
FAU_GEN or by other families in Part 2. Moreover, the TOE cannot add time information to the
records, because it has no real time clock. Therefore, the new family FAU_SAS was defined for this
situation.
186
The objective must be supported by organizational and other measures, which the TOE Manufacturer
has to implement. These measures are a subset of those measures, which are examined during the
evaluation of the assurance requirements of the classes AGD, ALC and ADO.
187
The justification related to the security objective “Random Numbers (O.RND)” is as follows:
188
FCS_RNG.1 requires the TOE to provide random numbers of good quality.
189
Other security functional requirements, which prevent physical manipulation and malfunction of the
TOE (see the corresponding objectives listed in the table) support this objective because they prevent
attackers from manipulating or otherwise affecting the random number generator.
190
Random numbers are often used by the Security IC Embedded Software to generate cryptographic
keys for internal use. Therefore, the TOE must prevent the unauthorized disclosure of random
numbers. Other security functional requirements which prevent inherent leakage attacks, probing and
forced leakage attacks ensure the confidentiality of the random numbers provided by the TOE.
191
Depending on the functionality of specific TOEs the Security IC Embedded Software will have to
support the objective by providing runtime-tests of the random number generator. Together, these
requirements allow the TOE to provide cryptographically good random numbers and to ensure that
no information about the produced random numbers is available to an attacker.
192
The justification related to the security objective “Area based Memory Access Control (O.MemAccess)” is as follows:
193
The security functional requirement “Subset access control (FDP_ACC.1)” with the related Security
Function Policy (SFP) “Memory Access Control Policy” exactly require the implementation of an area
based memory access control, which is a requirement from O.Mem-Access. Therefore, FDP_ACC.1
with its SFP is suitable to meet the security objective.
194
The justification related to the security objective “Additional Specific Security Functionality
(O.Add-Functions)” is as follows:
195
The security functional requirement(s) “Cryptographic operation (FCS_COP.1)” exactly requires those
functions to be implemented which are demanded by O.Add-Functions. Therefore, FCS_COP. is
suitable to meet the security objective.
196
It was chosen to define FCS_RNG.1 explicitly, because Part 2 of the Common Criteria does not contain
generic security functional requirements for Random Number generation. (Note that there are security
functional requirements in Part 2 of the Common Criteria, which refer to random numbers. However,
they define requirements only for the authentication context, which is only one of the possible
applications of random numbers.)
197
The justification related to the security objective “Protection during Packaging, Finishing and
Personalization (OE.Process-Sec-IC)” is as follows:
198
The Composite Product Manufacturer has to use adequate measures to fulfil OE.Process-Sec-IC.
Depending on the security needs of the application, the Security IC Embedded Software may have to
support this for instance by using appropriate authentication mechanisms for personalization
functions.
Version 1.1
Page 44 of 56
CROW IV
6.3.2
199
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Dependencies of security functional requirements
Table 7 below lists the security functional requirements defined in this Protection Profile, their
dependencies and whether they are satisfied by other security requirements defined in this Protection
Profile. The text following the table discusses the remaining cases.
Security Functional
Requirement
Dependencies
Fulfilled by security
requirements
FRU_FLT.2
FPT_FLS.1
Yes
FPT_FLS.1
None
No dependency
FMT_LIM.1
FMT_LIM.2
Yes
FMT_LIM.2
FMT_LIM.1
Yes
FAU_SAS.1
None
No dependency
FPT_PHP.3
None
No dependency
FDP_ITT.1
FDP_ACC.1 or FDP_IFC.1
Yes
FDP_IFC.1
FDP_IFF.1
See discussion below
FPT_ITT.1
None
No dependency
FCS_RNG.1
None
No dependency
FCS_CKM.1
Yes (by the environment)
FCS_COP.1 /3DES
FDP_ITC.1 or FDP_ITC.2 (if not
FCS_CKM.1)
Yes (by the environment)
FCS_CKM.4
FDP_ACC.1
FDP_ACF.1
Yes
FDP_ACF.1
FDP_ACC.1
FMT_MSA.3
Yes
Yes
FMT_MSA.3
FMT_MSA.1
FMT_SMR.1
Yes
See discussion below
FMT_MSA.1
FDP_ACC.1 or FDP_IFC.1
FMT_SMR.1
FMT_SMF.1
Yes
See discussion below
Yes
FMT_SMF.1
None
No dependency
Table 7 Dependencies of the Security Functional Requirements
200
Part 2 of the Common Criteria defines the dependency of FDP_IFC.1 (information flow control policy
statement) on FDP_IFF.1 (Simple security attributes). The specification of FDP_IFF.1 would not
capture the nature of the security functional requirement nor add any detail. As stated in the Data
Processing Policy referred to in FDP_IFC.1 there are no attributes necessary. The security functional
requirement for the TOE is sufficiently described using FDP_ITT.1 and its Data Processing Policy
(FDP_IFC.1). Therefore the dependency is considered satisfied.
201
As Table 7 shows, all other dependencies are fulfilled by security requirements defined in this
Protection Profile.
202
In particular the security functional requirements providing resistance of the hardware against
manipulations (e. g. FPT_PHP.3) support all other more specific security functional requirements (e. g.
FCS_RNG.1) because they prevent an attacker from disabling or circumventing the latter. Together
Version 1.1
Page 45 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
with the discussion of the dependencies above this shows that the security functional requirements
build a mutually supportive whole.
203
6.3.3
The dependency FMT_SMR.1 introduced by the two components FMT_MSA.1 and FMT_MSA.3 is
considered to be satisfied because the access control specified for the intended TOE is not role-based
but enforced for each subject. Therefore, there is no need to identify roles in form of a security
functional requirement FMT_SMR.1.
Rationale for the Assurance Requirements
204
The assurance level EAL5 and the augmentation with the requirements ALC_DVS.2, and
AVA_VAN.5 were chosen in order to meet assurance expectations explained in the following
paragraphs.
205
An assurance level of EAL5 is required for this type of TOE since it is intended to defend against
sophisticated attacks. This evaluation assurance level was selected since it is designed to permit a
developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering based on good commercial
practices. In order to provide a meaningful level of assurance that the TOE provides an adequate level
of defence against such attacks, the evaluators should have access to the low level design and source
code.
ALC_DVS.2 Sufficiency of security measures
206
Development security is concerned with physical, procedural, personnel and other technical measures
that may be used in the development environment to protect the TOE.
207
In the particular case of a Security IC the TOE is developed and produced within a complex and
distributed industrial process which must especially be protected. Details about the implementation,
(e.g. from design, test and development tools as well as Initialization Data) may make such attacks
easier. Therefore, in the case of a Security IC, maintaining the confidentiality of the design is very
important.
208
This assurance component is a higher hierarchical component to EAL5 (which only requires
ALC_DVS.1). ALC_DVS.2 has no dependencies.
AVA_VAN.5 Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis
209
Due to the intended use of the TOE, it must be shown to be highly resistant to penetration attacks.
This assurance requirement is achieved by the AVA_VAN.5 component.
210
Independent vulnerability analysis is based on highly detailed technical information. The main intent
of the evaluator analysis is to determine that the TOE is resistant to penetration attacks performed by
an attacker possessing high attack potential.
211
AVA_VAN.5 has dependencies to ADV_ARC.1 “Security Architectural Design”, ADV_FSP.2
“Security-enforcing functional specification”, ADV_TDS.3 “Basic modular design”, ADV_IMP.1
“Implementation representation of the TSF”, AGD_OPE.1 “Operational user guidance”, AGD_PRE.1
“Preparative procedures”.
212
All these dependencies are satisfied by EAL5.
213
It has to be assumed that attackers with high attack potential try to attack Security ICs like smart cards
used for digital signature applications or payment systems. Therefore, specifically AVA_VAN.5 was
chosen in order to assure that even these attackers cannot successfully attack the TOE.
6.3.4
214
Security Requirements are Internally Consistent
The discussion of security functional requirements and assurance components in the preceding
sections has shown that mutual support and consistency are given for both groups of requirements.
The arguments given for the fact that the assurance components are adequate for the functionality of
Version 1.1
Page 46 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
the TOE also shows that the security functional requirements and assurance requirements support
each other and that there are no inconsistencies between these groups.
215
The security functional requirement FPT_PHP.3 makes it harder to manipulate data. This protects the
primary assets and other security features or functionality which use these data.
216
Though a manipulation of the TOE (refer to FPT_PHP.3) is not of great value for an attacker in itself, it
can be an important step in order to threaten the primary assets. Therefore, the security functional
requirement FPT_PHP.3 is not only required to meet the security objective O.Phys-Manipulation.
Instead it protects other security features or functions of both the TOE and the Security IC Embedded
Software from being bypassed, deactivated or changed. In particular this may pertain to the security
features or functions being specified using FDP_ITT.1, FPT_ITT.1, FPT_FLS.1, FMT_LIM.2,
FCS_RNG.1, and those implemented in the Security IC Embedded Software.
217
A malfunction of TSF (refer to FRU_FLT.2 and FPT_FLS.1) can be an important step in order to
threaten the primary assets. Therefore, the security functional requirements FRU_FLT.2 and
FPT_FLS.1 are not only required to meet the security objective O.Malfunction. Instead they protect
other security features or functions of both the TOE and the Security IC Embedded Software from
being bypassed, deactivated or changed. In particular this pertains to the security features or functions
being specified using FDP_ITT.1, FPT_ITT.1, FMT_LIM.1, FMT_LIM.2, FCS_RNG.1, and those
implemented in the Security IC Embedded Software.
218
In a forced leakage attack the methods described in “Malfunction due to Environmental Stress” (refer
to T.Malfunction) and/or “Physical Manipulation” (refer to T.Phys-Manipulation) are used to cause
leakage from signals which normally do not contain significant information about secrets. Therefore,
in order to avert the disclosure of primary assets it is important that the security functional
requirements averting leakage (FDP_ITT.1, FPT_ITT.1) and those against malfunction (FRU_FLT.2
and FPT_FLS.1) and physical manipulation (FPT_PHP.3) are effective and bind well. The security
features and functions against malfunction ensure correct operation of other security functions (refer
to above) and help to avert forced leakage themselves in other attack scenarios. The security features
and functions against physical manipulation make it harder to manipulate the other security functions
(refer to above).
219
Physical probing (refer to FPT_PHP.3) shall directly avert the disclosure of primary assets. In addition,
physical probing can be an important step in other attack scenarios if the corresponding security
features or functions use secret data. For instance the security functional requirement FMT_LIM.2 may
use passwords. Therefore, the security functional requirement FPT_PHP.3 (against probing) help to
protect other security features or functions including those being implemented in the Security IC
Embedded Software. Details depend on the implementation.
220
Leakage (refer to FDP_ITT.1, FPT_ITT.1) shall directly avert the disclosure of primary assets. In
addition, inherent leakage and forced leakage (refer to above) can be an important step in other attack
scenarios if the corresponding security features or functions use secret data. For instance the security
functional requirement FMT_LIM.2 may use passwords. Therefore, the security functional
requirements FDP_ITT.1 and FPT_ITT.1 help to protect other security features or functions
implemented in the Security IC Embedded Software (FDP_ITT.1) or provided by the TOE (FPT_ITT.1).
Details depend on the implementation.
221
According to the assumption Usage of Hardware Platform (A.Plat-Appl) the Security IC Embedded
Software will correctly use the functions provided by the TOE. Hereby the User Data are treated as
required to meet the requirements defined for the specific application context (refer to Treatment of
User Data (A.Resp-Appl)). However, the TOE may implement additional functions. This can be a risk
if their interface can not completely be controlled by the Security IC Embedded Software. Therefore,
the security functional requirements FMT_LIM.1 and FMT_LIM.2 are very important. They ensure
that appropriate control is applied to the interface of these functions (limited availability) and that
these functions, if being usable, provide limited capabilities only.
222
The combination of the security functional requirements FMT_LIM.1 and FMT_LIM.2 ensures that
(especially after TOE Delivery) these additional functions can not be abused by an attacker to
(i) disclose or manipulate User Data, (ii) to manipulate (explore, bypass, deactivate or change) security
Version 1.1
Page 47 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
features or functions of the TOE or of the Security IC Embedded Software or (iii) to enable an attack.
Hereby the binding between these two security functional requirements is very important:
223
The security functional requirement Limited Capabilities (FMT_LIM.1) must close gaps which could
be left by the control being applied to the function’s interface (Limited Availability (FMT_LIM.2)).
Note that the security feature or function which limits the availability can be bypassed, deactivated or
changed by physical manipulation or a malfunction caused by an attacker. Therefore, if Limited
Availability (FMT_LIM.2) is vulnerable , it is important to limit the capabilities of the functions in
order to limit the possible benefit for an attacker.
1
224
The security functional requirement Limited Availability (FMT_LIM.2) must close gaps which could
result from the fact that the function’s kernel in principle would allow to perform attacks. The TOE
must limit the availability of functions which potentially provide the capability to disclose or
manipulate User Data, to manipulate security features or functions of the TOE or of the Security IC
Embedded Software or to enable an attack. Therefore, if an attacker could benefit from using such
functions , it is important to limit their availability so that an attacker is not able to use them.
1F
225
No perfect solution to limit the capabilities (FMT_LIM.1) is required if the limited availability
(FMT_LIM.2) alone can prevent the abuse of functions. No perfect solution to limit the availability
(FMT_LIM.2) is required if the limited capabilities (FMT_LIM.1) alone can prevent the abuse of
functions. Therefore, it is correct that both requirements are defined in a way that they together
provide sufficient security.
226
It is important to avert malfunctions of TSF and of security functions implemented in the Security IC
Embedded Software (refer to above). There are two security functional requirements which ensure
that malfunctions can not be caused by exposing the TOE to environmental stress. First it must be
ensured that the TOE operates correctly within some limits (Limited fault tolerance (FRU_FLT.2)).
Second the TOE must prevent its operation outside these limits (Failure with preservation of secure
state (FPT_FLS.1)). Both security functional requirements together prevent malfunctions. The two
functional requirements must define the “limits”. Otherwise there could be some range of operating
conditions which is not covered so that malfunctions may occur. Consequently, the security functional
requirements Limited fault tolerance (FRU_FLT.2) and Failure with preservation of secure state
(FPT_FLS.1) are defined in a way that they together provide sufficient security.
227
Two refinements from the PP [5] have to be discussed here in the ST as the assurance level is increased.
The refinement for ALC_CMS from the PP [5] can even be applied at the assurance level EAL 5
augmented with ALC_CMS.5. The assurance component ALC_CMS.4 is augmented to ALC_CMS.5
with aspects regarding the configuration control system for the TOE. The refinement is not touched.
The refinement for ADV_FSP from the PP [5] can even be applied at the assurance level EAL 5
augmented with ADV_FSP.5. The assurance component ADV_FSP.4 is extended to ADV_FSP.5 with
aspects regarding the description level. The level is increased from informal to semi-formal with
informal description. The refinement is not touched by this measure
Version 1.1
Page 48 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
7 TOE SUMMARY SPECIFICATION
228
This chapter 7 TOE Summary Specification contains the following sections:
7.1 List of Security Functional Requirements
7.1
List of Security Functional Requirements
SFR1: FPT_FLS.1: Failure with preservation of secure state
229
The detection thresholds of TOE’s detectors are inside the operating range of the TOE. Therefore
abnormal events/failures are detected before the secure state is compromised. This allows to take
User’s defined appropriate actions by software or to immediately RESET the TOE.
230
The secure state is maintained by TOE’s detectors. The TOE’s detectors are monitoring the failure
occurs. The failures are abnormal frequency, abnormal voltage, abnormal temperature, and power
glitch detectors that detect out of the specified range. If the failures are happen, the TOE goes into
RESET state. This satisfies the FPT_FLS.1 “Failure with preservation of secure state.”
TOE’s Detectors
231
These functions records in register the events notified by the detectors (refer to list below). The
software configures the reaction in case of detection:
The TOE is immediately reset when an event is detected.
Or, a special function register bit is set.
List of detectors:
Abnormal frequency Detector
Abnormal voltage Detector
Abnormal temperature Detector
Light Detector
Inner insulation removal Detector
Active shield removal Detector
Glitch Detector
SFR2: FRU_FLT.2: Limited fault tolerance
232
All operating signals (Clock, RESET and supply voltage) are filtered/regulated in order to prevent
malfunction.
TOE’s Filters
233
234
These filters are used for preventing noise, glitches and extremely high frequency in the external reset
or clock pad from causing undefined or unpredictable behavior of the chip.
High Frequency Filter
Reset Noise Filter
TOE’s filters and detectors are implemented by the hardware. The filtering and detection cannot be
affected or bypassed by Smartcard Embedded Software. The reaction to the detection can be
configured by the software. The influence on security and the way how to configure it is described in
details in the S3CT9AC/S3CT9AA/S3CT9A7 User’s Manual. Therefore, FRU_FLT.2 is implemented by
TOE.
Version 1.1
Page 49 of 56
CROW IV
235
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Security domains are maintained since accesses to the access-prohibited area are trapped by this
access control function.
SFR3: FPT_PHP.3: Resistance to physical attacks
236
This requirement is achieved by security feature as the Active shield must be removed and bypassed
in order to perform physical intrusive attacks. The TOE makes a reset or FIQ occurs to stops operation
if a physical manipulation or physical probing attack is detected. And also Static Address/Data
scrambling for bus and memory & Synthesizable processor core make the reverse-engineering of the
TOE layout unpractical. So these functionalities meet the security functional requirement of
FPT_PHP.3: Resistance to physical attack.
237
Static Address/Data scrambling for bus and memory protects memory and address/data bus from
probing attacks.
238
Synthesizable processor core: The Central Processing Unit (CPU) of the TOE is synthesizable with
glue logic, which makes reverse engineering and signal identification more difficult.
SFR4: FDP_ACC.1: Subset access control
239
This requirement is achieved by security register access control, invalid address access and access
right for the code executed in EEPROM.
240
1) Security registers access control: This security function manages access to the security control
registers through access control security attributes.
241
2) Invalid address access: This function detects invalid address access occurrence. In case of an invalid
address access is detected, an FIQ is evoked.
242
3) Access rights for the code executed in EEPROM: This security function manages the code
execution in EEPROM, through access control security attributes. If an invalid access is detected, then
a FIQ occurs.
SFR5: FDP_ACF.1: Security attributes based access control.
243
This is covered by the Privilege and User modes of the TOE.
SFR6: FMT_MSA.3: Static attribute initialization.
244
All Special Function Registers including MPU have DEFAULT values after Power on Reset.
SFR7: FMT_MSA.1: Management of security attributes.
245
This is achieved with the MPU feature. The Memory Protection Unit (MPU) enables user to partition
memory and set individual protection attributes for each partition. This allows the operating system
to control the memory regions accessible by a User mode application process.
SFR8: FMT_SMF.1: Specification of management functions.
246
This is achieved via access to Special Function Registers.
SFR9: FAU_SAS.1: Audit Storage
247
This is fulfilled by the traceability/identification data written once and for all during the TEST mode
of the manufacturing process.
1) Non-reversibility of TEST mode and NORMAL mode: This function disables the TEST mode and
enables the NORMAL mode of the TOE. This function ensures the non-reversibility of the NORMAL
Version 1.1
Page 50 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
mode. This function is used once during the manufacturing process.
2) TEST mode communication protocol and data commands: This function is the proprietary protocol
used to operate the chip in TEST mode. This function enforces the identification and authentication of
the TEST administrator during the test phase of the manufacturing process. The
3) Functional Tests: During the manufacturing process, the operation of the TOE and the embedded
software checksum are verified. This security function ensures the correct operation of the TOE
security functions and the integrity of the embedded software.
4) Identification: During the TEST mode of manufacturing process, traceability data are written in the
non-volatile memory of the TOE.
SFR10: FMT_LIM.1: Limited capabilities
248
TEST mode can be accessed only by the TEST administrator by supplying an authentication password
through a proprietary protocol. Once the TOE is changed to NORMAL mode, TEST mode functions
are no more available for NORMAL mode.
SFR11: FMT_LIM.2: Limited availabilities
249
TEST mode can be accessed only by the TEST administrator by supplying an authentication password
through a proprietary protocol. Once the TOE is changed to NORMAL mode, TEST mode commands
are no more available for NORMAL mode. Functional test during manufacturing process is only
available for TEST mode only.
SFR12: FDP_IFC.1: Subset information flow control
250
Memory Encryption: This is achieved by the function protects the memory contents of the TOE from
data analysis on the stored data as well as on internally transmitted data.
SFR13: FDP_ITT.1: Basic internal transfer protection
251
This requirement is achieved by the combination of the TOE security features TOE features 1) to 4) as
it is unpractical to get access to internal signals and interpret them.
1) Static Address/Data scrambling for bus and memory: This function protects memory and
address/data bus from probing attacks.
2) Dynamic Data encryption for bus: This function protects data bus from probing attacks.
3) Memory encryption: This security function protects the memory contents of the TOE from data
analysis on the stored data as well as on internally transmitted data.
4) Synthesizable processor core: The Central Processing Unit (CPU) of the TOE is synthesizable with
glue logic, which makes reverse engineering and signal identification more difficult.
5) De-synchronization and signal-to-noise ratio reduction mechanisms: The TOE operations can be
made asynchronous by using the Internal Variable Clock, Random Current Generator and the
Random Wait Generator security features. They make a full range of intrusive (e.g. probing attacks)
and non intrusive attacks (e.g. side-channel attacks) more complex and difficult.
252
SFR14: FPT_ITT.1: Basic internal TSF data transfer protection
253
This requirement is achieved by the combination of the TOE security features TOE features 1) to 4) as
it is unpractical to get access to internal signals and interpret them.
1) Static Address/Data scrambling for bus and memory: This function protects memory and
address/data bus from probing attacks.
2) Dynamic Data encryption for bus: This function protects data bus from probing attacks.
3) Memory encryption: This security function protects the memory contents of the TOE from data
Version 1.1
Page 51 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
analysis on the stored data as well as on internally transmitted data.
4) Synthesizable processor core: The Central Processing Unit (CPU) of the TOE is synthesizable with
glue logic, which makes reverse engineering and signal identification more difficult.
5) De-synchronization and signal-to-noise ratio reduction mechanisms: The TOE operations can be
made asynchronous by using the Internal Variable Clock, Random Current Generator and the
Random Wait Generator security features. They make a full range of intrusive (e.g. probing attacks)
and non intrusive attacks (e.g. side-channel attacks) more complex and difficult.
SFR15: FCS_RNG.1: Random number generation
254
This requirement is ensured by the design of the True Random Number Generator (DTRNG) that
follows the requirement of the BSI-AIS31 Class P2 requirements (German metric) for Random Number
Generation (FCS_RNG.1).
SFR16: FCS_COP.1: Cryptographic operation
255
This requirement is covered by the TOE.
Triple Data Encryption Standard Engine
256
This function is used for encrypting and decrypting data using the Triple DES symmetric algorithm
with 112bit or 168bit key size. (FCS_COP.1/3DES)
Version 1.1
Page 52 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
8 ANNEX
8.1
Glossary
Application Data
All data managed by the Security IC Embedded Software in the application context. Application data
comprise all data in the final Security IC.
Composite Product Integrator
Role installing or finalizing the IC Embedded Software and the applications on platform transforming the
TOE into the unpersonalized Composite Product after TOE delivery. The TOE Manufacturer may implement
IC Embedded Software delivered by the Security IC Embedded Software Developer before TOE delivery (e.g.
if the IC Embedded Software is implemented in ROM or is stored in the non-volatile memory as service
provided by the IC Manufacturer or IC Packaging Manufacturer)
Composite Product Manufacturer
The Composite Product Manufacturer has the following roles (i) the Security IC Embedded Software
Developer (Phase 1), (ii) the Composite Product Integrator (Phase 5) and (iii) the Personaliser (Phase 6). If the
TOE is delivered after Phase 3 in form of wafers or sawn wafers (dice) he has the role of the IC Packaging
Manufacturer (Phase 4) in addition.
End-consumer
User of the Composite Product in Phase 7.
IC Dedicated Software
IC proprietary software embedded in a Security IC (also known as IC firmware) and developed by the IC
Developer. Such software is required for testing purpose (IC Dedicated Test Software) but may provide
additional services to facilitate usage of the hardware and/or to provide additional services (IC Dedicated
Support Software)..
IC Dedicated Test Software
That part of the IC Dedicated Software (refer to above) which is used to test the TOE before TOE Delivery
but which does not provide any functionality thereafter.
IC Dedicated Support Software
hat part of the IC Dedicated Software (refer to above) which provides functions after TOE Delivery. The
usage of parts of the IC Dedicated Software might be restricted to certain phases.
Initialization Data
Initialization Data defined by the TOE Manufacturer to identify the TOE and to keep track of the Security
IC’s production and further life-cycle phases are considered as belonging to the TSF data. These data are for
instance used for traceability and for TOE identification (identification data).
Integrated Circuit (IC)
Electronic component(s) designed to perform processing and/or memory functions.
Pre-personalization Data
Any data supplied by the Card Manufacturer that is injected into the non-volatile memory by the Integrated
Version 1.1
Page 53 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Circuits manufacturer (Phase 3). These data are for instance used for traceability and/or to secure shipment
between phases.
Security IC
Composition of the TOE, the Security IC Embedded Software, User Data and the package (the Security IC
carrier).
Security IC Embedded Software
Software embedded in a Security IC and normally not being developed by the IC Designer. The Security IC
Embedded Software is designed in Phase 1 and embedded into the Security IC in Phase 3 or in later phases
of the Security IC product life-cycle. Some part of that software may actually implement a Security IC
application others may provide standard services. Nevertheless, this distinction doesn’t matter here so that
the Security IC Embedded Software can be considered as being application dependent whereas the IC
Dedicated Software is definitely not.
Security IC Product
Composite product which includes the Security Integrated Circuit (i.e. the TOE) and the Embedded Software
and is evaluated as composite target of evaluation in the sense of the Supporting Document
TOE Delivery
The period when the TOE is delivered which is either (i) after Phase 3 (or before Phase 4) if the TOE is
delivered in form of wafers or sawn wafers (dice) or (ii) after Phase 4 (or before Phase 5) if the TOE is
delivered in form of packaged products.
TOE Manufacturer
The TOE Manufacturer must ensure that all requirements for the TOE and its development and production
environment are fulfilled. The TOE Manufacturer has the following roles: (i) IC Developer (Phase 2) and (ii)
IC Manufacturer (Phase 3). If the TOE is delivered after Phase 4 in form of packaged products, he has the
role of the (iii) IC Packaging Manufacturer (Phase 4) in addition.
TSF data
Data created by and for the TOE, that might affect the operation of the TOE. This includes information about
the TOE’s configuration, if any is coded in non-volatile non-programmable memories (ROM), in specific
circuitry, in non-volatile programmable memories (for instance E2PROM) or a combination thereof.
User data
All data managed by the Smartcard Embedded Software in the application context. User data comprise all
data in the final Smartcard IC except the TSF data.
8.2
Abbreviations
CC
Common Criteria
EAL
Evaluation Assurance Level
IT
Version 1.1
Page 54 of 56
CROW IV
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Version 1.1
Page 55 of 56
Information Technology
PP
Protection Profile
ST
Security Target
TOE
Target of Evaluation
TSC
TSF Scope of Control
TSF
TOE Security Functionality
TSFI
TSF Interface
TSP
TOE Security Policy
CROW IV
8.3
SECURITY TARGET
PUBLIC
Literature
[1] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 1: Introduction and
general model, Version 3.1, Revision 3, CCMB-2009-07-001, 2009.
[2] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Security Functional
Components, Version 3.1, Revision 3, CCMB-2009-07-002, 2009.
[3] Common Criteria, Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security Assurance
Components, Version 3.1, Revision 3, CCMB-2009-07-003, 2009.
[4] Common Criteria, Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Evaluation
Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 3, CCMB-2009-07-004, 2009.
[5] Eurosmart, Security IC Platform Protection Profile, Version 1.0, BSI-PP-0035, 2007.
[6] Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, AIS31: Functionality classes and evaluation
methodology for true (physical) random number generators, Version 1, 2001.
[7] Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information, Référentiel Général de Sécurité version 1.0 Annexe B1 Mécanismes cryptographiques Règles et recommandations concernant le choix et le dimensionnement
des mécanismes cryptographiques, Version 1.20 du 26 janvier 2010.
[8] Federal Network Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Railway, Notification in
accordance with the Electronic Signatures Act and the Electronic Signatures Ordinance (overview of suitable
algorithms), 2008.
[9] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NIST Special Publication 800-67, Recommendation
for the Triple Data Encryption Algorithm (TDEA) Block Cipher, version 1.1.
[10] Common Criteria, Supporting Document, Mandatory Technical Document, Application of Attack Potential to
Smartcards, Version 2.7, Revision 1, CCDB-2009-03-001, 2009.
Version 1.1
Page 56 of 56
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