Certification Report: 0251a

Certification Report: 0251a
Certification Report
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
for
Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2
V2.4.0
from
ST-Incard S.r.l.
- Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 228 9582-0, Fax +49 228 9582-455, Infoline +49 228 9582-111
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Java Card Software
Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2
V2.4.0
from
Common Criteria Arrangement
for components up to EAL4
ST-Incard S.r.l.
The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an accredited and licensed/
approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Part 1
Version 0.6, Part 2 Version 1.0 extended by advice of the Certification Body for components
beyond EAL4 and smart card specific guidance for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation, Version 2.1 (ISO/IEC 15408:1999) and including final interpretations for
compliance with Common Criteria Version 2.2 and Common Methodology Part 2, Version 2.2.
Evaluation Results:
PP Conformance:
Protection Profile PP/0305, JavaCard System Standard 2.2
Configuration Protection Profile
Functionality:
PP conformant
Common Criteria Part 2 conformant
Assurance Package:
Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL4 augmented by
ADV_IMP.2 – Implementation of the TSF
AVA_VLA.3 – Vulnerability Assessment - Moderately resistant
This certificate applies only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated
configuration and in conjunction with the complete Certification Report.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the certification scheme
of the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) and the conclusions of the evaluation
facility in the evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
The notes mentioned on the reverse side are part of this certificate.
Bonn, 11. November 2005
The Vice President of the Federal Office
for Information Security
Hange
L.S.
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn
Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 228 9582-0 - Fax +49 228 9582-455 - Infoline +49 228 9582-111
The rating of the strength of functions does not include the cryptoalgorithms suitable for encryption
and decryption (see BSIG Section 4, Para. 3, Clause 2)
This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for Information
Security or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, and no warranty
of the IT product by the Federal Office for Information Security or any other organisation that
recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is either expressed or implied.
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
Preliminary Remarks
Under the BSIG 1 Act, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has the
task of issuing certificates for information technology products.
Certification of a product is carried out on the instigation of the vendor or a
distributor, hereinafter called the sponsor.
A part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product
according to the security criteria published by the BSI or generally recognised
security criteria.
The evaluation is normally carried out by an evaluation facility recognised by the
BSI or by BSI itself.
The result of the certification procedure is the present Certification Report. This
report contains among others the certificate (summarised assessment) and the
detailed Certification Results.
The Certification Results contain the technical description of the security
functionality of the certified product, the details of the evaluation (strength and
weaknesses) and instructions for the user.
1
Act setting up the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Errichtungsgesetz, BSIG) of
17 December 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2834
V
Certification Report
Contents
Part A: Certification
Part B: Certification Results
Part C: Excerpts from the Criteria
VI
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
A
Certification
1
Specifications of the Certification Procedure
Certification Report
The certification body conducts the procedure according to the criteria laid down
in the following:
•
BSIG 2
•
BSI Certification Ordinance 3
•
BSI Schedule of Costs 4
•
Special decrees issued by the Bundesministerium des Innern (Federal
Ministry of the Interior)
•
DIN EN 45011 standard
•
BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125)
•
Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 2.1 5
•
Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM)
•
Part 1, Version 0.6
•
Part 2, Version 1.0
•
BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS)
•
Advice from the Certification Body on methodology for assurance
components above EAL4 (AIS 34)
The use of Common Criteria Version 2.1, Common Methodology, part 2,
Version 1.0 and final interpretations as part of AIS 32 results in compliance of
the certification results with Common Criteria Version 2.2 and Common
Methodology Part 2, Version 2.2 as endorsed by the Common Criteria
recognition arrangement committees.
2
Act setting up the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Errichtungsgesetz, BSIG) of
17 December 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2834
3
Ordinance on the Procedure for Issuance of a Certificate by the Federal Office for
Information Security (BSI-Zertifizierungsverordnung, BSIZertV) of 7 July 1992,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 1230
4
Schedule of Cost for Official Procedures of the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der
Informationstechnik (BSI-Kostenverordnung, BSI-KostV) of 03 March 2005,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 519
5
Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern of 22nd September 2000 in the
Bundesanzeiger p. 19445
A-1
Certification Report
2
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Recognition Agreements
In order to avoid multiple certification of the same product in different countries
a mutual recognition of IT security certificates - as far as such certificates are
based on ITSEC or CC - under certain conditions was agreed.
2.1
ITSEC/CC - Certificates
The SOGIS-Agreement on the mutual recognition of certificates based on
ITSEC became effective on 3 March 1998. This agreement was signed by the
national bodies of Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. This
agreement on the mutual recognition of IT security certificates was extended to
include certificates based on the CC for all evaluation levels (EAL 1 – EAL 7).
2.2
CC - Certificates
An arrangement (Common Criteria Arrangement) on the mutual recognition of
certificates based on the CC evaluation assurance levels up to and including
EAL 4 was signed in May 2000. It includes also the recognition of Protection
Profiles based on the CC. The arrangement was signed by the national bodies
of Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom and the United
States. Israel joined the arrangement in November 2000, Sweden in February
2002, Austria in November 2002, Hungary and Turkey in September 2003,
Japan in November 2003, the Czech Republic in September 2004, the Republic
of Singapore in March 2005, India in April 2005.
This evaluation contains the components ADV_IMP.2 (Implementation
Representation - Implementation of the TSF) and AVA_VLA.3 (Vulnerability
Assessment - Moderately resistant) that are not mutually recognised in
accordance with the provisions of the CCRA. For mutual recognition the EAL4components of these assurance families are relevant.
A-2
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
3
Certification Report
Performance of Evaluation and Certification
The certification body monitors each individual evaluation to ensure a uniform
procedure, a uniform interpretation of the criteria and uniform ratings.
The product Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0 has undergone the certification
procedure at BSI.
The evaluation of the product Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0 was
conducted by TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH, Prüfstelle für IT-Sicherheit. The
TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH, Prüfstelle für IT-Sicherheit is an evaluation
facility (ITSEF) 6 recognised by BSI.
The sponsor and vendor and distributor is:
ST-Incard S.r.l.
ZI Marcianise Sud
81025 Marcianise (CE), ITALY
The certification is concluded with
•
the comparability check and
•
the production of this Certification Report.
This work was completed by the BSI on 11. November 2005.
The confirmed assurance package is only valid on the condition that
•
all stipulations regarding generation, configuration and operation, as given in
the following report, are observed,
•
the product is operated in the environment described, where specified in the
following report.
This Certification Report only applies to the version of the product indicated
here. The validity can be extended to new versions and releases of the product,
provided the sponsor applies for re-certification of the modified product, in
accordance with the procedural requirements, and the evaluation does not
reveal any security deficiencies.
For the meaning of the assurance levels and the confirmed strength of
functions, please refer to the excerpts from the criteria at the end of the
Certification Report.
6
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
A-3
Certification Report
4
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Publication
The following Certification Results contain pages B-1 to B-22.
The product Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0 has been included in the BSI
list of the certified products, which is published regularly (see also Internet:
http:// www.bsi.bund.de). Further information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline
+49 228 9582-111.
Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the vendor 7 of
the product. The Certification Report can also be downloaded from the abovementioned website.
7
A-4
ST-Incard S.r.l.
ZI Marcianise Sud
81025 Marcianise (CE), ITALY
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
B
Certification Report
Certification Results
The following results represent a summary of
•
the security target of the sponsor for the target of evaluation,
•
the relevant evaluation results from the evaluation facility, and
•
complementary notes and stipulations of the certification body.
B-1
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Contents of the certification results
1
Executive Summary
2
Identification of the TOE
11
3
Security Policy
11
4
Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
12
5
Architectural Information
13
6
Documentation
14
7
IT Product Testing
14
8
Evaluated Configuration
15
9
Results of the Evaluation
16
10 Comments/Recommendations
18
11 Annexes
18
12 Security Target
18
13 Definitions
18
14 Bibliography
20
B-2
3
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
1
Certification Report
Executive Summary
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) and subject of the Security Target (ST) [6] is
called Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0. It is a java card platform which
consists of an installer and a Java Card Runtime Environment.
The installer is responsible for the installation of applets on the card and for the
deletion of applets and packages and its associated data on the card.
The Java Card Runtime Environment (JCRE) is the central component of a
Java Card System. It consists of the following parts:
•
Java Card Virtual Machine (JCVM) interprets the Java Card bytecode and
implements a applets firewall.
•
Java Card API and its associated native methods. These are are methods
and services for interaction with the platform resources.
•
Remote Method Invocation (RMI) facilities that provide the ability to invoke a
method on a remote object on the card.
•
Logical Channels that enable the opening of up to four simultaneous
sessions with the card.
•
Object deletion facilities that are responsible for the deletion of unreferenced
object owned by the current context and that the associated space is
recovered for reuse prior to the next card reset.
The TOE is a software product. The following components (see also PP [9],
chapter 2.1) do not belong to the TOE but to the IT environment:
•
Smart Card Platform. It is comprised of the integrated circuit (Samsung
S3CJ9QD 32-bit risk CPU based on the core ARMv5TEJ providing
256Kbytes of user ROM, 8Kbytes of RAM and 128K bytes of EEPROM), the
operating system and the dedicated software of the smart card. See also PP
[9], chapter 2.1.4,
•
Card manager, see also PP [9], chapter 2.1.3,
•
Bytecode verifier, see also PP [9], chapter 2.1.1,
•
any applets.
The following figure gives a graphical overview of the TOE, where the red
dashed line delimits its perimeter.
B-3
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Figure 1: TOE Structure and Components
The IT product Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0 was evaluated by TÜV
Informationstechnik GmbH, Prüfstelle für IT-Sicherheit. The evaluation was
completed on 09.11.2005. The TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH, Prüfstelle für
IT-Sicherheit is an evaluation facility (ITSEF) 8 recognised by BSI.
The sponsor and vendor and distributor is
ST-Incard S.r.l.
ZI Marcianise Sud
81025 Marcianise (CE), ITALY
1.1
Assurance package
The TOE security assurance requirements are based entirely on the assurance
components defined in part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C of this report,
or [1], part 3 for details).
The TOE meets the assurance requirements of assurance level EAL4+
(Evaluation Assurance Level 4 augmented by ADV_IMP.2 - Implementation
Representation - Implementation of the TSF) and AVA_VLA.3 - Vulnerability
Assessment - Moderately resistant).
8
B-4
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
1.2
Certification Report
Functionality
The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) selected in the Security
Target are Common Criteria Part 2 conformant as shown in the following table.
The following SFRs are taken from CC Part 2:
SFR
Name
CoreG Security Functional Requirements
Firewall Policy
FDP_ACC.2
Complete access control
FDP_ACF.1
Security attributes based access control
FDP_IFC.1
Subset information flow control
FDP_IFF.1
Simple security attributes
FDP_RIP.1
Subset residual information protection
FMT_MSA.1
Management of security attributes
FMT_MSA.2
Secure security attributes
FMT_MSA.3
Static attribute initialisation
FMT_SMF.1
Specification of management functions
FMT_SMR.1
Security roles
FPT_SEP.1
TSF domain separation
Application Programming Interface
FCS_CKM.1
Cryptographic key generation
FCS_CKM.2
Cryptographic key distribution
FCS_CKM.3
Cryptographic key access
FCS_CKM.4
Cryptographic destruction
FCS_COP.1
Cryptographic operation
FDP_RIP.1
Subset residual information protection
FDP_ROL.1
Basic rollback
Card Security Management
FAU_ARP.1
Security alarms
FDP_SDI.2
Stored data integrity monitoring and action
FPT_RVM.1
Non-bypassability of the TSP
FPT_TDC.1
Inter-TSF basic TSF data consistency
FPT_FLS.1
Failure with preservation of secure state
FPR_UNO.1
Unobservability
FPT_TST.1
TSF testing
AID Management
FMT_MTD.1
Management of TSF data
FMT_MTD.3
Secure TSF data
FIA_ATD.1
User attribute definition
FIA_UID.2
User identification before any action
FIA_USB.1
User-subject binding
B-5
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
SFR
Name
InstG Security Functional Requirements
FDP_ITC.2
Import of user data with security attributes
FMT_SMR.1
Security roles
FPT_FLS.1
Failure with preservation of secure state
FPT_RCV.3
Automated recovery without undue loss
FRU_RSA.1
Maximum quotas
ADELG Security Functional Requirements
Applet Deletion Manager Policy
FDP_ACC.2
Complete access control
FDP_ACF.1
Security attributes based access control
FMT_MSA.1
Management of security attributes
FMT_SMF.1
Specification of management functions
FMT_MSA.3
Static attribute initialization
FMT_SMR.1
Security roles
Additional Deletion Requirements
FDP_RIP.1
Subset residual information protection
FPT_FLS.1
Failure with preservation of secure state
RMIG Security Functional Requirements
JCRMI Policy
FDP_ACC.2
Complete access control
FDP_ACF.1
Security attributes based access control
FDP_IFC.1
Subset information flow control
FDP_IFF.1
Simple security attributes
FMT_MSA.1
Management of security attributes
FMT_MSA.3
Static attribute initialization
FMT_REV.1
Revocation
FMT_SMF.1
Specification of management functions
FMT_SMR.1
Security roles
LCG Security Functional Requirements
The requirements are stated under CoreG.
ODELG Security Functional Requirements
FDP_RIP.1
Subset residual information protection
FPT_FLS.1
Failure with preservation of secure state
CarG Security Functional Requirements
FCO_NRO.2
Enforced proof of origin
FIA_UID.1
Timing of identification
FDP_IFC.2
Complete information flow control
FDP_IFF.1
Simple security attributes
FDP_UIT.1
Data exchange integrity
FMT_MSA.1
B-6
Management of security attributes
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
SFR
Name
FMT_MSA.3
Static attribute initialization
FMT_SMF.1
Specification of management functions
FMT_SMR.1
Security roles
FTP_ITC.1
Inter-TSF trusted channel
Table 1: TOE Security Functional Requirements
These Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE
Security Functions:
Security function
SF_CARD_MNGT: Card Management
SF_CRYPTO_KEY: Cryptographic Key Management
SF_PIN: PIN management
SF_CRYPTO_OP: Cryptographic Computation
SF_FIREWALL: Object access controller (firewall)
SF_OBJ_MNGT: Object Management
SF_RMI: Remote method invocation
SF_POST: Power on Self test
SF_TRANSACTION: Transaction Management
Table 2: TOE security functions
Note: Only the titles of the Security Functional Requirements and of the TOE
Security Functions are provided. For more details please refer to the Security
Target [6], chapter 6 and 7.
1.3
Strength of Function
The TOE’s strength of functions is claimed high (SOF-High) for specific
functions as indicated in the Security Target [6] [chapter 2.2, detailed in chapter
7.1].
The rating of the strength of functions does not include the cryptoalgorithms
suitable for encryption and decryption (see BSIG Section 4, Para. 3, Clause 2)
(see Chapter 9 of this report).
1.4 Summary of threats and Organisational Security Policies
(OSPs) addressed by the evaluated IT product
The following list of considered threats for the TOE is defined in the Security
Target [6], chapter 4.5:
B-7
Certification Report
Threat
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Description
T.PHYSICAL
The attacker discloses or modifies the design of the
TOE, its sensitive data or application code by physical
(opposed to logical) tampering means. This threat
includes IC failure analysis, electrical probing,
unexpected tearing, and DP analysis. That also
includes the modification of the runtime execution of
Java Card System or SCP software through alteration
of the intended execution order of (set of) instructions
through physical tampering techniques.
CONFIDENTIALITY
T.CONFID-JCS-CODE
The attacker executes an application without
authorization to disclose the Java Card System code.
T.CONFID-APPLI-DATA The attacker executes an application without
authorization to disclose data belonging to another
application.
T.CONFID-JCS-DATA
The attacker executes an application without
authorization to disclose data belonging to the Java
Card System.
INTEGRITY
T.INTEG-APPLI-CODE
The attacker executes an application to alter (part of)
its own or another application’s code.
T.INTEG-JCS-CODE
The attacker executes an application to alter (part of)
the Java Card System code.
T.INTEG-APPLI-DATA
The attacker executes an application to alter (part of)
another application’s data.
T.INTEG-JCS-DATA
The attacker executes an application to alter (part of)
Java Card System or API data.
T.INTEG-APPLICODE.2
The attacker modifies (part of) its own or another
application code when an application package is
transmitted to the card for installation
T.INTEG-APPLI-DATA.2 The attacker modifies (part of) the initialization data
contained in an application package when the
package is transmitted to the card for installation.
IDENTITY USURPATION
T.SID.1
B-8
An applet impersonates another application, or even
the JCRE, in order to gain illegal access to some
resources of the card or with respect to the end user
or the terminal.
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Threat
T.SID.2
Certification Report
Description
The attacker modifies the identity of the privileged
roles.
UNAUTHORIZED EXECUTION
T.EXE-CODE.1
An applet performs an unauthorized execution of a
method.
T.EXE-CODE.2
An applet performs an unauthorized execution of a
method fragment or arbitrary data.
T.NATIVE
An applet executes a native method to bypass a
security function such as the firewall.
DENIAL OF SERVICE
T.RESOURCES
An attacker prevents correct operation of the Java
Card System through consumption of some resources
of the card: RAM or NVRAM.
MODIFICATIONS OF THE SET OF APPLICATIONS
T.INSTALL
The attacker fraudulently installs post-issuance of an
applet on the card. This concerns either the
installation of an unverified applet or an attempt to
induce a malfunction in the TOE through the
installation process.
UNAUTHORIZED EXECUTIONS
T.EXE-CODE-REMOTE The attacker performs an unauthorized remote
execution of a method from the CAD.
CARD MANAGEMENT
T.DELETION
The attacker deletes an applet or a package already in
use on the card, or uses the deletion functions to pave
the way for further attacks (putting the TOE in an
insecure state).
SERVICES
T.OBJ-DELETION
The attacker keeps a reference to a garbage collected
object in order to force the TOE to execute an
unavailable method, to make it to crash, or to gain
access to a memory containing data that is now being
used by another application.
Table 3: Threats
These threats against the TOE from the Security Target [6] are compliant with
the related threats defined in the Protection Profile [9].
There is one Security policy to be fulfilled by the TOE, please refer to the
Security Target [6], chapter 4.6:
B-9
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Organisational
security policy
Description
OSP.VERIFICATION This policy shall ensure the adequacy between the export
files used in the verification and those used for installing
the verified file. The policy must also ensure that no
modification of the file is performed in between its
verification and the signing by the verification authority.
Table 4: Organisational security policy
1.5
Special configuration requirements
After its delivery, the TOE is embedded in the final product of a smartcard. It
only features one fixed configuration (user mode), which cannot be altered by
the user. The TOE was tested in this configuration, however, the TOE is only
the software product according to the PP [9] and ST [6] and therefore no
composition aspects were considered during the evaluation.
1.6
Assumptions about the operating environment
The following constraints concerning the operating environment are made in the
Security Target, please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 4.4:
Assumption
Description
A.NATIVE
Those parts of the APIs written in native code as well as any
pre-issuance native application on the card are assumed to
be conformant with the TOE so as to ensure that security
policies and objectives described herein are not violated.
A.VERIFICATION All the bytecodes are verified at least once, before the
loading, before the installation or before the execution,
depending on the card capabilities, in order to ensure that
each bytecode is valid at execution time.
A.APPLET
Applets loaded post-issuance do not contain native methods.
The Java Card specification explicitly “does not include
support for native methods” outside the API.
Table 5: Secure usage assumptions of ST and PP
1.7
Disclaimers
The Certification Results only apply to the version of the product indicated in the
Certificate and on the condition that all the stipulations are kept as detailed in
this Certification Report. This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product
by the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) or any other organisation
that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT
B-10
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
product by BSI or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
2
Identification of the TOE
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is called Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0.
The following table summarises the TOE components and defines the
evaluated configuration of the TOE:
Typ
Deliverables
Version / Date
SW
Mokard Safe 2.2 consisting of
2.4.0
SW
Code stored in ROM
2.3.3
SW
Code stored in EEPROM
2.4.0
DOC
Mokard Safe 2.2 The User and Administrator A-0 Draft 8
Guidance AGD_USR.1 – AGD_ADM.1
02.11.2005
Table 6: Identification of the TOE
For TOE identification the command APDU GET DATA for TOE ID is sent to the
card. The card answers with the response APDU:
•
ROM mask ID: 00 00 00 29.
•
ROM code version: 00 02 03 03.
•
EEPROM code version: 00 02 04 00.
The TOE version is equal to the EEPROM code version 2.4.0.
3
Security Policy
The security policy of the TOE is to provide card management functions for the
card content management, applet selection and applet lifetime. It also provides
functions for management of application key operations such as key
distribution, access to keys, key generation and key destruction. It also assures
the integrity of stored keys. Furthermore, cryptographic support is provided by
the TOE. Another security policy of the TOE is to enforce the security model of
the Java Card and manage the inter application resource sharing in a secure
and controlled way. The object management of the TOE provides tasks for
secure object management and the PIN verification procedure provides means
to perform PIN verification, to update a PIN and to manage PIN counters. Other
security policies of the TOE are to provide a self test function and to control all
operations concerning the Java Card Remote Method Invocation as well as to
control all operations concerning “persistent memory” modification.
B-11
Certification Report
4
Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
4.1
Usage assumptions
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
The Security Target does not contain usage assumptions.
4.2
Environmental assumptions
The following assumptions about physical and connectivity aspects defined by
the Security Target have to be met (refer to Security Target [6], chapter 4.4):
•
Those parts of the APIs written in native code as well as any pre-issuance
native application on the card are assumed to be conformant with the TOE
so as to ensure that security policies and objectives described herein are not
violated. (A.NATIVE)
•
All the bytecodes are verified at least once, before the loading, before the
installation or before the execution, depending on the card capabilities, in
order to ensure that each bytecode is valid at execution time.
(A.VERIFICATION)
•
Applets loaded post-issuance do not contain native methods. The Java Card
specification explicitly “does not include support for native methods” outside
the API. (A.APPLET)
Furthermore, the Security Target [6], chapter 4.6 defines an Organisational
Security Policy (OSP.VERIFICATION) that ensures the adequacy between the
export files used in the verification and those used for installing the verified file.
The policy must also ensure that no modification of the file is performed in
between its verification and the signing by the verification authority.
4.3
Clarification of scope
The TOE is a software product. The underlying chip hardware, the OS, the DS,
the card manager, the bytecode verifier and any applets are not part of the TOE
and have not been considered within the evaluation nor has a composite
evaluation been performed. They are considered to be part of the IT
environment.
Smartcards may be subject to TOE emanation attacks including power analysis
and side channel emission measurements. Since the Smartcard platform is not
part of the TOE but it is considered to be part of the IT-environment, no
penetration tests related to power analysis or fault injection attacks via the
hardware have been performed. The cryptolibrary provided by the chip
manufacturer uses a hardware random number generator in order to generate
prime numbers and the keys. Both cryptolibrary and the hardware random
number generator are not part of the TOE. The underlying Smartcard chip
S3CJ9QD as part of the IT environment is currently in the process of evaluation.
B-12
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
5
Certification Report
Architectural Information
The TOE (Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0) is a software product. An
overview of the architecture is given in section 3.1 of the Security Target [6] and
in figure 1 of this report.
The TOE life-cycle as a part of a smartcard life-cycle is described in the
protection profile [9] and consists of 3 main phases reproduced in the following:
Phase 1: TOE Development
•
TOE specification, design, development & generation
•
Mask software development and Mask IC production and test
•
Testing, integration & validation
•
Mask acceptance and Mask software maintenance and test
Phase 2: Production & Initialisation/Personalisation
•
Platform initialisation
•
Platform testing & production
•
Golden sample (EEPROM binary image) generation and test, test and
personalisation engineering, personalization sample card testing, sample
card customer approval and mass production and test
•
Initialisation/Personalisation (embedding of OS, Java Card System and
applications in the card)
Phase 3: Usage
•
Administration
•
Configuration
•
End-usage
•
Loading & installation
At the end of phase 1 the TOE is delivered to the chip manufacturer in the form
of ROM code. At the end of phase 2 the TOE is delivered to the end users
embedded in the final product which is a smart card that is personalized and
working, ready to provide services to end users.
Furthermore an administrator and user guidance (one document) is delivered to
the application developer, the card embedder and the card issuer.
6
Documentation
The following documentation is provided by the developer to the application
developer, the card embedder and the card issuer.
B-13
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Document Name
Version / Date
Mokard Safe 2.2 The User and Administrator A-0 Draft 8 / 02.11.2005
Guidance AGD_USR.1 – AGD_ADM.1
Table 7: Documentation of the TOE
7
IT Product Testing
Developer Tests
Test Configuration
The TOE in the version 2.4.0 (ROM version 2.3.3 and EEPROM version 2.4.0)
was tested in the TOE development environment using automated test tools.
The TOE was also tested on a smart card as a java card, on a chip simulator
with a virtual card reader, on a chip emulator and a card reader.
Test Approach
The test goal is to demonstrate that the TOE behaves as specified in the
functional specification of the TOE. The developer’s test strategy was to test all
security functions together with the related interfaces as described in the
functional specification.
Test Results
The developer’s testing results demonstrate that the TOE performs as
expected. All TSF behave as specified in the Security Target [6] and as detailed
in the developer’s functional specification.
Independent Evaluator Tests
Test Configuration
The TOE was tested in form of the final product as smartcards as well as on an
emulator.
The independent evaluator tests have been performed at the ITSEF facility in
Essen while the repeated manufacturer tests have been performed by the
evaluator within the test environment of the developer.
Test Approach:
For the sampling of repeated manufacturer tests the evaluator has performed a
chosen subset of developer tests, so each TSF was covered by the tests. For
independent testing the evaluator applied a test strategy that covered all TSF.
The evaluator used the automated test tools of the developer to perform parts of
the independent tests.
B-14
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
To verify and reject possible vulnerabilities, the ITSEF performed penetration
tests. Some of these tests were performed in the TOE development
environment using script based developer test tools. The majority of the
penetration tests were performed in the test laboratory of the ITSEF.
Test Results
The independent tests as well as the repeated manufacturer tests confirmed
that the TOE’s security functions behave as specified in the Security Target [6]
and as detailed in the developer’s functional specification.
During the evaluator’s penetration testing the TOE operated as specified. The
TOE withstood the penetration efforts of attackers with moderate attack
potential in the intended environment for the TOE.
8
Evaluated Configuration
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is a java card platform which consists of an
installer and a Java Card Runtime Environment.
The TOE is a software product, therefore, the following do not belong to the
TOE but to the IT environment (see also PP [9], chapter 2.1):
•
Smart Card Platform which is comprised of the integrated circuit, the
operating system and the dedicated software of the smart card. See also PP
[9], chapter 2.1.4,
•
Card manager, see also PP [9], chapter 2.1.3,
•
Bytecode verifier, see also PP [9], chapter 2.1.1,
•
any applets.
For evaluation, the tests of the TOE have been performed by the ITSEF using
the Samsung S3CJ9QD, Firmware version: 13, Crypto Library version:
S3CJ9QD RSA v3.2s, OS: 2.4.0.
The TOE is delivered to the end users embedded in the final product which is a
smart card that is personalized and working, ready to provide services to end
users.
9
Results of the Evaluation
The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR), [8] was provided by the ITSEF
according to the Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of
the Scheme [3] and all interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as
relevant for the TOE.
The evaluation methodology CEM [2] was used for those components identical
with EAL4. For components beyond EAL4 the methodology was defined in coordination with the Certification Body [4, AIS 34]).
B-15
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
The assurance refinements outlined in the Security Target were followed in the
course of the evaluation of the TOE.
The verdicts for the CC, Part 3 assurance components (according to EAL4
augmented by ADV_IMP.2 and AVA_VLA.3 and the class ASE for the Security
Target evaluation) are summarised in the following table.
Assurance classes and components
Security Target evaluation
CC Class ASE
PASS
TOE description
ASE_DES.1
PASS
Security environment
ASE_ENV.1
PASS
ST introduction
ASE_INT.1
PASS
Security objectives
ASE_OBJ.1
PASS
PP claims
ASE_PPC.1
PASS
IT security requirements
ASE_REQ.1
PASS
Explicitly stated IT security requirements
ASE_SRE.1
PASS
TOE summary specification
ASE_TSS.1
PASS
Configuration management
CC Class ACM
PASS
Partial CM automation
ACM_AUT.1
PASS
Generation support and acceptance procedures
ACM_CAP.4
PASS
Problem tracking CM coverage
ACM_SCP.2
PASS
Delivery and operation
CC Class ADO
PASS
Detection of modification
ADO_DEL.2
PASS
Installation, generation, and start-up procedures
ADO_IGS.1
PASS
Development
CC Class ADV
PASS
Fully defined external interfaces
ADV_FSP.2
PASS
Security enforcing high-level design
ADV_HLD.2
PASS
Implementation of the TSF
ADV_IMP.2
PASS
Descriptive low-level design
ADV_LLD.1
PASS
Informal correspondence demonstration
ADV_RCR.1
PASS
Informal TOE security policy model
ADV_SPM.1
PASS
Guidance documents
CC Class AGD
PASS
Administrator guidance
AGD_ADM.1
PASS
User guidance
AGD_USR.1
PASS
Life cycle support
B-16
Verdict
CC Class ALC
PASS
Identification of security measures
ALC_DVS.1
PASS
Developer defined life-cycle model
ALC_LCD.1
PASS
Well-defined development tools
ALC_TAT.1
PASS
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
Assurance classes and components
Tests
Verdict
CC Class ATE
PASS
Analysis of coverage
ATE_COV.2
PASS
Testing: high-level design
ATE_DPT.1
PASS
Functional testing
ATE_FUN.1
PASS
Independent testing – sample
ATE_IND.2
PASS
Vulnerability assessment
CC Class AVA
PASS
Validation of analysis
AVA_MSU.2
PASS
Strength of TOE security function evaluation
AVA_SOF.1
PASS
Moderately resistant
AVA_VLA.3
PASS
Table 8: Verdicts for the assurance components
The evaluation has shown that:
•
the TOE is conformant to the Protection Profile PP/0305, JavaCard System
Standard 2.2 Configuration Protection Profile [9]
•
Security Functional Requirements specified for the TOE are Common
Criteria Part 2 conformant
•
the assurance of the TOE is Common Criteria Part 3 conformant EAL4
augmented by ADV_IMP.2 and AVA_VLA.3.
•
the following TOE Security Function fulfils the claimed Strength of Function:
SF_CARD_MNGT for the mutual authentication procedure as a
permutational mechanism.
The rating of the strength of functions does not include the cryptoalgorithms
suitable for encryption and decryption (see BSIG Section 4, Para. 3, Clause 2).
This holds for the algorithms listed in the security functions SF_CARD_MNGT,
SF_CRYPTO_KEY, SF_CRYPTO_OP, as described in the Security Target [6],
chapter 7.1.
The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the software product called
Java Card Mokard Safe 2.2 V2.4.0 as identified in chapter 2 above.
The validity can be extended to new versions and releases of the product,
provided the sponsor applies for re-certification or assurance continuity of the
modified product, in accordance with the procedural requirements, and the
evaluation of the modified product does not reveal any security deficiencies.
10
Comments/Recommendations
Due to the nature of the TOE as a software product that is composed of the
mask identifier, the ROM version, and the EEPROM version and that is a part of
a smartcard product, there exist a number of requirements that are specified in
the User and Administrator Guidance of the TOE [7].
B-17
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
The User and Administrator Guidance of the TOE [7] contains necessary
information about the secure usage of the TOE and is delivered to the
application developer, the card embedder and the card issuer who have to
follow the requirements.
Additionally, for secure usage of the TOE, the fulfilment of the assumptions
about the environment in the Security Target [6] and the Security Target as a
whole has to be taken into account. Therefore a user/administrator has to follow
the guidance in these documents.
11
Annexes
None.
12
Security Target
For the purpose of publishing, the security target [10] of the target of evaluation
(TOE) is provided within a separate document. It is a sanitized version of the
complete security target [6] used for the evaluation performed.
13
Definitions
13.1 Acronyms
BSI
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal
Office for Information Security, Bonn, Germany
CC
Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
CPU
Central Processin Unit
DS
Dedicated Software
EAL
Evaluation Assurance Level
EEPROM
Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory
ETR
Evaluation Technical Report
IC
Integrated Circuit
IT
Information Technology
ITSEF
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
JCRE
Java Card Runtime Environment
JCVM
Java Card Virtual Machine
OS
Operating System
PIN
Personal Identification Number
PP
Protection Profile
B-18
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
RAM
Random Access Memory
RMI
Remote Method Invocation
ROM
Read Only Memory
SF
Security Function
SFP
Security Function Policy
SOF
Strength of Function
ST
Security Target
TOE
Target of Evaluation
TSC
TSF Scope of Control
TSF
TOE Security Functions
TSP
TOE Security Policy
Certification Report
13.2 Glossary
Augmentation - The addition of one or more assurance component(s) from CC
Part 3 to an EAL or assurance package.
Extension - The addition to an ST or PP of functional requirements not
contained in part 2 and/or assurance requirements not contained in part 3 of the
CC.
Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics
based on well-established mathematical concepts.
Informal - Expressed in natural language.
Object - An entity within the TSC that contains or receives information and
upon which subjects perform operations.
Protection Profile - An implementation-independent set of security requirements for a category of TOEs that meet specific consumer needs.
Security Function - A part or parts of the TOE that have to be relied upon for
enforcing a closely related subset of the rules from the TSP.
Security Target - A set of security requirements and specifications to be used
as the basis for evaluation of an identified TOE.
Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined
semantics.
Strength of Function - A qualification of a TOE security function expressing
the minimum efforts assumed necessary to defeat its expected security
behaviour by directly attacking its underlying security mechanisms.
SOF-basic - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that
the function provides adequate protection against casual breach of TOE
security by attackers possessing a low attack potential.
B-19
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
SOF-medium - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows
that the function provides adequate protection against straightforward or
intentional breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a moderate attack
potential.
SOF-high - A level of the TOE strength of function where analysis shows that
the function provides adequate protection against deliberately planned or
organised breach of TOE security by attackers possessing a high attack
potential.
Subject - An entity within the TSC that causes operations to be performed.
Target of Evaluation - An IT product or system and its associated
administrator and user guidance documentation that is the subject of an
evaluation.
TOE Security Functions - A set consisting of all hardware, software, and
firmware of the TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the
TSP.
TOE Security Policy - A set of rules that regulate how assets are managed,
protected and distributed within a TOE.
TSF Scope of Control - The set of interactions that can occur with or within a
TOE and are subject to the rules of the TSP.
14
Bibliography
[1]
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 2.1, August 1999
[2]
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation
(CEM), Part 1, Version 0.6; Part 2: Evaluation Methodology, Version 1.0,
August 1999
[3]
BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125)
[4]
Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for
the TOE.
[5]
German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148, BSI 7149), periodically
updated list published also on the BSI Web-site
[6]
Mokard Safe 2.2, ASE-Security Target, BSI-DSZ-0251-2005, Version B0, Draft-11, Date 14.10.2005, (confidential document)
[7]
Mokard Safe 2.2, The User and Administrator Guidance AGD_USR.1 –
AGD_ADM.1, Version A-0, Draft-8, Date: 02.11.2005
B-20
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
[8]
Evaluation Technical Report, BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005, Version 2, Date:
09.11.2005, (confidential document)
[9]
Protection Profile PP/0305, JavaCard System Standard 2.2 Configuration
Protection Profile
[10]
Mokard Safe 2.2, ASE-Security Target Lite, BSI-DSZ-0251-2005, Version
A-0, Date 10.11.2005
B-21
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
This page is intentionally left blank.
B-22
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
C
Certification Report
Excerpts from the Criteria
CC Part 1:
Caveats on evaluation results (chapter 5.4) / Final Interpretation 008
The conformance result indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is
met by a TOE or PP that passes its evaluation. This conformance result is presented
with respect to Part 2 (functional requirements), Part 3 (assurance requirements) and, if
applicable, to a pre-defined set of requirements (e.g., EAL, Protection Profile).
The conformance result consists of one of the following:
Part 2 conformant - A PP or TOE is Part 2 conformant if the functional requirements
are based only upon functional components in Part 2
Part 2 extended - A PP or TOE is Part 2 extended if the functional requirements
include functional components not in Part 2
plus one of the following:
Part 3 conformant - A PP or TOE is Part 3 conformant if the assurance requirements
are based only upon assurance components in Part 3
Part 3 extended - A PP or TOE is Part 3 extended if the assurance requirements
include assurance requirements not in Part 3.
Additionally, the conformance result may include a statement made with respect to sets
of defined requirements, in which case it consists of one of the following:
Package name Conformant - A PP or TOE is conformant to a pre-defined named
functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements (functions or
assurance) include all components in the packages listed as part of the conformance
result.
Package name Augmented - A PP or TOE is an augmentation of a pre-defined
named functional and/or assurance package (e.g. EAL) if the requirements (functions
or assurance) are a proper superset of all components in the packages listed as part of
the conformance result.
Finally, the conformance result may also include a statement made with respect to
Protection Profiles, in which case it includes the following:
PP Conformant - A TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the
conformance result.
C-1
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
CC Part 3:
Assurance categorisation (chapter 2.5)
„The assurance classes, families, and the abbreviation for each family are shown in
Table 2.1.
Assurance Class
Class ACM:
Configuration
management
Class ADO: Delivery
and operation
Class ADV:
Development
Assurance Family
CM automation
Abbreviated Name
ACM_AUT
CM capabilities
CM scope
Delivery
ACM_CAP
ACM_SCP
ADO_DEL
Installation, generation and start-up
Functional specification
ADO_IGS
ADV_FSP
High-level design
Implementation representation
TSF internals
Low-level design
Representation correspondence
Security policy modeling
Class AGD: Guidance Administrator guidance
documents
User guidance
Class ALC: Life cycle Development security
support
Flaw remediation
Life cycle definition
Tools and techniques
Class ATE: Tests
Coverage
Depth
Functional tests
Independent testing
Class AVA:
Covert channel analysis
Vulnerability
assessment
Misuse
Strength of TOE security functions
Vulnerability analysis
ADV_HLD
ADV_IMP
ADV_INT
ADV_LLD
ADV_RCR
ADV_SPM
AGD_ADM
AGD_USR
ALC_DVS
ALC_FLR
ALC_LCD
ALC_TAT
ATE_COV
ATE_DPT
ATE_FUN
ATE_IND
AVA_CCA
AVA_MSU
AVA_SOF
AVA_VLA
Table 2.1 -Assurance family breakdown and mapping“
C-2
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 6)
„The Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs) provide an increasing scale that balances
the level of assurance obtained with the cost and feasibility of acquiring that degree of
assurance. The CC approach identifies the separate concepts of assurance in a TOE
at the end of the evaluation, and of maintenance of that assurance during the
operational use of the TOE.
It is important to note that not all families and components from Part 3 are included in
the EALs. This is not to say that these do not provide meaningful and desirable
assurances. Instead, it is expected that these families and components will be
considered for augmentation of an EAL in those PPs and STs for which they provide
utility.
Evaluation assurance level (EAL) overview (chapter 6.1)
Table 6.1 represents a summary of the EALs. The columns represent a hierarchically
ordered set of EALs, while the rows represent assurance families. Each number in the
resulting matrix identifies a specific assurance component where applicable.
As outlined in the next section, seven hierarchically ordered evaluation assurance
levels are defined in the CC for the rating of a TOE's assurance. They are hierarchically
ordered inasmuch as each EAL represents more assurance than all lower EALs. The
increase in assurance from EAL to EAL is accomplished by substitution of a
hierarchically higher assurance component from the same assurance family (i.e.
increasing rigour, scope, and/or depth) and from the addition of assurance components
from other assurance families (i.e. adding new requirements).
These EALs consist of an appropriate combination of assurance components as
described in chapter 2 of this Part 3. More precisely, each EAL includes no more than
one component of each assurance family and all assurance dependencies of every
component are addressed.
While the EALs are defined in the CC, it is possible to represent other combinations of
assurance. Specifically, the notion of “augmentation“ allows the addition of assurance
components (from assurance families not already included in the EAL) or the
substitution of assurance components (with another hierarchically higher assurance
component in the same assurance family) to an EAL. Of the assurance constructs
defined in the CC, only EALs may be augmented. The notion of an “EAL minus a
constituent assurance component“ is not recognised by the CC as a valid claim.
Augmentation carries with it the obligation on the part of the claimant to justify the utility
and added value of the added assurance component to the EAL. An EAL may also be
extended with explicitly stated assurance requirements.
C-3
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Assurance
Class
Assurance
Family
Configuration
management
ACM_AUT
EAL1
Delivery and
operation
Development
Guidance
documents
Life cycle
support
Tests
Vulnerability
assessment
ACM_CAP
ACM_SCP
ADO_DEL
1
ADO_IGS
ADV_FSP
ADV_HLD
ADV_IMP
ADV_INT
ADV_LLD
ADV_RCR
ADV_SPM
AGD_ADM
AGD_USR
ALC_DVS
ALC_FLR
ALC_LCD
ALC_TAT
ATE_COV
ATE_DPT
ATE_FUN
ATE_IND
AVA_CCA
AVA_MSU
AVA_SOF
AVA_VLA
Assurance Components by
Evaluation Assurance Level
EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
4
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
2
5
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
4
5
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
1
4
3
1
4
1
1
Table 6.1 - Evaluation assurance level summary“
C-4
EAL7
2
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 6.2.1)
„Objectives
EAL1 is applicable where some confidence in correct operation is required, but the
threats to security are not viewed as serious. It will be of value where independent
assurance is required to support the contention that due care has been exercised with
respect to the protection of personal or similar information.
EAL1 provides an evaluation of the TOE as made available to the customer, including
independent testing against a specification, and an examination of the guidance
documentation provided. It is intended that an EAL1 evaluation could be successfully
conducted without assistance from the developer of the TOE, and for minimal outlay.
An evaluation at this level should provide evidence that the TOE functions in a manner
consistent with its documentation, and that it provides useful protection against
identified threats.“
Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 6.2.2)
„Objectives
EAL2 requires the co-operation of the developer in terms of the delivery of design
information and test results, but should not demand more effort on the part of the
developer than is consistent with good commercial practice. As such it should not
require a substantially increased investment of cost or time.
EAL2 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require
a low to moderate level of independently assured security in the absence of ready
availability of the complete development record. Such a situation may arise when
securing legacy systems, or where access to the developer may be limited.“
Evaluation assurance level 3 (EAL3) - methodically tested and checked
(chapter 6.2.3)
„Objectives
EAL3 permits a conscientious developer to gain maximum assurance from positive
security engineering at the design stage without substantial alteration of existing sound
development practices.
EAL3 is applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
moderate level of independently assured security, and require a thorough investigation
of the TOE and its development without substantial re-engineering.“
Evaluation assurance level 4 (EAL4) - methodically designed, tested, and
reviewed (chapter 6.2.4)
„Objectives
EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security
engineering based on good commercial development practices which, though rigorous,
C-5
Certification Report
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
do not require substantial specialist knowledge, skills, and other resources. EAL4 is the
highest level at which it is likely to be economically feasible to retrofit to an existing
product line.
EAL4 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require
a moderate to high level of independently assured security in conventional commodity
TOEs and are prepared to incur additional security-specific engineering costs.“
Evaluation assurance level 5 (EAL5) - semiformally designed and tested
(chapter 6.2.5)
„Objectives
EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering
based upon rigorous commercial development practices supported by moderate
application of specialist security engineering techniques. Such a TOE will probably be
designed and developed with the intent of achieving EAL5 assurance. It is likely that
the additional costs attributable to the EAL5 requirements, relative to rigorous
development without the application of specialised techniques, will not be large.
EAL5 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require
a high level of independently assured security in a planned development and require a
rigorous development approach without incurring unreasonable costs attributable to
specialist security engineering techniques.“
Evaluation assurance level 6 (EAL6) - semiformally verified design and
tested (chapter 6.2.6)
„Objectives
EAL6 permits developers to gain high assurance from application of security
engineering techniques to a rigorous development environment in order to produce a
premium TOE for protecting high value assets against significant risks.
EAL6 is therefore applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in
high risk situations where the value of the protected assets justifies the additional
costs.“
Evaluation assurance level 7 (EAL7) - formally verified design and tested
(chapter 6.2.7)
„Objectives
EAL7 is applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in extremely
high risk situations and/or where the high value of the assets justifies the higher costs.
Practical application of EAL7 is currently limited to TOEs with tightly focused security
functionality that is amenable to extensive formal analysis.“
C-6
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
Certification Report
Strength of TOE security functions (AVA_SOF) (chapter 14.3)
AVA_SOF
Strength of TOE security functions
„Objectives
Even if a TOE security function cannot be bypassed, deactivated, or corrupted, it may
still be possible to defeat it because there is a vulnerability in the concept of its
underlying security mechanisms. For those functions a qualification of their security
behaviour can be made using the results of a quantitative or statistical analysis of the
security behaviour of these mechanisms and the effort required to overcome them. The
qualification is made in the form of a strength of TOE security function claim.“
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VLA) (chapter 14.4)
AVA_VLA
Vulnerability analysis
„Objectives
Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether vulnerabilities identified,
during the evaluation of the construction and anticipated operation of the TOE or by
other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses), could allow users to violate the TSP.
Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that a user will be able to discover flaws
that will allow unauthorised access to resources (e.g. data), allow the ability to interfere
with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users.“
„Application notes
A vulnerability analysis is performed by the developer in order to ascertain the
presence of security vulnerabilities, and should consider at least the contents of all the
TOE deliverables including the ST for the targeted evaluation assurance level. The
developer is required to document the disposition of identified vulnerabilities to allow
the evaluator to make use of that information if it is found useful as a support for the
evaluator's independent vulnerability analysis.“
„Independent vulnerability analysis goes beyond the vulnerabilities identified by the
developer. The main intent of the evaluator analysis is to determine that the TOE is
resistant to penetration attacks performed by an attacker possessing a low (for
AVA_VLA.2), moderate (for AVA_VLA.3) or high (for AVA_VLA.4) attack potential.“
C-7
Certification Report
This page is intentionally left blank.
C-8
BSI-DSZ-CC-0251-2005
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