National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
for the
Symantec Endpoint Protection Client, Version 1.0
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-VID10926-2018
Dated: December 10, 2018
Version: 0.1
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Security Agency
Information Technology Laboratory Information Assurance Directorate
100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road STE 6940
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6940
®
TM
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Jerome Myers: Senior Validator
Marybeth Panock: Lead Validator
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Tony Busciglio
Thibaut Marconnet
Acumen Security, LLC
3
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 4
2 Identification.......................................................................................................................... 5
3 Architectural Information .................................................................................................... 6
4 Security Policy........................................................................................................................ 7
5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope ................................................................. 9
5.1 Assumptions....................................................................................................................................................9
5.2 Threats.............................................................................................................................................................9
5.3 Clarification of Scope.....................................................................................................................................9
6 Documentation..................................................................................................................... 11
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration ........................................................................................... 12
7.1 Evaluated Configuration..............................................................................................................................12
8 IT Product Testing............................................................................................................... 13
8.1 Developer Testing .........................................................................................................................................13
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing.......................................................................................................13
9 Results of the Evaluation .................................................................................................... 14
9.1 Evaluation of Security Target .....................................................................................................................14
9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation...............................................................................................14
9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents............................................................................................................14
9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities...............................................................................................15
9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity .........................................................................15
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity ..............................................................................................................15
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results..................................................................................................................15
10 Validator Comments & Recommendations ...................................................................... 16
11 Annexes................................................................................................................................. 17
12 Security Target .................................................................................................................... 18
13 Glossary ................................................................................................................................ 19
14 Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 20
4
1 Executive Summary
This Validation Report (VR) is intended to assist the end user of this product and any security
certification Agent for that end user in determining the suitability of this Information Technology (IT)
product for their environment. End users should review the Security Target (ST), which is where specific
security claims are made, in conjunction with this VR, which describes how those security claims were
tested and evaluated and any restrictions on the evaluated configuration. Prospective users should
carefully read the Assumptions and Clarification of Scope in Section 5 and the Validator Comments in
Section 10, where any restrictions on the evaluated configuration are highlighted.
This report documents the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) assessment of the
evaluation of the Symantec Endpoint Protection Client Series Target of Evaluation (TOE). It presents the
evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance results. This VR is not an endorsement of the
TOE by any agency of the U.S. Government and no warranty of the TOE is either expressed or implied.
This VR applies only to the specific version and configuration of the product as evaluated and
documented in the ST.
The evaluation was completed by Acumen Security in November 2018. The information in this report is
largely derived from the Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test report, all written by
Acumen Security. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria Part 2 Extended
and Part 3 Conformant, and meets the assurance requirements defined in the U.S. Government Protection
Profile for Security Requirements for Protection Profile for Application Software, version 1.2, dated, 25
April 2016 [ASPP].
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) identified in this Validation Report has been evaluated at a NIAP
approved Common Criteria Testing Laboratory using the Common Methodology for IT Security
Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1, Rev. 4 for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security
Evaluation, Version 3.1, Rev. 4, as interpreted by the Assurance Activities contained in the Protection
Profile for Application Software, version 1.2, dated, 25 April 2016 [PP_APP_v1.2]. This Validation
Report applies only to the specific version of the TOE as evaluated. The evaluation has been conducted
in accordance with the provisions of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme and
the conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence
provided.
The validation team provided guidance on technical issues and evaluation processes and reviewed the
individual work units documented in the ETR and the Assurance Activities Report (AAR). The validation
team found that the evaluation showed that the product satisfies all of the functional requirements and
assurance requirements stated in the Security Target (ST). Based on these findings, the validation team
concludes that the testing laboratory's findings are accurate, the conclusions justified, and the
conformance results are correct. The conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation technical
report are consistent with the evidence produced.
5
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of
Standards effort to establish commercial facilities to perform trusted product evaluations.
Under this program, security evaluations are conducted by commercial testing
laboratories called Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs). CCTLs evaluate
products against Protection Profile containing Assurance Activities, which are
interpretation of CEM work units specific to the technology described by the PP.
The NIAP Validation Body assigns Validators to monitor the CCTLs to ensure quality
and consistency across evaluations. Developers of information technology products
desiring a security evaluation contract with a CCTL and pay a fee for their product's
evaluation. Upon successful completion of the evaluation, the product is added to NIAP's
Product Compliance List.
Table 1 provides information needed to completely identify the product, including:
 The Target of Evaluation (TOE): the fully qualified identifier of the product as
evaluated.
 The Security Target (ST), describing the security features, claims, and assurances
of the product.
 The conformance result of the evaluation.
 The Protection Profile(s) to which the product is conformant.
 The organizations and individuals participating in the evaluation.
Table 1: Evaluation Identifiers
Item Identifier
Evaluation Scheme United States NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
TOE Symantec Endpoint Protection Client
Protection Profile Protection Profile for Application Software, version 1.2, dated, 25 April 2016
[PP_APP_v1.2]
Security Target Symantec Endpoint Protection Security Target
Evaluation
Technical Report
Symantec Endpoint Protection ETR
CC Version Version 3.1, Revision 4
Conformance
Result
CC Part 2 Extended and CC Part 3 Conformant
Sponsor Symantec Corporation
Developer Symantec Corporation
Common Criteria
Testing Lab
(CCTL)
Acumen Security
Rockville, MD
CCEVS Validators Jerome Myers: Senior Validator
Marybeth Panock: Lead Validator
6
3 Architectural Information
The Symantec Endpoint Protection client (hereafter referred to as the TOE or SEP) is a multifaceted
endpoint threat control agent blending features of traditional antivirus, HIDS, host-based firewalls, etc.,
into a single software package.
The SEP comprises a set of applications (.exe) and libraries (.dll), written in C++, running as native code
on the operating system. It is composed of components which run in user space (the traditional
“application”), as well as service providers which run in privileged mode in kernel space, essentially as
drivers, to allow the software to control security-relevant functionality on the host operating system, such
as blocking network traffic to malicious hosts, and shutting down host access to removable media.
The platform for this evaluation will be the Windows Operating System.
7
4 Security Policy
Cryptographic Support
The TOE leverages the Windows built-in TLS v1.2 implementation. When establishing a session over
TLS, the Windows built-in TLS v1.2 ensures the identifier presented in the exchange matches the correct
reference identifier before proceeding with the connection. The Windows built-in TLS v1.2 also performs
validation of TLS server certificates. If for any reason during session establishment the validity of a
certificate cannot be performed successfully, the Windows built-in TLS v1.2 will not accept the certificate
or establish the session.
User Data Protection
In the evaluated configuration, the TOE does not store sensitive data on the drive. In addition, the TOE is
restricted to use of only the underlying platforms network connectivity for client/server communications
and content updates. These are triggered either by user action or via response to a SEP Manager request.
While the TOE writes to the Windows event logs, it does not provide functionality to read the generated
events.
Identification and Authentication
The TOE supports use of X.509 certificates for TLS communication between the TOE and SEP Manager.
This is performed via the X509TrustManager.
Security Management
The TOE does not install with any default credentials and does not store any credentials on the system.
The authentication mechanisms of the underlying platform are used to ensure only authorized users of
that platform can gain access to the application and underlying platform functionality.
Configuration options are stored via native mechanisms (Windows Registry) and proprietary secure
storage. Protection of these configuration options is provided using Access Control Lists (ACLs) and
SymProtect (Symantec Tamper Protection). By default, the application is configured with file permissions
which protect it and its data from unauthorized access
Privacy
In the evaluated configuration, the TOE does not transmit any Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
over the network.
Protection of the TSF
In the evaluated configuration, the TOE does not request memory mapping to any explicit address.
However, the TOE does request allocation of memory regions for write and execute permissions. This
allocation is performed using PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE. It is important to note that the
application does not provide the user with the ability to write modifiable files to directories containing
executable files.
8
The TOE is compiled with use of the GS flag to provide protection against stack-based buffer overflow.
This provides buffer security checks during compilation of code by checking for risks such as buffer
overruns on return addresses and potentially vulnerable parameters.
For updates to the TOE, SEP client implements its own functionality (LiveUpdate) to check for updates
which are distributed as MSI files on the Windows platform. TOE updates are digitally signed for image
validation. Checking of the software version can be performed through the TOE’s GUI as well as using
the SWID tags provided with the application. Additional updates to the MSI include content updates and
security updates which can be used to update the binary code to ensure up-to-date protection. If the
application is uninstalled from the platform, all traces of the application will be purged from the platform.
For the TOE to function as defined within the protection profile, Windows Defender should be disabled
on the underlying platform.
Trusted Path/Channels
During operation of the TOE, transmitted data is encrypted via HTTPS and TLSv1.2. TLS
communication is provided via the Windows built-in TLS v1.2. LiveUpdate, the service used for
transmission of security definitions, are sent via HTTPS.
9
5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope
5.1 Assumptions
The specific conditions listed in the following subsections are assumed to exist in the TOE’s
environment. These assumptions include both practical realities in the development of the TOE security
requirements and the essential environmental conditions on the use of the TOE.
ID Assumption
A.PLATFORM The TOE relies upon a trustworthy computing platform for its execution.
This includes the underlying platform and whatever runtime environment it
provides to the TOE.
A.PROPER_USER The user of the application software is not willfully negligent or hostile, and
uses the software in compliance with the applied enterprise security policy.
A.PROPER_ADMIN The administrator of the application software is not careless, willfully
negligent or hostile, and administers the software within compliance of the
applied enterprise security policy.
5.2 Threats
The following table lists the threats addressed by the TOE and the IT Environment. The assumed level of
expertise of the attacker for all the threats identified below is Enhanced-Basic.
ID Assumption
A.PLATFORM The TOE relies upon a trustworthy computing platform for its execution.
This includes the underlying platform and whatever runtime environment it
provides to the TOE.
A.PROPER_USER The user of the application software is not willfully negligent or hostile, and
uses the software in compliance with the applied enterprise security policy.
A.PROPER_ADMIN The administrator of the application software is not careless, willfully
negligent or hostile, and administers the software within compliance of the
applied enterprise security policy.
5.3 Clarification of Scope
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that need
clarifying. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications of this evaluation.
Note that:
 As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration meets the
security claims made, with a certain level of assurance. The level of assurance for this evaluation
is defined within the Protection Profile for Application Software, version 1.2, dated, 25 April
2016 [ASPP].
 Consistent with the expectations of the Protection Profile, this evaluation did not specifically
search for, nor seriously attempt to counter, vulnerabilities that were not “obvious” or
vulnerabilities to objectives not claimed in the ST. The CEM defines an “obvious” vulnerability
10
as one that is easily exploited with a minimum of understanding of the TOE, technical
sophistication and resources.
 The evaluation of security functionality of the product was limited to the functionality specified
in the claimed PPs. Any additional security related functional capabilities included in the product
were not covered by this evaluation. In particular, this evaluation does not make any statements
about the effectiveness of the actual Anti-Virus and Host-based Intrusion capabilities of the
product.
11
6 Documentation
The following documents were provided by the vendor with the TOE for evaluation:
 [ST] Symantec Endpoint Protection Security Target, TOE Software Version 14.2
 [AGD] Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) Client, Version 14.2 Common Criteria Addendum
 [IAG] Symantec Endpoint Protection 14 Installation and Administration Guide
12
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration
7.1 Evaluated Configuration
Hardware
The TOE is a software-only evaluation running on a Windows OS platform. The following minimum
requirements are needed for the underlying platform to ensure the TOE functions as required, when
configured in accordance with the documents identified in Section 6:
 Operating System
o Windows 10
 Processor
o 32-bit processor: 1 GHz Intel Pentium III or equivalent minimum (Intel Pentium 4 or
equivalent recommended)
o 64-bit processor: 2 GHz Pentium 4 with x86-64 support or equivalent minimum
 Physical RAM
o 512MB (1GB recommended)
 Hard Drive
o 395 MB (Additional 135MB required during installation)
Software
The software boundary of the TOE incudes the Symantec Endpoint Protection Client application as well
as the Graphical User Interface (GUI). For cryptographic operations, the TOE uses the Windows built-in
TLS v1.2 implementation in support of HTTPS/TLS communications.
Operational Environment
In support of the TOE, the following components are present within the Operational Environment:
Component Usage/Purpose
Symantec Endpoint Protection
(SEP) Manager
SEP Manager maintains the authenticated user accounts and information
regarding how it itself authenticates to databases. The SEPM provides
management over the Endpoint client configuration.
LiveUpdate Server LiveUpdate provides administrators a method in which to download
definitions, signatures, and other content and distributes the updates to client
computers. The connection is secured via TLS.
13
8 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the evaluation team. It is derived from
information contained in Evaluation Test Report for Symantec Endpoint Protection client, which is not
publicly available. The Assurance Activities Report (AAR) provides an overview of testing and the
prescribed assurance activities. Section 3 of the AAR, Test Infrastructure, provides the test configuration
and the tools used.
8.1 Developer Testing
No evidence of developer testing is required in the Assurance Activities for this product.
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
 The evaluation team verified the product according the vendor-provided guidance documentation
and ran the tests specified in the Protection Profile for Application Software, version 1.2, dated,
25 April 2016 [ASPP].
The Independent Testing activity is documented in the Assurance Activities Report, which is publically
available, and is not duplicated here.
14
9 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are presented in
detail in the proprietary documents: the Detailed Test Report (DTR) and the Evaluation Technical Report
(ETR). The reader of this document can assume that activities and work units received a passing verdict.
A verdict for an assurance component is determined by the resulting verdicts assigned to the
corresponding evaluator action elements. The evaluation was conducted based upon CC version 3.1 rev 4
and CEM version 3.1 rev 4. The evaluation determined the Symantec Endpoint Protection Client to be
Part 2 extended, and meets the SARs contained in the PP.
9.1 Evaluation of Security Target
The evaluation team applied each ASE CEM work unit. The ST evaluation ensured the ST contains a
description of the environment in terms of policies and assumptions, a statement of security requirements
claimed to be met by the Symantec Endpoint Protection Client that are consistent with the Common
Criteria, and product security function descriptions that support the requirements. Additionally the
evaluator performed an assessment of the Assurance Activities specified in the [PP_APP_v1.2].
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team
was justified.
9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ADV CEM work unit. The evaluation team assessed the design
documentation and found it adequate to aid in understanding how the TSF provides the security
functions. The design documentation consists of a functional specification contained in the Security
Target's TOE Summary Specification. Additionally the evaluator performed the Assurance Activities
specified in the [PP_APP_v1.2] related to the examination of the information contained in the TOE
Summary Specification.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in
accordance with the Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was
justified.
9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AGD CEM work unit. The evaluation team ensured the
adequacy of the user guidance in describing how to use the operational TOE. Additionally, the evaluation
team ensured the adequacy of the administrator guidance in describing how to securely administer the
TOE. The guides were assessed during the design and testing phases of the evaluation to ensure they were
complete. Additionally the evaluator performed the Assurance Activities specified in the [PP_APP_v1.2]
related to the examination of the information contained in the operational guidance documents.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by
the evaluation team was justified.
15
9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found
that the TOE was identified.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team
was justified.
9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set of tests
specified by the Assurance Activities in the [PP_APP_v1.2] and recorded the results in a Test Report,
summarized in the Evaluation Technical Report and Assurance Activities Report.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence was provided
by the evaluation team to show that the evaluation activities addressed the test activities in the
[PP_APP_v1.2], and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team performed a public
search for vulnerabilities, performed vulnerability testing and did not discover any issues with the TOE.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation addressed the
vulnerability analysis Assurance Activities in the [PP_APP_v1.2], and that the conclusion reached by the
evaluation team was justified.
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results
The evaluation team's assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims in
the ST are met. Additionally, the evaluation team's test activities also demonstrated the
accuracy of the claims in the ST.
The validation team's assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it
demonstrates that the evaluation team performed the Assurance Activities in the [PP_APP_v1.2], and
correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST.
16
10 Validator Comments & Recommendations
The validation team notes that the evaluated configuration is dependent upon the TOE being configured
per the evaluated configuration instructions in the Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) Client, Version
14.2 Common Criteria Addendum. No versions of the TOE and software, either earlier or later were
evaluated.
Please note that the functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the security functional requirements
specified in the Security Target. Other functionality included in the product was not assessed as part of
this evaluation. Other functionality provided by devices in the operational environment, such as the
routers and switches network infrastructure, need to be assessed separately and no further conclusions can
be drawn about their effectiveness.
All of the Validators concerns are adequately addressed elsewhere in this document.
17
11 Annexes
Not applicable.
18
12 Security Target
[ST] Symantec Endpoint Protection, Version 14.2 Security Target, version 1.2, November 2018
19
13 Glossary
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
 Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL). An IT security evaluation facility accredited
by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and approved by the
CCEVS Validation Body to conduct Common Criteria-based evaluations.
 Conformance. The ability to demonstrate in an unambiguous way that a given implementation is
correct with respect to the formal model.
 Evaluation. The assessment of an IT product against the Common Criteria using the Common
Criteria Evaluation Methodology to determine whether or not the claims made are justified; or the
assessment of a protection profile against the Common Criteria using the Common Evaluation
Methodology to determine if the Profile is complete, consistent, technically sound and hence
suitable for use as a statement of requirements for one or more TOEs that may be evaluated.
 Evaluation Evidence. Any tangible resource (information) required from the sponsor or
developer by the evaluator to perform one or more evaluation activities.
 Feature. Part of a product that is either included with the product or can be ordered separately.
 Target of Evaluation (TOE). A group of IT products configured as an IT system, or an IT
product, and associated documentation that is the subject of a security evaluation under the CC.
 Validation. The process carried out by the CCEVS Validation Body leading to the issue of a
Common Criteria certificate.
 Validation Body. A governmental organization responsible for carrying out validation and for
overseeing the day-to-day operation of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation
Scheme.
20
14 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
1. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 1: Introduction and
general model, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
2. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 2: Security functional
requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
3. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 3: Security assurance
requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
4. Common Evaluation Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 4.
5. Symantec Endpoint Protection, Version 14.2 Security Target, version 1.2, November
2018
6. Common Criteria SWAPP Assurance Activity Report Symantec Endpoint Protection, Version
1.2, November 2018
7. Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) Client, Version 14.2 Common Criteria Addendum, Version
1.0
8. Symantec™ Endpoint Protection 14 Installation and Administration Guide Product Version 14
Documentation version: 2, November 07, 2016
9. Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) Evaluation Technical Report (TOE ETR), Version
1.2, November 2018 <Evaluation Sensitive>
10. Symantec Endpoint Protection Security Target Evaluation Technical Report Template (ASE
ETR), Version 1.2, November 2018 <Evaluation Sensitive>
11. Vulnerability Assessment for Symantec Endpoint Protection, Version 1.0, September 2018
12. Test Plan for Symantec Endpoint Protection Client, Version 1.3, November 2018 <Evaluation
Sensitive>