UNCLASSIFIED
© Government of Canada. This document is the property of the Government of Canada. It shall not be altered,
distributed beyond its intended audience, produced, reproduced or published, in whole or in any substantial part
thereof, without the express permission of CSE.
COMMON CRITERIA
CERTIFICATION REPORT
EMC® Data Domain® version 5.5
Date: 30 June 2016
Version: 1.0
UNCLASSIFIED
FOREWORD
This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief,
Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Suggestions for amendments should be forwarded through
departmental communications security channels to your Client Services Representative at CSE.
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has
been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility – established under the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme –
using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, for
conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
This certification report, and its associated certificate, applies only to the identified version and release of the
product in its evaluated configuration. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of
the Canadian CC Scheme, and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent
with the evidence adduced. This report, and its associated certificate, are not an endorsement of the IT product
by the Communications Security Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this
report, and its associated certificate, and no warranty for the IT product by the Communications Security
Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report, and its associated
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
If your department has identified a requirement for this certification report based on business needs and would
like more detailed information, please contact:
ITS Client Services
Telephone: (613) 991-7654
E-mail: itsclientservices@cse-cst.gc.ca
UNCLASSIFIED
OVERVIEW
The Canadian Common Criteria Scheme provides a third-party evaluation service for determining the
trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT) security products. Evaluations are performed by a commercial
Common Criteria Evaluation Facility (CCEF) under the oversight of the Certification Body, which is managed by
the Communications Security Establishment.
A CCEF is a commercial facility that has been approved by the Certification Body to perform Common Criteria
evaluations; a significant requirement for such approval is accreditation to the requirements of ISO/IEC
17025:2005, the General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.
Accreditation is performed under the Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories - Canada (PALCAN),
administered by the Standards Council of Canada.
The CCEF that carried out this evaluation is EWA-Canada.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, the Certification Body asserts that the product complies with the
security requirements specified in the associated security target. A security target is a requirements specification
document that defines the scope of the evaluation activities. The consumer of certified IT products should
review the security target, in addition to this certification report, in order to gain an understanding of any
assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT product's intended environment, the evaluated security
functionality, and the testing and analysis conducted by the CCEF.
The certification report, certificate of product evaluation and security target are posted to the Certified Products
list (CPL) for the Canadian CC Scheme, and to the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................1
1 Identification of Target of Evaluation......................................................................................................2
1.1 Common Criteria Conformance..................................................................................................................2
1.2 TOE description ..........................................................................................................................................2
1.3 TOE architecture.........................................................................................................................................2
2 Security policy .......................................................................................................................................3
3 Assumptions and Clarifications of Scope.................................................................................................4
3.1 Usage and Environmental assumptions .....................................................................................................4
3.2 Clarification of Scope..................................................................................................................................4
4 Evaluated Configuration.........................................................................................................................5
4.1 Documentation...........................................................................................................................................5
5 Evaluation Analysis Activities .................................................................................................................6
5.1 Development..............................................................................................................................................6
5.2 Guidance Documents .................................................................................................................................6
5.3 Life-cycle Support.......................................................................................................................................6
6 Testing Activities....................................................................................................................................7
6.1 Assessment of Developer Tests..................................................................................................................7
6.2 Conduct of Testing......................................................................................................................................7
6.3 Independent Functional Testing.................................................................................................................7
6.4 Independent Penetration Testing ..............................................................................................................8
7 Results of the Evaluation........................................................................................................................9
8 Supporting Content..............................................................................................................................10
8.1 List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ 10
8.2 References............................................................................................................................................... 11
UNCLASSIFIED
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 TOE Architecture ....................................................................................................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 TOE Identification.......................................................................................................................................2
Table 2 TOE Platforms.............................................................................................................................................5
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EMC® Data Domain® version 5.5 (hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE), from EMC
Corporation, was the subject of this Common Criteria evaluation. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that
TOE meets the requirements of the conformance claim listed in Table 1 for the evaluated security functionality.
The TOE is a series of disk-based inline deduplication appliances and gateways that optimize disaster recovery in
the enterprise environment. These devices vary in storage capacity and data throughput.
EMC Data Domain deduplication technology integrates into existing Information Technology (IT) storage
infrastructures. It eliminates redundant data from each backup image and stores only unique data thus reducing
the amount of physical storage required for backup.
To a backup server, the TOE appears as a file server supporting the Network File System (NFS) or Common
Internet File System (CIFS) protocols. Multiple backup servers can share one TOE which is capable of handling
multiple simultaneous backup and restore operations.
EWA-Canada is the CCEF that conducted the evaluation. This evaluation was completed on 30 June 2016 and
was carried out in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme.
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target, which identifies assumptions made during the
evaluation, the intended environment for TOE, and the security functional/assurance requirements. Consumers
are advised to verify that their operating environment is consistent with that specified in the security target, and
to give due consideration to the comments, observations and recommendations in this certification report.
Communications Security Establishment, as the Certification Body, declares that the TOE evaluation meets all
the conditions of the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will
be listed on the Certified Products list (CPL) and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 2
1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows:
Table 1 TOE Identification
TOE Name and Version EMC® Data Domain® version 5.5
Developer EMC Corporation
Conformance Claim EAL 2+ (ALC_FLR.2)
1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 4.
1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION
The TOE is a series of disk-based inline deduplication appliances and gateways that optimize disaster recovery in
the enterprise environment. These devices vary in storage capacity and data throughput.
EMC Data Domain deduplication technology integrates into existing Information Technology (IT) storage
infrastructures. It eliminates redundant data from each backup image and stores only unique data thus reducing
the amount of physical storage required for backup.
To a backup server, the TOE appears as a file server supporting the Network File System (NFS) or Common
Internet File System (CIFS) protocols. Multiple backup servers can share one TOE which is capable of handling
multiple simultaneous backup and restore operations.
1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE
A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows:
Figure 1 TOE Architecture
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 3
2 SECURITY POLICY
The TOE implements policies pertaining to the following security functional classes:
• Security Audit
• User Data Protection
• Identification and Authentication
• Security Management
• Protection of the TSF
Complete details of the security functional requirements (SFRs) can be found in the Security Target (ST)
referenced in section 8.2.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 4
3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF SCOPE
Consumers of the TOE should consider assumptions about usage and environmental settings as requirements
for the product’s installation and its operating environment. This will ensure the proper and secure operation of
the TOE.
3.1 USAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made regarding the use and deployment of the TOE:
• During normal operation, the TOE will be located within controlled access facilities, which will prevent
unauthorized physical access.
• There are one or more competent individuals assigned to manage the TOE and the security information
it contains.
• Authorized administrators are non-hostile, appropriately trained, and follow all TOE guidance
documentation.
3.2 CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
Use of the following operating systems for TOE administration is supported but not included in this evaluation:
• Solaris
• Red Hat Linux
• SuSE Linux
• AIX
• HP-UX
• Oracle Enterprise Linux
• Linux
The following interfaces are not included in the evaluated configuration:
• USB
• FTP/FTPS
• PS/2
• Telnet
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 5
4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION
The evaluated configuration for the TOE comprises:
The TOE software (EMC® Data Domain Operating System version 5.5.4.0-525810) installed on one of the
following appliances;
DD990 DD670 DD860 DD890
DD640 DD140 DD610 DD630
DD160 DD620 DD880 DD2200
DD2500 DD4200 DD4500 DD7200
Table 2 TOE Platforms
With support from the environment for:
• Windows Authentication Server (Windows 2008 R2 with Active Directory)
4.1 DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE:
a. EMC® Data Domain Operating System Release notes, Version 5.5
b. EMC® Data Domain Operating System Administration Guide, Version 5.5, 302-000-474 REV. 04A
c. EMC® Data Domain Operating System Initial Configuration Guide, Version 5.5, 302-000-478 REV. 02
d. EMC® Data Domain Operating System Command Reference Guide, Version 5.5, 302-000-476 REV.04
e. EMC® Data Domain® 5.5 Security Target, Version: 1.0, 30 June 2016
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 6
5 EVALUATION ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES
The evaluation analysis activities involved a structured evaluation of the TOE. Documentation and process
dealing with Development, Guidance Documents, and Life-Cycle Support were evaluated.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT
The evaluators analyzed the TOE functional specification and design documentation; they determined that the
design completely and accurately describes the TOE security functionality (TSF) interfaces, the TSF subsystems
and how the TSF implements the security functional requirements (SFRs). The evaluators analyzed the TOE
security architectural description and determined that the initialization process is secure, that the security
functions are protected against tamper and bypass, and that security domains are maintained. The evaluators
also independently verified that the correspondence mappings between the design documents are correct.
5.2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The evaluators examined the TOE preparative user guidance and operational user guidance and determined that
it sufficiently and unambiguously describes how to securely transform the TOE into its evaluated configuration
and how to use and administer the product. The evaluators examined and tested the preparative and
operational guidance, and determined that they are complete and sufficiently detailed to result in a secure
configuration.
Section 4.1 provides details on the guidance documents.
5.3 LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT
An analysis of the TOE configuration management system and associated documentation was performed. The
evaluators found that the TOE configuration items were clearly marked.
The evaluators examined the delivery documentation and determined that it described all of the procedures
required to maintain the integrity of the TOE during distribution to the consumer.
The evaluators reviewed the flaw remediation procedures used by developer for the TOE. During a site visit, the
evaluators also examined the evidence generated by adherence to the procedures. The evaluators concluded
that the procedures are adequate to track and correct security flaws, and distribute the flaw information and
corrections to consumers of the TOE.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 7
6 TESTING ACTIVITIES
Testing consists of the following three steps: assessing developer tests, performing independent functional tests,
and performing penetration tests.
6.1 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPER TESTS
The evaluators verified that the developer has met their testing responsibilities by examining their test evidence,
and reviewing their test results, as documented in the ETR.
The evaluators analyzed the developer’s test coverage analysis and found it to be complete and accurate. The
correspondence between the tests identified in the developer’s test documentation and the functional
specification was complete.
6.2 CONDUCT OF TESTING
The TOE was subjected to a comprehensive suite of formally documented, independent functional and
penetration tests. The detailed testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected
results and observed results are documented in a separate Test Results document.
6.3 INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL TESTING
During this evaluation, the evaluator developed independent functional tests by examining design and guidance
documentation.
All testing was planned and documented to a sufficient level of detail to allow repeatability of the testing
procedures and results. The following testing activities were performed:
a. Repeat of Developer's Tests: The evaluator repeated a subset of the developers tests;
b. Non-default admin role : The evaluator created a non-default admin role user to confirm that they will
be audited and are able to view the audit records;
c. Duplicate data: The evaluator saved a binary file to confirm that duplicate data was not saved;
d. User actions prior to identification: The evaluator confirmed that users need to be identified before any
other TSF_mediated actions are allowed;
e. Password policy: The evaluator confirmed that the administator can modifiy the password policy;
f. User accounts: The evaluator confirmed that the administrator can manage user accounts;
g. Serial connection: The evaluator confirmed that the TOE can be managed over a serial connection; and
h. Vulnerability ESA-2016-064: The evaluator confirmed that the TOE has had the listed vulnerability fixed
in the recent version.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 8
6.3.1 FUNCTIONAL TEST RESULTS
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests yielded the expected results, providing assurance
that the TOE behaves as specified in its ST and functional specification.
6.4 INDEPENDENT PENETRATION TESTING
Subsequent to the independent review of public domain vulnerability databases and all evaluation deliverables,
limited independent evaluator penetration testing was conducted. The penetration tests focused on:
a. Use of automated vulnerability scanning tools to discover potential network, platform and application
layer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, Shellshock, FREAK, POODLE, and GHOST; and
b. Monitoring the TOE during startup, shutdown, and other scenarios for information that could be used to
compromise the TOE.
6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
The independent penetration testing did not uncover any exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating
environment.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 9
7 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
This evaluation has provided the basis for the conformance claim documented in Table 1. The overall verdict for
the evaluation is PASS. These results are supported by evidence in the ETR.
The IT product identified in this report has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility established under
the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4. These
evaluation results apply 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 Canadian Common Criteria Scheme
and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
This is not an endorsement of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives effect
to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives
effect to this certificate, is expressed or implied.
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 10
8 SUPPORTING CONTENT
8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
CCEF Common Criteria Evaluation Facility
CM Configuration Management
CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program
CSE Communications Security Establishment
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
GC Government of Canada
IT Information Technology
ITS Information Technology Security
ITSET Information Technology Security Evaluation and Testing
PALCAN Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories – Canada
PP Protection Profile
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Function
UNCLASSIFIED
v1.0 11
8.2 REFERENCES
Reference
CCS Publication #4, Technical Oversight, Version 1.8, October 2010.
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2012.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 4,
September 2012.
EMC® Data Domain® 5.5 Security Target, Version: 1.0, 30 June 2016
Evaluation Technical Report for EAL 2+ Common Criteria Evaluation of EMC Data Domain 5.5, v1.0, 30 June
2016