National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Forcepoint
10900-A Stonelake Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759, USA
Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-10854-2018
Dated: March 12, 2018
Version: 1.0
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
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Patrick Mallett, PhD
Jerome Myers, PhD
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Tammy Compton
Raymond Smoley
Catherine Sykes
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 1
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 2
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms ................................................................................... 3
3.2 TOE Architecture................................................................................................ 3
3.3 Physical Boundaries............................................................................................ 4
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 5
4.1 Security audit ...................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Cryptographic support ........................................................................................ 5
4.3 User data protection ............................................................................................ 5
4.4 Firewall ............................................................................................................... 6
4.5 Identification and authentication......................................................................... 6
4.6 Security management.......................................................................................... 6
4.7 Protection of the TSF.......................................................................................... 6
4.8 TOE access.......................................................................................................... 6
4.9 Trusted path/channels ......................................................................................... 6
5 Assumptions................................................................................................................ 6
6 Clarification of Scope ................................................................................................. 7
7 Documentation............................................................................................................ 7
8 IT Product Testing ...................................................................................................... 7
8.1 Developer Testing............................................................................................... 8
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ............................................................... 8
9 Evaluated Configuration ............................................................................................. 8
10 Results of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 8
10.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)............................................................ 8
10.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV).............................................................. 9
10.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD) ................................................. 9
10.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) ..................................... 9
10.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ................. 9
10.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)....................................................... 10
10.7 Summary of Evaluation Results........................................................................ 10
11 Validator Comments/Recommendations .................................................................. 10
12 Annexes..................................................................................................................... 10
13 Security Target.......................................................................................................... 10
14 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 10
15 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 11
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of Forcepoint NGFW solution provided by
Forcepoint. It presents the evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance
results. This Validation Report is not an endorsement of the Target of Evaluation by any
agency of the U.S. government, and no warranty is either expressed or implied.
The evaluation was performed by the Gossamer Security Solutions (Gossamer) Common
Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL) in Catonsville, MD, United States of America, and
was completed in March 2018. The information in this report is largely derived from the
Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test reports, all written by Gossamer
Security Solutions. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria
Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant, and meets the assurance requirements of the
collaborative Protection Profile for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, version 1.0, 27
February 2015 (FWcPP10).
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1.
The 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 (Version 3.1, Rev 4) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security
Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 4). 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 monitored the activities of the evaluation team, provided guidance on
technical issues and evaluation processes, and reviewed the individual work units and
successive versions of the ETR. 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). Therefore 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.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Forcepoint NGFW
6.3.1 (FWcPP10) Security Target, version 1.0, March 5, 2018 and analysis performed by
the Validation Team.
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) 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) using the Common
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
2
Evaluation Methodology (CEM) in accordance with National Voluntary Laboratory
Assessment Program (NVLAP) accreditation.
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 Validated
Products 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 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 Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1
Protection Profile
(Specific models identified in Section 3.1)
collaborative Protection Profile for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, version 1.0,
27 February 2015 (FWcPP10)
ST Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1 Security Target, version 1.0, March 5, 2018
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1, version 0.2, March 5,
2018
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 4
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor Forcepoint
Developer Forcepoint
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators Patrick Mallett, PhD
Jerome Myers, PhD
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
3
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Error! Reference source not found. NGFW 6.3.1.
The Forcepoint NGFW is a stateful packet filtering firewall. Being a stateful packet
filtering firewall, the NGFW filters network traffic optimized through the use of stateful
packet inspection. The NGFW is intended to be used as a network perimeter security
gateway that provides a controlled connection. The NGFW is centrally managed and
generates audit records for security critical events.
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms
The evaluated configuration consists of the following models:
 Forcepoint NGFW Security Management Center (SMC) Appliance running
software version 6.3.1:
Appliance
 Forcepoint NGFW Engine running software version 6.3.1 and including the
following models:
1U models:
- 1101
- 1105
- 1402
- 2101
- 2105
2U models:
- 3301
- 3305
4U model:
- 6205
3.2 TOE Architecture
The Forcepoint NGFW system is composed of two physical appliances: the NGFW Engine
and the Security Management Center (SMC) Appliance. The NGFW Engine provides
firewall functionality utilizing its Linux operating system and using its embedded Error!
Reference source not found. library to provide all cryptographic functionality. The SMC
Appliance provides Management Server and Log Server functionality. As the SMC utilizes
both Java and C, the SMC relies upon both Error! Reference source not found. with a
Java runtime environment and Error! Reference source not found. for cryptographic
functionality. In the evaluated configuration, the SMC Appliance must be directly
connected to the NGFW Engine through a dedicated, local network connection.
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
4
3.3 Physical Boundaries
The TOE is composed of two physical components: the NGFW Engine appliance and the
SMC Appliance. Each of these appliances have physical network connections to its
environment, one dedicated, local network connection to exclusively facilitate
communication between the SMC and engine, as well as additional network connections
that positions the NGFW Engine portion of the TOE to monitor and filter network traffic.
The SMC Appliance provides all management functionality, while the NGFW Engine
provides all firewall packet filtering.
The TOE is accessed and managed from the Forcepoint Security Management Center
Client (6.3.1) installed on a PC in the environment, where the PC is expected to have a
network pathway to the SMC Appliance.
The TOE can be configured to forward its audit records to an external syslog server in the
environment. All audit records sent to the external syslog server, are sent from the SMC
Appliance. The NGFW Engine does not send audit data directly to an external syslog
server. Instead, a NGFW Engine passes all of its audit data to the Log Server on the SMC
Appliance, which can (if configured) forward the data to the external syslog server.
The TOE can be configured to synchronize its internal clock using an NTP server in the
operational environment. The SMC Appliance synchronizes with the external NTP server,
then configures the NGFW Engine’s time to be in synch with itself. The NGFW Engine
does not synchronize directly with an external NTP server, but instead synchronizes only
with the SMC.
The NGFW Engine utilizes its OpenSSL Library to verify trusted engine software updates.
The SMC Appliance uses its Error! Reference source not found. Library to provide TLS
(which protects the trusted channel mechanism and the trusted path mechanism) and uses
its OpenSSL library to verify SMC updates.
Each Engine model provides different performance as described in the table below.
Model Form
factor
Fixed ports 1G
copper
10G
Fiber
40G
Fiber
Network
I/O slots
Max FW
throughput
1101 1U
Pentium
D1508
8x GE RJ45,
2x 10Gbps
SFP+
8 to 16 2 to 6 0 1 50 Gbps
1105 1U Xeon
D-1518
8x GE RJ45,
2x 10Gbps
SFP+
8 to 16 2 to 6 0 1 60 Gbps
1402 1U Xeon
E5-1650
v2
4x GE RJ45 4 to 20 0 to 8 0 to 4 2 40 Gbps
2101 1U Xeon
D-1548
12x GE RJ45,
2x 10Gbps
SFP+
12 to 28 2 to 10 0 to 4 2 60 Gbps
2105 1U Xeon
D-1567
12x GE RJ45,
2x 10Gbps
SFP+
12 to 28 2 to 10 0 to 4 2 80 Gbps
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
5
3301 2U Xeon
E5-
2618L
v3
2x GE RJ45 2 to 34 0 to 16 0 to 8 4 80 Gbps
3305 2U Xeon
E5-2680
v3
2x GE RJ45,
1x 40Gbps
QSFP+
2 to 34 0 to 16 1 to 9 4 160 Gbps
6205 4U Xeon
E5-2680
v4
2x GE RJ45 2 to 66 0 to 32 1 to 17 8 240 Gbps
4 Security Policy
This section summaries the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Security audit
2. Cryptographic support
3. User data protection
4. Firewall
5. Identification and authentication
6. Security management
7. Protection of the TSF
8. TOE access
9. Trusted path/channels
4.1 Security audit
The TOE generates audit events for numerous activities including policy enforcement,
system management and authentication. A syslog server in the environment is relied on to
store audit records generated by the TOE. The TOE generates a complete audit record
including the IP address of the TOE, the event details, and the time the event occurred.
The time stamp is provided by the TOE’s Linux-based operating system in conjunction
with the appliance hardware. When the syslog server writes the audit record to the audit
trail, it applies its own time stamp, placing the entire TOE-generated syslog protocol
message MSG contents into an encapsulating syslog record.
4.2 Cryptographic support
Because the TOE consists of two components, each physical component of the TOE must
be considered when discussing the TOE cryptographic support. Both components of the
TOE utilize cryptography to verify trusted updates, and the SMC uses cryptography to
support its use of the TLS protocol to protect network communication.
4.3 User data protection
The TOE ensures that residual information is protected from potential reuse in accessible
objects such as network packets.
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
6
4.4 Firewall
The TOE provides an information flow control mechanism using a rule base that comprises
a set of security policy rules, i.e., the firewall security policy. The NGFW Engine enforces
the firewall security policy on all traffic that passes through the engine, via its internal or
external network Ethernet interfaces.
4.5 Identification and authentication
The TOE requires users to be identified and authenticated before they can use functions
mediated by the TOE, with the exception of reading the login banner, and performing
firewall packet filtering operations. The TOE authenticates administrative users. In order
for an administrative user to access the TOE, a user account including a user name and
password must be created for the user.
4.6 Security management
Security management commands are limited to authorized users (i.e., administrators) and
available only after they have provided acceptable user identification and authentication
data to the TOE. Administrators access the TOE remotely using a TLS protected
communication channel between the Management Server and the Client GUI (which runs
on a workstation in the IT environment). Administrators can also access the TOE via a
local console which provides limited functionality.
4.7 Protection of the TSF
The TOE provides a variety of means of protecting itself. The TOE performs self-tests that
cover the correct operation of the TOE. It provides functions necessary to securely update
the TOE. It’s Linux-based operating system utilizes a hardware clock to ensure reliable
timestamps. It protects sensitive data such as stored passwords and cryptographic keys so
that they are not accessible through the TOE, even to a Security Administrator. The TOE
also utilizes a dedicated, local network for communications between the TOE’s
components.
4.8 TOE access
The TOE can be configured to display a logon banner before a user session is established.
The TOE also enforces inactivity timeouts for local and remote sessions.
4.9 Trusted path/channels
The TOE protects interactive communication with administrators using TLS for GUI
access, ensuring both integrity and disclosure protection. If the negotiation of an encrypted
session fails, the attempted connection will not be established.
The TOE protects communication with network peers, such as an external syslog server,
using TLS connections to prevent unintended disclosure or modification of logs.
5 Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
documents:
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
7
 collaborative Protection Profile for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, version 1.0, 27
February 2015 (FWcPP10)
That information has not been reproduced here and the FWcPP10 should be consulted if
there is interest in that material.
The scope of this evaluation was limited to the functionality and assurances covered in the
FWcPP10 as described for this TOE in the Security Target. Other functionality included in
the product was not assessed as part of this evaluation. All other functionality provided by
the devices needs to be assessed separately, and no further conclusions can be drawn about
their effectiveness.
6 Clarification of Scope
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that
need clarification. 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 assurance
activities specified in the Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls collaborative Protection
Profile and performed by the evaluation team).
 This evaluation covers only the specific device models and software as identified in
this document, and not any earlier or later versions released or in process.
 This evaluation did not specifically search for, nor attempt to exploit, vulnerabilities
that were not “obvious” or vulnerabilities to objectives not claimed in the ST. The
CEM defines an “obvious” vulnerability as one that is easily exploited with a
minimum of understanding of the TOE, technical sophistication and resources.
 The functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the security functional
requirements specified in the FWcPP10 and applicable Technical Decisions. Any
additional security related functional capabilities of the TOE were not covered by
this evaluation.
7 Documentation
The following documents were available with the TOE for evaluation:
 Forcepoint NGFW Common Criteria Evaluated Configuration Guide, Version 6.3.1
Rev E,
8 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the Evaluation Team. It is
derived from information contained in the Detailed Test Report (FWcPP10) for Forcepoint
NGFW 6.3.1, Version 0.2, March 2, 2018 (DTR).
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
8
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 a Common Criteria Certification
document and ran the tests specified in the FWcPP10 including the tests associated with
optional requirements.
9 Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration consists of the following series and models
 Forcepoint NGFW Security Management Center (SMC) Appliance running
software version 6.3.1:
Appliance
 Forcepoint NGFW Engine running software version 6.3.1 and including the
following models:
1U models:
- 1101
- 1105
- 1402
- 2101
- 2105
2U models:
- 3301
- 3305
4U model:
- 6205
10 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are
presented in detail in the proprietary ETR. The reader of this document can assume that all
assurance 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 NGFW
TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the SARs contained in the FWcPP10.
10.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)
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 Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1 products that
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
9
are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that
support the requirements.
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.
10.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)
The evaluation team applied each 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 and Guidance documents. Additionally the evaluator
performed the assurance activities specified in the FWcPP10 related to the examination of
the information contained in the TSS.
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.
10.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The evaluation team applied each 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. All of the guides were assessed during the design and
testing phases of the evaluation to ensure they were complete.
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.
10.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The evaluation team applied each 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.
10.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)
The evaluation team applied each ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set of
tests specified by the assurance activities in the FWcPP10 and recorded the results in a Test
Report, summarized in the AAR.
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
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
10
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
10.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)
The evaluation team applied each AVA CEM work unit. The vulnerability analysis is in the
Detailed Test Report (DTR) prepared by the evaluator. The vulnerability analysis includes
a public search for vulnerabilities. The public search for vulnerabilities did not uncover
any residual vulnerability.
The evaluator searched the National Vulnerability Database
(https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search) and Vulnerability Notes Database
(http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/) with the following search terms: "Forcepoint", "Stonesoft",
"NGFW", "Next Generation Firewall", "SMC", "Security Management Center", "Crypto-
J", "Openssl", "dnsmasq", "openldap", "Bouncy Castle" “FIPS Object Module” and “FIPS
Java API”.
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.
10.7 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 testing 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 followed the procedures defined in the CEM, and
correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST.
11 Validator Comments/Recommendations
None.
12 Annexes
Not applicable
13 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1 (FWcPP10) Security Target,
Version 1.0, March 5, 2018.
14 Glossary
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
11
 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.
15 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, September 2012.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2102.
[4] collaborative Protection Profile for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, version 1.0, 27
February 2015 (FWcPP10).
[5] Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1 (FWcPP10) Security Target, Version 1.0, March 5, 2018
(ST).
[6] Assurance Activity Report (FWcPP10) for Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1, Version 0.4,
March 5, 2018 (AAR).
Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Validation Report Version 1.0, March 12, 2018
12
[7] Detailed Test Report (FWcPP10) for Forcepoint NGFW 6.3.1, Version 0.2, March
2, 2018 (DTR).
[8] Evaluation Technical Report for Forcepoint NGFW, Version 0.2, March 5, 2018
(ETR).