TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V.
Head Office:
Westervoortsedijk 73
NL-6827 AV Arnhem
P.O. Box 2220
NL-6802 CE Arnhem
The Netherlands
Location Leek:
Eiberkamp 10
NL-9351 VT Leek
P.O. Box 37
NL-9350 AA Leek
The Netherlands
info@nl.tuv.com
www.tuv.com/nl
Tel. +31 (0)88 888 7 888
Fax +31 (0)88 888 7 879
TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. is a
registered company at the
Netherlands Chamber of Commerce
(KVK), under number 27288788.
VAT number: NL815820380B01
IBAN: NL61DEUT0265155096
Version
2021-06
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Certification Report
DocuSign QSCD for local signing version 1.1.0.6
Sponsor and developer: DocuSign
Ha’arava St 1,
Giv’at Shmuel,
Israel
Evaluation facility: SGS Brightsight B.V.
Brassersplein 2
2612 CT Delft
The Netherlands
Report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR
Report version: 2
Project number: 0388535
Author(s): Denise Cater
Date: 23 February 2022
Number of pages: 11
Number of appendices: 0
Reproduction of this report is authorised only if the report is reproduced in its entirety.
Page: 2/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
CONTENTS
Foreword 3
Recognition of the Certificate 4
International recognition 4
European recognition 4
1 Executive Summary 5
2 Certification Results 6
2.1 Identification of Target of Evaluation 6
2.2 Security Policy 6
2.3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 6
2.3.1 Assumptions 6
2.3.2 Clarification of scope 6
2.4 Architectural Information 6
2.5 Documentation 7
2.6 IT Product Testing 7
2.6.1 Testing approach and depth 7
2.6.2 Independent penetration testing 8
2.6.3 Test configuration 8
2.6.4 Test results 8
2.7 Reused Evaluation Results 9
2.8 Evaluated Configuration 9
2.9 Evaluation Results 9
2.10 Comments/Recommendations 9
3 Security Target 10
4 Definitions 10
5 Bibliography 11
Page: 3/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Foreword
The Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the Area of IT Security (NSCIB) provides a third-party
evaluation and certification service for determining the trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT)
security products. Under this NSCIB, TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. has the task of issuing
certificates for IT security products, as well as for protection profiles and sites.
Part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product, protection profile or site
according to the Common Criteria assessment guidelines published by the NSCIB. Evaluations are
performed by an IT Security Evaluation Facility (ITSEF) under the oversight of the NSCIB Certification
Body, which is operated by TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. in cooperation with the Ministry of the
Interior and Kingdom Relations.
An ITSEF in the Netherlands is a commercial facility that has been licensed by TÜV Rheinland
Nederland B.V. to perform Common Criteria evaluations; a significant requirement for such a licence is
accreditation to the requirements of ISO Standard 17025 “General requirements for the accreditation
of calibration and testing laboratories”.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. asserts that the product or
site complies with the security requirements specified in the associated (site) security target, or that
the protection profile (PP) complies with the requirements for PP evaluation specified in the Common
Criteria for Information Security Evaluation. A (site) security target is a requirements specification
document that defines the scope of the evaluation activities.
The consumer should review the (site) security target or protection profile, in addition to this
certification report, to gain an understanding of any assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT
product's intended environment, its security requirements, and the level of confidence (i.e., the
evaluation assurance level) that the product or site satisfies the security requirements stated in the
(site) security target.
Reproduction of this report is authorised only if the report is reproduced in its entirety.
Page: 4/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Recognition of the Certificate
The presence of the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) and the SOG-IS logos on the
certificate indicates that this certificate is issued in accordance with the provisions of the CCRA and
the SOG-IS Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOG-IS MRA) and will be recognised by the participating
nations.
International recognition
The CCRA was signed by the Netherlands in May 2000 and provides mutual recognition of certificates
based on the Common Criteria (CC). Since September 2014 the CCRA has been updated to provide
mutual recognition of certificates based on cPPs (exact use) or STs with evaluation assurance
components up to and including EAL2+ALC_FLR.
For details of the current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes, see
http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org.
European recognition
The SOG-IS MRA Version 3, effective since April 2010, provides mutual recognition in Europe of
Common Criteria and ITSEC certificates at a basic evaluation level for all products. A higher
recognition level for evaluation levels beyond EAL4 (respectively E3-basic) is provided for products
related to specific technical domains. This agreement was signed initially by Finland, France,
Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Italy joined the SOG-IS
MRA in December 2010.
For details of the current list of signatory nations, approved certification schemes and the list of
technical domains for which the higher recognition applies, see https://www.sogis.eu.
Page: 5/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
1 Executive Summary
This Certification Report states the outcome of the Common Criteria security evaluation of the
DocuSign QSCD for local signing version 1.1.0.6. The developer of the DocuSign QSCD for local
signing version 1.1.0.6 is DocuSign located in Giv’at Shmuel, Israel and they also act as the sponsor
of the evaluation and certification. A Certification Report is intended to assist prospective consumers
when judging the suitability of the IT security properties of the product for their particular requirements.
The TOE is a digital signature product intended to be used as a Qualified Signature Creation Device
and Qualified Seal Creation Device in a secure operational environment, to be used in Use Case 1:
Local signing as defined in [EN 419221-5]. Any reference to QSCD in this report should be understood
to refer to both qualified signature and seal creation devices.
The DocuSign QSCD Appliance is a network attached Appliance consisting of computer hardware,
hardware for tamper resistance, hardened operating system, internal database and the Appliance
server software. The TOE is the whole DocuSign QSCD Appliance.
The TOE has been evaluated by SGS Brightsight B.V. located in Delft, The Netherlands. The
evaluation was completed on 30 September 2021 with the approval of the ETR. The certification
procedure has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Netherlands Scheme for
Certification in the Area of IT Security [NSCIB].
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target [ST], which identifies assumptions made
during the evaluation, the intended environment for the DocuSign QSCD for local signing version
1.1.0.6, the security requirements, and the level of confidence (evaluation assurance level) at which
the product is intended to satisfy the security requirements. Consumers of the DocuSign QSCD for
local signing version 1.1.0.6 are advised to verify that their own environment is consistent with the
security target, and to give due consideration to the comments, observations and recommendations in
this certification report.
The results documented in the evaluation technical report [ETR]
1
for this product provide sufficient
evidence that the TOE meets the EAL4 augmented (EAL4+) assurance requirements for the evaluated
security functionality. This assurance level is augmented with AVA_VAN.5 (Advanced methodical
vulnerability analysis).
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5 [CEM] for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information
Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5 [CC] (Parts I, II and III).
TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V., as the NSCIB Certification Body, declares that the evaluation meets
all the conditions for international recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will
be listed on the NSCIB Certified Products list. Note that the certification results apply only to the
specific version of the product as evaluated.
Version 2 of this Certification Report was generated to clarify use of the TOE as both Qualified
Signature Creation Device and Qualified Seal Creation Device.
1
The Evaluation Technical Report contains information proprietary to the developer and/or the
evaluator, and is not available for public review.
Page: 6/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
2 Certification Results
2.1 Identification of Target of Evaluation
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) for this evaluation is the DocuSign QSCD for local signing version
1.1.0.6 from DocuSign located in Giv’at Shmuel, Israel.
The TOE is comprised of the following main components:
Delivery
item type
Identifier Version
Hardware DocuSign QSCD 2.0.0.0
Software DocuSign QSCD 1.1.0.6
To ensure secure usage a set of guidance documents is provided, together with the DocuSign QSCD
for local signing version 1.1.0.6. For details, see section 2.5 “Documentation” of this report.
2.2 Security Policy
The TOE provides the following security features:
 The TOE is designed for is one of high threat of network compromise, and low threat of physical
compromise. The environment is assumed to prevent prolonged unauthorised physical access to
the TOE (including theft).
 The TOE provides physical protection mechanisms to deter undetected compromise of its security
functions by low attack potential individuals that do have physical access to the TOE.
 The TOE is responsible for protecting the keys against logical attacks that would result in
disclosure, compromise and unauthorised modification, and for ensuring that the TOE services are
only used in an authorized way.
 Client applications request cryptographic functions from the TOE, typically using a key managed
by the TOE, once the appropriate authorization has been provided. Note: Only after the signer is
authorized to use his/her signature key, the signature key is allowed for signing. Besides
signatures keys all other keys are support keys.
2.3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
2.3.1 Assumptions
The assumptions defined in the Security Target are not covered by the TOE itself. These aspects lead
to specific Security Objectives to be fulfilled by the TOE-Environment. For detailed information on the
security objectives that must be fulfilled by the TOE environment, see section 4.2 of the [ST].
2.3.2 Clarification of scope
Note that EN 419221-5 Protection Profile [EN419221-5] claims the environment for the TOE protects
against loss or theft of the TOE, deters and detects physical tampering, protects against attacks based
on emanations of the TOE, and protects against unauthorised software and configuration changes on
the TOE and the hardware appliance in which it is contained (“OE.Env Protected operating
environment”).
The ST follows the PP [EN419221-5] and also claims OE.Env, thus the environment in which the TOE
is used must ensure the above protection.
Any threats violating these objectives for the environment are not considered.
2.4 Architectural Information
The logical architecture, originating from [ST] is depicted as follows:
Page: 7/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Figure 1. Logical architecture of the TOE
2.5 Documentation
The following documentation is provided with the product by the developer to the customer:
Identifier Version
DocuSign QSCD Appliance Administrator Guide Version 1.1.0.6
DocuSign QSCD Appliance Developer Guide Version 1.1.0.6
QSCD Appliance Preparative Procedures Administrator Guide Version 1.1.0.6
2.6 IT Product Testing
Testing (depth, coverage, functional tests, independent testing): The evaluators examined the
developer’s testing activities documentation and verified that the developer has met their testing
responsibilities.
2.6.1 Testing approach and depth
Automatic test cases performed by the developer include both positive and negative tests that are
performed for all the TSFIs. Both negative tests and positive tests include the validation step of
verifying the test purpose. In particular, the test approach for negative tests contains the following:
 Test the command with the incorrect parameters
 Test the command by sending it to the incorrect URI
 Test the command with an incorrect/expired token
 Test the TOE via sending multiple commands at the same time
Page: 8/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Manual test cases cover the TOE physical interfaces and interfaces that have not been tested via the
automatic tests.
The evaluators witnessed a selection of the developer tests, as well as execution of a small number of
test cases designed by the evaluator.
2.6.2 Independent penetration testing
The vulnerability analysis consists of two phases. In the first phase, a flaw hypothesis is created by
collecting possible vulnerabilities. For the collection of possible vulnerabilities a methodical approach
is taken, which consists of:
 A collection of possible vulnerabilities in Design Assessment
 Using applicable attack lists, including consideration of [JIL-AMHD]
 Public vulnerability search
Each possible vulnerability was then investigated and if there is no clear and direct argumentation why
this possible vulnerability is not applicable, it is transformed in the second phase into a potential
vulnerability. Each potential vulnerability is investigated in more detail and either a penetration test is
created to further explore the issue or the rationale for closure was reported.
The total test effort expended by the evaluators was 9 days. Due to the restrictions on physical attacks
imposed by [EN 419221-5] the penetration test campaign was focused on logical tests.
2.6.3 Test configuration
All developer automated tests were executed on the TOE version as reported in section 2.1 above,
namely:
 SW: 1.1.0.6
 HW: 2.0.0.0
Some of the developer’s manual test cases were performed on the earlier version 1.1.0.5 of the TOE
software. However, final analysed the source code differences between the earlier SW version 1.1.0.5
and the TOE SW 1.1.0.6 and confirmed the test cases relating to the security relevant change were
repeated using TOE SW 1.1.0.6. It was concluded that the other independent test results for SW
version 1.1.0.5 are also applicable to the final SW version 1.1.0.6.
A subset of the evaluator penetration tests were performed using earlier versions of the TOE software
executing on the TOE hardware, namely:
 SW: 0.9.3.0 or 1.1.0.5
 HW: 2.0.0.0
The evaluator functional and remaining penetration tests were performed on the TOE version as
reported in section 2.1 above, namely:
 SW: 1.1.0.6
 HW: 2.0.0.0
The evaluators analysed the source code differences between the earlier TOE SW versions 0.9.3.0
and 1.1.0.5 and the TOE SW 1.1.0.6 and confirmed the only security relevant change was adequately
retested in the subsequent SW version. Therefore, it was concluded that the independent test results
for SW versions 0.9.3.0 and 1.1.0.5 are also applicable to the final SW version 1.1.0.6.
2.6.4 Test results
The testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected results and observed
results are summarised in the [ETR], with references to the documents containing the full details.
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests produced the expected results, giving
assurance that the TOE behaves as specified in its [ST] and functional specification.
No exploitable vulnerabilities were found with the independent penetration tests.
Page: 9/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
The algorithmic security level of cryptographic functionality has not been rated in this certification
process, but the current consensus on the algorithmic security level in the open domain, i.e., from the
current best cryptanalytic attacks published, has been taken into account.
2.7 Reused Evaluation Results
There is extensive reuse of the ALC aspects for the sites involved in the development of the TOE from
NSCIB-21-235735 (as reported in [CR-235735].
2.8 Evaluated Configuration
The TOE is defined uniquely by its name and version number DocuSign QSCD for local signing
version 1.1.0.6.
2.9 Evaluation Results
The evaluation lab documented their evaluation results in the [ETR], which references an ASE
Intermediate Report and other evaluator documents.
The verdict of each claimed assurance requirement is “Pass”.
Based on the above evaluation results the evaluation lab concluded the DocuSign QSCD for local
signing version 1.1.0.6, to be CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant, and to meet the
requirements of EAL 4 augmented with AVA_VAN.5. This implies that the product satisfies the
security requirements specified in Security Target [ST].
The Security Target claims ’strict’ conformance to the Protection Profile [EN 419221-5].
2.10 Comments/Recommendations
The user guidance as outlined in section 2.5 “Documentation” contains necessary information about
the usage of the TOE. Certain aspects of the TOE’s security functionality, in particular the
countermeasures against attacks, depend on accurate conformance to the user guidance of both the
software and the hardware part of the TOE. There are no particular obligations or recommendations
for the user apart from following the user guidance. Please note that the documents contain relevant
details concerning the resistance against certain attacks.
In addition, all aspects of assumptions, threats and policies as outlined in the Security Target not
covered by the TOE itself must be fulfilled by the operational environment of the TOE.
The customer or user of the product shall consider the results of the certification within his system risk
management process. For the evolution of attack methods and techniques to be covered, the
customer should define the period of time until a re-assessment for the TOE is required and thus
requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
The strength of the cryptographic algorithms and protocols was not rated in the course of this
evaluation. This specifically applies to the following proprietary or non-standard algorithms, protocols
and implementations: None.
Page: 10/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
3 Security Target
The DocuSign QSCD for local signing Security Target, Version 4.1.3, 14 September 2021 [ST] is
included here by reference.
4 Definitions
This list of acronyms and definitions contains elements that are not already defined by the CC or CEM:
DTBS/R Data To Be Signed / Representation to be signed
IT Information Technology
ITSEF IT Security Evaluation Facility
JIL Joint Interpretation Library
NSCIB Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the area of IT Security
PP Protection Profile
QSCD Qualified Signature/Seal Creation Device
TOE Target of Evaluation
Page: 11/11 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0388535-CR, dated 23 February 2022
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
5 Bibliography
This section lists all referenced documentation used as source material in the compilation of this
report.
[CC] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Parts I, II and
III, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017
[CEM] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017
[CR-235735] Certification Report DocuSign QSCD for local signing, NSCIB-CC-235735-CR,
version 1, 13 January 2021
[EN419221-5] EN 419 221-5:2018, Protection Profiles for TSP Cryptographic Modules – Part
5 Cryptographic Module for Trust Services, v1.0, registered under the reference
ANSSI-CC-PP-2016/05-M01, 18 May 2020
[ETR] Evaluation Technical Report “DocuSign QSCD for local signing version 1.1.0.6”
– EAL4+, 21-RPT-558, version 3.0, 28 September 2021
[EU-REG] REGULATION (EU) No 910/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
OF THE COUNCIL of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust
services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing
Directive 1999/93/EC
[JIL-AAPHD] Application of Attack Potential to Hardware Devices with Security Boxes,
Version 3.0, July 2020
[JIL-AMHD] Attack Methods for Hardware Devices with Security Boxes, Version 3.0,
February 2020 (sensitive with controlled distribution)
[NSCIB] Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the Area of IT Security, Version 2.5,
28 March 2019
[ST] DocuSign QSCD for local signing Security Target, Version 4.1.3, 14 September
2021
(This is the end of this report.)