National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Forcepoint Company
10900 Stonelake Blvd.
Third Floor
Austin, TX 78759, USA
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-10780-2017
Dated: June 1, 2017
Version: 0.3
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 Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Meredith Hennan
Jerome Myers
The Aerospace Corporation
Columbia, MD
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Tammy Compton
Raymond Smoley
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 1
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms ................................................................................... 3
3.2 TOE Architecture................................................................................................ 3
3.3 Physical Boundaries............................................................................................ 3
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Cryptographic support ........................................................................................ 4
4.2 User data protection ............................................................................................ 4
4.3 Identification and authentication......................................................................... 4
4.4 Security management.......................................................................................... 4
4.5 Privacy ................................................................................................................ 4
4.6 Protection of the TSF.......................................................................................... 4
4.7 Trusted path/channels ......................................................................................... 4
5 Assumptions................................................................................................................ 4
6 Clarification of Scope ................................................................................................. 5
7 Documentation............................................................................................................ 5
8 IT Product Testing ...................................................................................................... 5
8.1 Developer Testing............................................................................................... 6
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ............................................................... 6
9 Evaluated Configuration ............................................................................................. 6
10 Results of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 6
10.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)............................................................ 6
10.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV).............................................................. 7
10.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD) ................................................. 7
10.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) ..................................... 7
10.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ................. 8
10.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)......................................................... 8
10.7 Summary of Evaluation Results.......................................................................... 8
11 Validator Comments/Recommendations .................................................................... 8
12 Annexes....................................................................................................................... 8
13 Security Target............................................................................................................ 9
14 Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 9
15 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 9
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client
solution provided by Forcepoint Company. 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 May 2017. 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
Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016 (ASPP12).
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client 1.1.
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 (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 Trusted
Access Mobile Client (ASPP12) Security Target, version 0.5, May 30, 2017 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 Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
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 Trusted Access Mobile Client 1.1
Protection Profile
(Specific models identified in Section 3.1)
Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016 (ASPP12)
ST Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Security Target, version 0.5, May 30,
2017
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client ,
version 0.2, May 31, 2017
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 Company
Developer Forcepoint Company
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators Meredith Hennan
Jerome Myers
The Aerospace Corporation
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
3
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The TOE is an application installed onto a physical mobile device from the Google
Playstore or Apple App Store. The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Forcepoint Trusted
Access Mobile (TAM) Client.
The TOE is the Trusted Access Mobile Client application for Android and iOS platforms.
The TOE is a thin client providing access to a Forcepoint Virtual Mobile Infrastructure
(VMI) server from a mobile device. The TOE runs on evaluated Samsung Galaxy S7, S7
Edge, S6, S6 Edge, Note 4, Note 5, Note Edge and Tab S2 devices running Android 6.0.1.
The TOE also runs on evaluated Apple iOS 9.3.2 on iPhone and iPad devices using the A7
or A8 processor.
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms
The evaluated software version is Version 1.1. The TOE a thin client providing access to a
Forcepoint Virtual Mobile Infrastructure (VMI) server from a mobile device. The TOE
runs on evaluated Samsung Galaxy S7, S7 Edge, S6, S6 Edge, Note 4, Note 5, Note Edge
and Tab S2 devices running Android 6.0.1. The TOE also runs on evaluated Apple iOS
9.3.2 on iPhone and iPad devices using the A7 or A8 processor.
3.2 TOE Architecture
The TOE is an application installed onto a physical mobile device from the Google
Playstore or Apple App Store.
3.3 Physical Boundaries
The physical boundary of the TOE is the physical perimeter of the evaluated device on
which the TOE resides.
4 Security Policy
This section summaries the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Cryptographic support
2. User data protection
3. Identification and authentication
4. Security Management
5. Privacy
6. Protection of the TSF
7. Trusted path/channels
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
4
4.1 Cryptographic support
The TAM client also utilizes platform APIs to provide secure network communication
using the HTTPS and TLS protocols.
4.2 User data protection
The TAM client does not store sensitive data in local files. The TAM client can access
most physical resources on the mobile device, but none of the logical data repositories.
4.3 Identification and authentication
The TAM client utilizes platform provided functionality to verify certificates authenticating
network endpoints. The iOS platform support Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP)
while the Android platform supports both OSCP and Certificate Revocation List (CRL).
4.4 Security management
The TAM client does not include any predefined or default credentials, and utilize the
platform recommended storage process for configuration options.
4.5 Privacy
The TAM client does not collect any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and does not
transmit any PII over a network.
4.6 Protection of the TSF
The TAM client relies on the physical boundary of the evaluated platform as well as the
Android and iOS operating system for the protection of the TOE’s application components.
The TAM client also makes use of specific 3rd
party libraries to support WebRTC. All
compiled TAM client code is designed to utilize compiler provided anti-exploitation
capabilities. The TAM client application is available through the Google Playstore and the
Apple store.
4.7 Trusted path/channels
The TAM client utilizes platform API to establish HTTPS and TLS connections to a TAM
server.
5 Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
documents:
 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016 (ASPP12)
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
5
That information has not been reproduced here and the ASPP12 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
ASPP12 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 Application Software 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 ASPP12 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:
 ForcepointTM
Trusted Access Mobile User's Guide, May 12, 2017
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 for Virtual Mobile
Platform Client and Trusted Access Mobile Client, Version 0.2, May 31, 2017 (DTR), and
summarized in the Assurance Activity Report (ASPP12) for Trusted Access Mobile Client,
Version 0.2, May 31, 2017 (AAR), which is publically available.
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
6
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 ASPP12 including the tests associated with
optional requirements.
The following depicts a diagram of the test environment used by the evaluators:
Figure 1: Forcepoint TAM Client TOE Test Environment Setup
9 Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated software version is Version 1.1. The TOE a thin client providing access to a
Forcepoint Virtual Mobile Infrastructure (VMI) server from a mobile device. The TOE
runs on evaluated Samsung Galaxy S7, S7 Edge, S6, S6 Edge, Note 4, Note 5, Note Edge
and Tab S2 devices running Android 6.0.1. The TOE also runs on evaluated Apple iOS
9.3.2 on iPhone and iPad devices using the A7 or A8 processor.
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 Trusted
Access Mobile Client TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the SARs contained in the
ASPP12.
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
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
7
of security requirements claimed to be met by the Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client
1.1 product that 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 ASPP12 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.
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
8
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 ASPP12 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
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”, “Raytheon”,
“Trusted Access Mobile”, and “Trusted Access”.
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
All validator comments have been addressed in the Assumptions and Clarifications of
Scope sections.
12 Annexes
Not applicable
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
9
13 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client (ASPP12)
Security Target, Version 0.5, May 30, 2017.
14 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.
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.
Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client Validation Report Version 0.2, May 31, 2017
10
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2102.
[4] Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016 (ASPP12)
[5] Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client (ASPP12) Security Target, Version 0.5,
May 30, 2017 (ST)
[6] Assurance Activity Report (ASPP12) for Trusted Access Mobile Client, Version
0.2, May 31, 2017 (AAR)
[7] Detailed Test Report for Virtual Mobile Platform Client and Trusted Access Mobile
Client, Version 0.2, May 31, 2017 (DTR)
[8] Evaluation Technical Report for Forcepoint Trusted Access Mobile Client, Version
0.2, May 31, 2017 (ETR)