National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Motorola Lex L11
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-11002-2020
Dated: January 23, 2020
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
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Kenneth Stutterheim
Aerospace Corporation
Michelle Carlson
Patrick Mallett, PhD
The MITRE Corporation
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Tammy Compton
John Messiha
Raymond Smoley
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 1
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms ......................................................................................... 3
3.2 Physical Boundaries.................................................................................................. 3
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Security audit ............................................................................................................ 4
4.2 Cryptographic support .............................................................................................. 4
4.3 User data protection .................................................................................................. 4
4.4 Identification and authentication............................................................................... 5
4.5 Security management................................................................................................ 5
4.6 Protection of the TSF................................................................................................ 5
4.7 TOE access................................................................................................................ 6
4.8 Trusted path/channels ............................................................................................... 6
5 Assumptions................................................................................................................ 6
6 Clarification of Scope ................................................................................................. 6
7 Documentation............................................................................................................ 7
8 IT Product Testing ...................................................................................................... 7
8.1 Developer Testing..................................................................................................... 7
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) .................................................................. 8
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)............................................................. 9
10.7 Summary of Evaluation Results............................................................................ 10
11 Validator Comments/Recommendations .................................................................. 10
11.1 Annexes................................................................................................................. 11
12 Security Target.......................................................................................................... 11
13 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 11
14 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 11
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of the Motorola Lex L11 solution provided by
Motorola Solutions, Inc. 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 January 2020. 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 Mobile Device Fundamentals, Version 3.1, 16 June 2017, and General
Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile/Mobile Device Fundamentals Protection
Profile Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Clients, Version 1.0,
08 February 2016.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Motorola Lex L11.
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 5) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 5). 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 Motorola Lex L11
(MDFPP31/WLANCEP10) Security Target, Version 0.6, 01/08/2020 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
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
2
laboratories called Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs) using the Common
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 Motorola Lex L11
Protection Profile
(Specific models identified in Section 3.1)
Protection Profile for Mobile Device Fundamentals, Version 3.1, 16 June 2017
and General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile/Mobile Device
Fundamentals Protection Profile Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area
Network (WLAN) Clients, Version 1.0, 08 February 2016
ST Motorola Lex L11 (MDFPP31/WLANCEP10) Security Target, Version 0.6,
01/08/2020
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for Motorola Lex L11, Version 0.3, January 16, 2020
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 5
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor Motorola Solutions, Inc
Developer Motorola Solutions, Inc
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators Michelle Carlson
Patrick Mallett
Kenneth Stutterheim
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
3
3 Architectural Information
The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the Security
Target.
The TOE provides an API to mobile applications providing users installing an application
the option to either approve or reject an application based upon the API access that the
application requires (or to grant applications access at runtime).
The TOE also protects Data-At-Rest with AES encryption, including all user and mobile
application data stored in the user’s data partition. The TOE uses a key hierarchy that
combines a REK with the user’s password to provide protection to all user and application
cryptographic keys stored in the TOE.
Further, the TOE can interact with a Mobile Device Management system (not part of this
evaluation) to allow enterprise control of the configuration and operation of the device so as
to ensure adherence to enterprise-wide policies (for example, restricting use of a corporate
provide device’s camera, forced configuration of maximum login attempts, pulling of audit
logs off the TOE, etc.) as well as policies governing enterprise applications and data (in a an
employee-owned device [BYOD] scenario).
Finally, the TOE includes a System Call Policy Manager that allows further management
control (i.e., to restrict or disable features of the device). Most core features of the phone
can be enabled, disabled, or restricted via a signed policy. The TOE’s policy manager
supports the requirements of MDFPP and WLANCEP.
The TOE includes several different levels of execution including (from lowest to highest)
hardware, a Trusted Execution Environment, Android’s Linux kernel, Android’s user space,
Android’s Android Runtime (ART) environment for mobile applications, and the mobile
applications themselves
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms
The following model and version is included in the evaluation:
Product Carrier OS version Kernel Build number WFA Cert#
Motorola Lex L11 Open Android 9.0 4.4.153 PIE.L11_P_R30.21.10 WFA91727
3.2 Physical Boundaries
The TOE’s physical boundary is the physical perimeter of its enclosure and the TOE has a
SIM tray to allow the user to access and replace the device’s SIM. Additionally, the phone
supports a MicroSD slot beneath the battery to allow for field replaceable expandable
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
4
storage. The use of this tray can be enabled, disabled, or restricted to read-only at the kernel
level by the system call policy manager configuration.
4 Security Policy
This section summarizes the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Security audit
2. Cryptographic support
3. User data protection
4. Identification and authentication
5. Security management
6. Protection of the TSF
7. TOE access
8. Trusted path/channels
4.1 Security audit
The TOE implements a security log and logcat logging that are each stored in a circular
memory buffer of various sizes. An MDM agent can read/fetch the security log and can be
configured to retrieve logcat logs. These log methods meet the logging requirements outlined
by the audit generation requirements.
4.2 Cryptographic support
The TOE includes cryptographic components (including its BoringSSL library, System Call
Policy Manager, and its Application Processor) with CAVP certified algorithms for a wide
range of cryptographic functions including: asymmetric key generation and establishment,
symmetric key generation, encryption/decryption, cryptographic hashing and keyed-hash
message authentication. These functions are supported with suitable random bit generation,
key derivation, salt generation, initialization vector generation, secure key storage, and key
and protected data destruction. These primitive cryptographic functions are used to
implement security protocols such as TLS and HTTPS and also to encrypt Data-At-Rest
(including the generation and protection of keys and key encryption keys) used by the TOE.
Many of these cryptographic functions are also accessible as services to applications running
on the TOE. Some security functionality is also provided via a Java library which allows
application developers to ensure their application meets the required criteria to remain
compliant to MDFPP standards.
4.3 User data protection
The TOE controls access to system services by hosted applications, including protection of
the Trust Anchor Database. Additionally, the TOE protects user and other sensitive data
using encryption so that even if a device is physically lost, the data remains protected. The
TOE’s evaluated configuration supports Android Enterprise profiles to provide additional
separation between application and application data belonging to the Enterprise profile.
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
5
4.4 Identification and authentication
The TOE supports a number of features related to identification and authentication. From a
user perspective, except for FCC mandated (making phone calls to an emergency number)
or non-sensitive functions (e.g., choosing the keyboard input method or taking screen shots),
a password (i.e., Password Authentication Factor) or biometric (i.e., fingerprint) must be
correctly entered to unlock the TOE. Also, even when unlocked, the TOE requires the user
re-enter the password to change the password. Passwords are obscured when entered so they
cannot be read from the TOE's display and the frequency of entering passwords is limited
and when a configured number of failures occurs, the TOE will be wiped to protect its
contents. Passwords can be constructed using upper and lower cases characters, numbers,
and special characters and passwords up to 16 characters are supported.
The TOE can also serve as an 802.1X supplicant and can both use X.509v3 and validate
certificates for EAP-TLS, TLS, and HTTPS exchanges.
4.5 Security management
The TOE provides all the interfaces necessary to manage the security functions identified
throughout this Security Target as well as other functions commonly found in mobile
devices. Many of the available functions are available to users of the TOE while many are
restricted to administrators either operating through a Mobile Device Management solution
once the TOE has been enrolled or the System Call Policy Manager that comes pre-installed
on the device. Once the TOE has been enrolled and then un-enrolled, it will remove
Enterprise applications, but any MDM policies will remain until factory reset. The TOE’s
System Call Policy Manager policies persist across reboots and an administrator can update
them by applying a new policy.
4.6 Protection of the TSF
The TOE implements a number of features to protect itself to ensure the reliability and
integrity of its security features. It protects particularly sensitive data such as cryptographic
keys so that they are not accessible or exportable through the use of the application
processor’s hardware. The TOE disallows all read access to the Root Encryption Key and
retains all keys derived from the REK within its the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE).
Application software can only use keys derived from the REK by reference and receive the
result.
The TOE also provides its own timing mechanism to ensure that reliable time information is
available (e.g., for log accountability). It enforces read, write, and execute memory page
protections, uses address space layout randomization, and stack-based buffer overflow
protections to minimize the potential to exploit application flaws. It also protects itself from
modification by applications as well as to isolate the address spaces of applications from one
another to protect those applications.
The TOE includes functions to perform self-tests and software/firmware integrity checking
so that it might detect when it is failing or may be corrupt. If any of the self-tests fail, the
TOE will not go into an operational mode. It also includes mechanisms (i.e., verification of
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
6
the digital signature of each new image) so that the TOE itself can be updated while ensuring
that the updates will not introduce malicious or other unexpected changes in the TOE. Digital
signature checking also extends to verifying applications prior to their installation as all
applications must have signatures (even if self-signed).
4.7 TOE access
The TOE can be locked, obscuring its display, by the user or after a configured interval of
inactivity. The TOE also has the capability to display an administrator specified (using the
TOE’s MDM API) advisory message (banner) when the user unlocks the TOE for the first
use after reboot.
The TOE is also able to attempt to connect to wireless networks as configured.
4.8 Trusted path/channels
The TOE supports the use of IEEE 802.11-2012, 802.1X, EAP-TLS, TLS, and HTTPS to
secure communications channels between itself and other trusted network devices.
5 Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
documents:
 Protection Profile for Mobile Device Fundamentals, Version 3.1, 16 June 2017, and
General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile/Mobile Device Fundamentals
Protection Profile Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
Clients, Version 1.0, 08 February 2016
That information has not been reproduced here and the MDFPP31/WLANCEP10 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
MDFPP31/WLANCEP10 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 Mobile Device Fundamentals Protection Profile and
General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile/Mobile Device Fundamentals
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
7
Protection Profile Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
Clients 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.
 Apart from the Admin Guides, additional customer documentation for the specific
mobile device models was not included in the scope of the evaluation and therefore
should not to be relied upon when configuring or operating the device as evaluated.
 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 MDFPP31/WLANCEP10 and applicable Technical
Decisions. Any additional security related functional capabilities of the TOE were
not covered by this evaluation.
 While an MDM is required to put the TOE into its evaluated configuration, the MDM
agent and server functionality were not evaluated as part of this evaluation. They will
be evaluated separately.
7 Documentation
The following document was available with the TOE for evaluation:
 Administrator Guidance Instructions, Version 0.4, 01/08/2020
Any additional customer documentation provided with the product, or that is available online
was not included in the scope of the evaluation and therefore should not to be relied upon
when configuring or operating the device as evaluated.
To use the product in the evaluated configuration, the product must be configured as
specified in the Guidance Documentation listed above. Consumers are encouraged to
download the configuration guides from the NIAP website to ensure the device is configured
as evaluated.
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 proprietary Detailed Test Report
(MDFPP31/WLANCEP10) for Motorola Lex L11, Version 0.3, 1/15/2020 (DTR), as
summarized in the evaluation Assurance Activity Report.
8.1 Developer Testing
No evidence of developer testing is required in the assurance activities for this product.
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
8
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 MDFPP31/WLANCEP10 including the tests
associated with optional requirements. The AAR, in section 3.4.1, lists the tested devices,
provides a list of test tools, and has diagrams of the test environment.
9 Evaluated Configuration
The following model and version are included in the evaluation:
Product Carrier OS version Kernel Build number WFA Cert#
Motorola Lex L11 Open Android 9.0 4.4.153 PIE.L11_P_R30.21.10 WFA91727
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 5 and CEM version 3.1 rev 5. The evaluation determined the Motorola Lex
L11 TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the SARs contained in the
MDFPP31/WLANCEP10.
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 Motorola Lex L11 products that are
consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that support
the requirements.
The validators 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 evaluation team
performed the assurance activities specified in the MDFPP31/WLANCEP10 related to the
examination of the information contained in the TSS.
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
9
The validators 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 validators 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 validators 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 MDFPP31/WLANCEP10 and recorded the
results in a Test Report, summarized in the AAR.
The validators 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 evaluator searched the National Vulnerability Database
(https://web.nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search), Vulnerability Notes Database
(http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/) on 12/31/2019 with the following search terms: "Motorola",
"Lex", "L11", "MSI", "Android", "Android P", "Android 9", "BoringSSL", "SDM660",
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
10
"System Call Policy Engine", "Android LockSettings service KBKDF", "QTI Crypto Engine
Core", "QTI Inline Crypto Engine", and "QTI Random Number Generator". The public
search for vulnerabilities did not uncover any residual vulnerability that applied to the TOE.
The validators 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
The validators suggest that the consumer pay particular attention to the evaluated
configuration of the device(s). The functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the
security functional requirements specified in the Security Target, and only the functionality
implemented by the SFR’s within the Security Target was evaluated. All other functionality
provided by the devices, to include software that was not part of the evaluated configuration,
needs to be assessed separately and no further conclusions can be drawn about their
effectiveness.
Note that the following features and settings must be enabled for the TOE to be in evaluated
configuration:
1. Configure the bootloader to disable flashing
2. Obtain and install Motorola’s NIAP Policy (AES-256 DAR & Logging) for the
Policy Manager
3. Set a password and specify Secure start-up
Doing this ensures that the phone complies with the MDFPP requirements.
Also note, the administrator can turn the captive portal check off. But they need to do this
physically on the device before enrolling it in to the MDM. Also, a standard captive portal
check will bypass the full tunnel VPN configuration.
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
11
11.1 Annexes
Not applicable
12 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: Motorola Lex L11 (MDFPP31/WLANCEP10) Security
Target, Version 0.6, 01/08/2020
13 Glossary
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
 Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL). An IT security evaluation facility
accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and
approved by the CCEVS Validation Body to conduct Common Criteria-based
evaluations.
 Conformance. The ability to demonstrate in an unambiguous way that a given
implementation is correct with respect to the formal model.
 Evaluation. The assessment of an IT product against the Common Criteria using the
Common Criteria Evaluation Methodology to determine whether or not the claims made
are justified; or the assessment of a protection profile against the Common Criteria using
the Common Evaluation Methodology to determine if the Profile is complete, consistent,
technically sound and hence suitable for use as a statement of requirements for one or
more TOEs that may be evaluated.
 Evaluation Evidence. Any tangible resource (information) required from the sponsor or
developer by the evaluator to perform one or more evaluation activities.
 Feature. Part of a product that is either included with the product or can be ordered
separately.
 Target of Evaluation (TOE). A group of IT products configured as an IT system, or an
IT product, and associated documentation that is the subject of a security evaluation
under the CC.
 Validation. The process carried out by the CCEVS Validation Body leading to the issue
of a Common Criteria certificate.
 Validation Body. A governmental organization responsible for carrying out validation
and for overseeing the day-to-day operation of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation
and Validation Scheme.
14 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation: Part 1:
Introduction and General Model, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
Motorola Lex L11 Validation Report Version 1.0, January 23, 2020
12
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017.
[4] Protection Profile for Mobile Device Fundamentals, Version 3.1, 16 June 2017, and
General Purpose Operating Systems Protection Profile/Mobile Device Fundamentals
Protection Profile Extended Package (EP) Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
Clients, Version 1.0, 08 February 2016.
[5] Motorola Lex L11 (MDFPP31/WLANCEP10) Security Target, Version 0.6,
01/08/2020(ST).
[6] Assurance Activity Report (MDFPP31/WLANCEP10) for Motorola Lex L11,
Version 0.3, 01/16/2020 (AAR).
[7] Detailed Test Report (MDFPP31/WLANCEP10) for Motorola Lex L11, Version 0.3,
01/15/2020 (DTR).
[8] Evaluation Technical Report for Motorola Lex L11, Version 0.3, 01/16/2020 (ETR).