Agenzia per la Cybersicurezza Nazionale
Schema nazionale per la valutazione e la certificazione della sicurezza nel settore della tecnologia
dell'informazione (DPCM del 30 ottobre 2003 - G.U. n. 93 del 27 aprile 2004)
Il prodotto identificato in questo certificato è risultato conforme ai requisiti
ISO/IEC 15408 Common Criteria (CC) v.3.1 rel. 5
Certificato n.
(Certificate No.)
04/2024
Rapporto di Certificazione
(Certification Report)
OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC, v1.0
Decorrenza
(Date of 1st
Issue)
16 aprile 2024
Nome e Versione del Prodotto
(Product Name and Version)
Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation
Device version 3.1.3
Sviluppatore
(Developer)
I4P-informatikai Kft- (i4p informatics ltd)
Tipo di Prodotto
(Type of Product)
Prodotti per firme digitali
Livello di Garanzia
(Assurance Level)
EAL4+ (ALC_FLR.3 e AVA_VAN.5) conforme a CC
Conformità a PP
(PP Conformance)
Protection profiles for Trust Service Provider
Cryptographic modules - Part 5: Cryptographic Module for
Trust Services, EN 419221-5:2018, May 2018
Trustworthy Systems Supporting Server Signing - Part 2:
Protection Profile for QSCD for Server Signing, EN
419241-2:2019, February 2019
Funzionalità di sicurezza
(Conformance of Functionality)
Funzionalità conformi a PP CC parte 2 estesa
Riconoscimento CCRA per componenti
fino a EAL2 e solo ALC_FLR
(CCRA recognition for components up to
EAL2 and ALC_FLR only)
Riconoscimento SOGIS MRA
per componenti fino a EAL4
(SOGIS MRA recognition
for components up to EAL4)
Roma, 16 aprile 2024
Il Capo Servizio
Certificazione e Vigilanza
(A. Billet)
[ORIGINAL SIGNED]
Il prodotto IT (Information Technology) identificato nel presente certificato è stato valutato
presso un LVS (Laboratorio per la Valutazione della Sicurezza) accreditato e
abilitato/approvato utilizzando la Metodologia Comune per la Valutazione di Sicurezza
della Tecnologia dell’Informazione versione 3.1 revisione 5 per la conformità ai Criteri
Comuni per la Valutazione di Sicurezza della Tecnologia dell’Informazione versione 3.1
revisione 5. Questo certificato si applica solo alla versione e al rilascio specifici del prodotto
nella sua configurazione valutata e unitamente al Rapporto di certificazione completo. La
valutazione è stata condotta in conformità alle disposizioni dello Schema nazionale per la
valutazione e la certificazione della sicurezza nel settore della tecnologia dell'informazione
(DPCM del 30 ottobre 2003 - G.U. n. 93 del 27 aprile 2004) e le conclusioni dell’LVS nel
Rapporto di Fine Valutazione sono coerenti con le evidenze addotte. Il presente Certificato
non costituisce un sostegno o promozione del prodotto IT da parte della Agenzia per la
Cybersicurezza Nazionale o di qualsiasi altra organizzazione che riconosca o dia effetto a
questo certificato, e nessuna garanzia del prodotto IT, da parte della Agenzia per la
Cybersicurezza Nazionale o di qualsiasi altra organizzazione che riconosce o dà effetto a
questo certificato, è espressa o implicita.
The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an accredited and
licensed/approved evaluation facility using Common Methodology for Information Technology
Security Evaluation version 3.1 release 5 for conformance to Common Criteria for Information
Technology Security Evaluation version 3.1 release 5. This certificate applies only to the specific
version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration and in conjunction with the complete
Certification report. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the
National scheme for the evaluation and certification of the security in the sector of information
technology (Prime Ministerial Decree of 30 October 2003 - Official Journal no. 93 of 27 April 2004)
and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation technical report are consistent with
the evidence adduced. This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by Agenzia per la
Cybersicurezza Nazionale or by any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, and no warranty of the IT product, by Agenzia per la Cybersicurezza Nazionale or by
any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is either expressed or
implied.
Page 1 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
Agenzia per la Cybersicurezza Nazionale
Servizio Certificazione e Vigilanza
Certification Report
Trident, the distributed remote Qualified
Signature Creation Device version 3.1.3
OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC
Version 1.0
16 April 2024
Page 2 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
Courtesy translation
Disclaimer: This English language translation is provided for informational purposes only. It is not
intended to substitute the official document and has no legal value. The original Italian language
version of the document is the only approved and official version.
Page 3 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
1 Document revisions
Version Author Information Date
1.0 OCSI First issue 16/04/2024
Page 4 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
2 Table of contents
1 Document revisions ....................................................................................................................3
2 Table of contents ........................................................................................................................4
3 Acronyms....................................................................................................................................6
3.1 National scheme.................................................................................................................6
3.2 CC and CEM......................................................................................................................6
3.3 Other acronyms..................................................................................................................6
4 References ..................................................................................................................................8
4.1 Normative references and national Scheme documents ....................................................8
4.2 Technical documents .........................................................................................................9
5 Recognition of the certificate ...................................................................................................10
5.1 European recognition of CC certificates (SOGIS-MRA)................................................10
5.2 International recognition of CC certificates (CCRA)......................................................10
6 Statement of certification..........................................................................................................11
7 Summary of the evaluation.......................................................................................................12
7.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................12
7.2 Executive summary .........................................................................................................12
7.3 Evaluated product ............................................................................................................12
7.3.1 TOE architecture ........................................................................................................13
7.3.2 TOE security features.................................................................................................15
7.4 Documentation.................................................................................................................18
7.5 Protection Profile conformance claims............................................................................18
7.6 Functional and assurance requirements...........................................................................19
7.7 Evaluation conduct ..........................................................................................................19
7.8 General considerations about the certification validity ...................................................19
8 Evaluation outcome..................................................................................................................20
8.1 Evaluation results.............................................................................................................20
8.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................21
9 Annex A – Guidelines for the secure usage of the product......................................................22
9.1 TOE delivery ...................................................................................................................22
9.2 Installation, configuration, and secure usage of the TOE................................................23
10 Annex B – Evaluated configuration .........................................................................................24
Page 5 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
10.1 TOE operational environment .........................................................................................24
11 Annex C – Test activity............................................................................................................26
11.1 Test configuration............................................................................................................26
11.2 Functional tests performed by the Developer..................................................................26
11.2.1 Testing approach ........................................................................................................26
11.2.2 Test coverage..............................................................................................................26
11.2.3 Test results..................................................................................................................26
11.3 Functional and independent tests performed by the Evaluators ......................................26
11.3.1 Test approach .............................................................................................................26
11.3.2 Test results..................................................................................................................27
11.4 Vulnerability analysis and penetration tests ....................................................................27
Page 6 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
3 Acronyms
3.1 National scheme
DPCM Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri
LGP Linea Guida Provvisoria
LVS Laboratorio per la Valutazione della Sicurezza
NIS Nota Informativa dello Schema
OCSI Organismo di Certificazione della Sicurezza Informatica
3.2 CC and CEM
CC Common Criteria
CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
CEM Common Evaluation Methodology
cPP collaborative Protection Profile
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
PP Protection Profile
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SFR Security Functional Requirement
SOGIS-MRA Senior Officials Group Information Systems Security – Mutual Recognition
Agreement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functionality
TSFI TSF Interface
3.3 Other acronyms
AES Advanced Encryption Standard
API Application Program Interface
CM Cryptographic Module
Page 7 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
DRNG Deterministic Random Number Generator
DTBS/R Data to Be Signed/Representation
ECA External Client Application
eIDAS Electronic Identification, Authentication and Signature
LCA Local Client Application
MPCA Multi-Party Cryptographic Appliance
MPCM Multi-Party Cryptographic Module
OS Operating System
QSCD Qualified Signature Creation Device
RHEL Red Hat Enterprise Linux
SAD Signature Activation Data
SAM Signature Activation Protocol
SAP Signature Activation Module
SIC Signer’s Interaction Component
SSA Server Signing Application
TLS Transport layer Security
TOTP Time-based-One-Time Password
TSP Trusted Service Provider
Page 8 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
4 References
4.1 Normative references and national Scheme documents
[CC1] CCMB-2017-04-001, “Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Part 1 – Introduction and general model”, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April
2017
[CC2] CCMB-2017-04-002, “Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Part 2 – Security functional components”, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April
2017
[CC3] CCMB-2017-04-003, “Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Part 3 – Security assurance components”, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April
2017
[CCRA] Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates In the field of
Information Technology Security, July 2014
[CEM] CCMB-2017-04-004, “Common Methodology for Information Technology Security
Evaluation – Evaluation methodology”, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017
[LGP1] Schema nazionale per la valutazione e certificazione della sicurezza di sistemi e
prodotti nel settore della tecnologia dell’informazione - Descrizione Generale dello
Schema Nazionale - Linee Guida Provvisorie - parte 1 – LGP1 versione 1.0, Dicembre
2004
[LGP2] Schema nazionale per la valutazione e certificazione della sicurezza di sistemi e
prodotti nel settore della tecnologia dell’informazione - Accreditamento degli LVS e
abilitazione degli Assistenti - Linee Guida Provvisorie - parte 2 – LGP2 versione 1.0,
Dicembre 2004
[LGP3] Schema nazionale per la valutazione e certificazione della sicurezza di sistemi e
prodotti nel settore della tecnologia dell’informazione - Procedure di valutazione -
Linee Guida Provvisorie - parte 3 – LGP3, versione 1.0, Dicembre 2004
[NIS1] Organismo di certificazione della sicurezza informatica, Nota Informativa dello
Schema N. 1/23 – Modifiche alla LGP1, versione 1.1, 21 agosto 2023
[NIS2] Organismo di certificazione della sicurezza informatica, Nota Informativa dello
Schema N. 2/23 – Modifiche alla LGP2, versione 1.1, 21 agosto 2023
[NIS3] Organismo di certificazione della sicurezza informatica, Nota Informativa dello
Schema N. 3/23 – Modifiche alla LGP3, versione 1.1, 21 agosto 2023
[SOGIS] Mutual Recognition Agreement of Information Technology Security Evaluation
Certificates, Version 3, January 2010
Page 9 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
4.2 Technical documents
[AIS34] Evaluation Methodology for CC Assurance Classes for EAL5+ (CC v2.3 & v3.1)
and EAL6 (CC v3.1) version 3, Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der
Informationstechnik (BSI), September 3rd
2009
[CCECG-ADM] Trident Administrators’ Guide CM and SAM, Version 2.4, I4P-Informatikai Kft.
October 2nd
, 2023
[CCECG-DEV] Trident Developers’ Guide CMAPI and SAP Version 2.4, I4P-Informatikai Kft.
June 12th
, 2023
[eIDAS] 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
[EN 419221-5] Protection profiles for Trust Service Provider Cryptographic modules - Part 5:
Cryptographic Module for Trust Services, EN 419221-5:2018, May 2018
[EN 419241-1] Trustworthy Systems Supporting Server Signing - Part 1: General System
Security Requirements, EN 419241-1:2018, July 2018
[EN 419241-2] Trustworthy Systems Supporting Server Signing - Part 2: Protection Profile for
QSCD for Server Signing, EN 419241-2:2019, February 2019
[ETR] “Trident version 3.1.3” Evaluation Technical Report, Version 2, CCLab Software
laboratory, January 22nd
, 2024
[RC] Rapporto di Certificazione Trident version 2.1.3, OCSI/CERT/CCL/02/2020/RC,
versione 1.0, 2 settembre 2020.
[ST] Security Target, Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation
Device, ST reference: Trident-ST, version: 3.5, January 16th
, 2024, I4P-
Informatikai Kft,
Page 10 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
5 Recognition of the certificate
5.1 European recognition of CC certificates (SOGIS-MRA)
The European SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA, version 3 [SOGIS]) became
effective in April 2010 and provides mutual recognition of certificates based on the Common Criteria
(CC) Evaluation Assurance Level up to and including EAL4 for all IT Products. A higher recognition
level for evaluations beyond EAL4 is provided for IT Products related to specific Technical Domains
only.
The current list of signatory nations and of technical domains for which the higher recognition applies
and other details can be found on https://www.sogis.eu/.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the terms of this
agreement by signatory nations.
This certificate is recognised under SOGIS-MRA up to EAL4.
5.2 International recognition of CC certificates (CCRA)
The current version of the international arrangement on the mutual recognition of certificates based
on the CC (Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement, [CCRA] was ratified on 08 September 2014.
It covers CC certificates compliant with collaborative Protection Profiles (cPP), up to and including
EAL4, or certificates based on assurance components up to and including EAL2, with the possible
augmentation of Flaw Remediation family (ALC_FLR).
The current list of signatory nations and of collaborative Protection Profiles (cPP) and other details
can be found on https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/.
The CCRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the terms of this
agreement by signatory nations.
This certificate is recognised under CCRA up to EAL2 and ALC_FLR only.
Page 11 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
6 Statement of certification
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the product “Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature
Creation Device version 3.1.3”, developed by I4P-Informatikai Kft. (i4p informatics ltd).
The TOE is a multi-user, multi-key devices, designed to be used as Qualified Signature Creation
Device (QSCD) and composed by a Cryptographic Module and a Signature Activation Module,
suitable for both Local and Remote use cases.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the requirements established by the Italian
Scheme for the evaluation and certification of security systems and products in the field of
information technology and expressed in the Provisional Guidelines [LGP1, LGP2, LGP3] and
Scheme Information Notes [NIS1, NIS2, NIS3]. The Scheme is operated by the Italian Certification
Body “Organismo di Certificazione della Sicurezza Informatica (OCSI)”, established by the Prime
Minister Decree (DPCM) of 30 October 2003 (O.J. n.98 of 27 April 2004).
This Certification Report was issued at the conclusion of the re-certification of an earlier version of
the same TOE (Trident version 2.1.3), already certified by OCSI (Certificate no. 5/20 of September
2nd
, 2020 [CR]).
Following some changes made to the product by I4P-informatikai KfT., it was necessary to proceed
with a re-certification of the TOE. The modified components fall within the physical/logical scope of
the TOE and have had an impact on the following evidence produced by the Developer: security
target, functional specifications, TOE design and security architecture description.
The Evaluators were able to reuse part of the documentation and evidence already provided in the
previous evaluation.
The objective of the evaluation is to provide assurance that the product complies with the security
requirements specified in the associated Security Target [ST]; the potential consumers of the product
should also review the Security Target, in addition to the present Certification Report, in order to gain
a complete understanding of the security problem addressed. The evaluation activities have been
carried out in accordance with the Common Criteria Part 3 [CC3] and the Common Evaluation
Methodology [CEM].
The TOE resulted compliant with the requirements of Part 3 of the CC version 3.1 Revision 5 for the
assurance level EAL4 augmented with ALC_FLR.3 and AVA_VAN.5, according to the information
provided in the Security Target [ST] and in the configuration shown in “Annex B – Evaluated
configuration” of this Certification Report.
The publication of the Certification Report is the confirmation that the evaluation process has been
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the evaluation criteria Common Criteria - ISO/IEC
15408 ([CC1], [CC2], [CC3]) and the procedures indicated by the Common Criteria Recognition
Arrangement [CCRA], and that no exploitable vulnerability was found. However, the Certification
Body with such a document does not express any kind of support or promotion of the TOE.
Page 12 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
7 Summary of the evaluation
7.1 Introduction
This Certification Report states the outcome of the Common Criteria evaluation of the product
“Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation Device version 3.1.3” to provide
assurance to the potential consumers that TOE security features comply with its security
requirements.
In addition to the present Certification Report, the potential consumers of the product should also
review the Security Target [ST], specifying the functional and assurance requirements and the
intended operational environment.
7.2 Executive summary
TOE name Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation
Device version 3.1.3
Security Target Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation
Device Security Target, I4P-Informatikai Kft, version 3.5,
January 16th 2024 [ST]
Evaluation Assurance Level EAL4 augmented with ALC_FLR.3 and AVA_VAN.5
Developer I4P-informatikai Kft. (i4p informatics ltd).
Sponsor I4P-informatikai Kft. (i4p informatics ltd).
LVS CCLab Software Laboratory (Debrecen site).
CC version 3.1 Rev. 5
PP conformance claim Protection profiles for Trust Service Provider Cryptographic
modules - Part 5: Cryptographic Module for Trust Services,
EN 419221-5:2018, May 2018
Trustworthy Systems Supporting Server Signing - Part 2:
Protection Profile for QSCD for Server Signing, EN 419241-
2:2019, February 2019
Evaluation starting date 19 September 2022
Evaluation ending date 22 January 2024
The certification results apply only to the version of the product shown in this Certification Report
and only if the operational environment assumptions described in the Security Target [ST] are
fulfilled and in the configuration shown in “Annex B – Evaluated configuration” of this Certification
Report.
7.3 Evaluated product
This section summarizes the main functional and security requirements of the TOE.
Page 13 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
The TOE “Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation Device version 3.1.3”is a
multi-user, multi-key device designed to be used as a QSCD suitable for both local and remote use
cases of [EN 419221-5] Protection Profile.
The certification is applicable to eight supporting hardware models for the TOE: A11, A21, A31,
A33, B11, B31, B33, C16.
It is possible to consult sections 1.3, 1.4 of the Security Target [ST] for a more detailed description
of the TOE.
7.3.1 TOE architecture
Depending on its configuration, the TOE consists of one or more MPCAs (Multi-Party Cryptographic
Appliances). An MPCA comes in the form of a metal, rack mountable box.
In case of Distributed Configuration, the TOE consists of n (with n = 2, 3 or 4) identical TOE parts
(MPCAs) to operate as a logical whole in order to fulfil the requirements of the Security Target [ST].
It is an active-active configuration, i.e. if some of the MPCAs becomes dysfunctional (as result of a
fatal error or a network unavailability) the other MPCAs (if there are any) can ensure a limited
functionality.
In case of High-availability Configuration, the TOE consists of one or more fully redundant
instances of an active (online) MPCA node, one of which is only brought online when the active node
fails. This is an active-passive (or online-standby) configuration.
The TOE is composed of two main components which can work together to fulfil different sets of
requirements:
• The Cryptographic Module (CM) component is a general-purpose cryptographic module
suitable for cryptographic support needed by its legitimate users (e.g., service providers
supporting local or remote electronic signature and electronic sealing operations, certificate
issuance and revocation, time stamp operations and authentication services). The TOE can
also be configured to generate, store, and activate signer’s keys in one or more external CMs
for speed enhancement or legacy reasons;
• The Signature Activation Module (SAM) component is a local application deployed within
the tamper protected boundary of the TOE and implements the Signature Activation Protocol
(SAP). It uses the Signature Activation Data (SAD) from a remote signer to activate the
corresponding signing key for use in a cryptographic module.
The “Local” use case (see Figure 1) is aimed at local key owners applying their own electronic
signatures or seals. In this use case only the CM functionality of the TOE is used, which performs
local cryptographic operations, and associated key management.
The TOE can also make use of other external CMs.
Page 14 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
Figure 1 – TOE architecture in the “Local” use case
These operations can be used by external or local client applications (ECA, LCA) to create qualified
and non-qualified electronic signatures and electronic seals for the local key owner natural or legal
person. Examples include TSPs issuing certificates and timestamps, as well as supporting application
services such as e-invoicing and registered e-mail where the service provider applies its own seal or
signature.
The “Remote” use case (see Figure 2) is aimed at TSPs supporting requirements for remote signing,
or sealing, as specified in [eIDAS] regulation. In this case the inbuilt CM, as well as other external
CMs configured to be used (if there are any) and the SAM functionality of the Trident together meets
the requirements for QSCDs in the context of remote signing set out in Annex II of [eIDAS].
Figure 2 - TOE architecture in the “Remote” use case
The Signer’s Interaction Component (SIC) is a piece of software and/or hardware, operated on the
signer’s environment under its sole control.
The Server Signing Application (SSA) uses the TOE to generate, maintain and use the signing key.
The Signature Activation Protocol (SAP) allows secure use of the signing key for the creation of a
digital signature to be performed by a Cryptographic Module on behalf of a signer. The use of the
Page 15 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
Signature Activation Data (SAD), which is the essential part of the SAP, ensures control over the
signer’s key.
The SAM Module is a software part of TOE, which uses the SAD to guarantee with a high level of
confidence that the signing keys are used under sole control of the signer.
7.3.2 TOE security features
The Security Problem of the TOE, including security objectives, assumptions, threats and
organizational security policies, is defined in section 3 of the Security Target [ST].
For a detailed description of the TOE Security Functions, consult section 7.1 of the Security Target
[ST]. The major security features are summarized in the following sections.
7.3.2.1 User Roles and Authentication
The CM maintains the Administrator, Key User, LCA and ECA roles, associating users with roles.
The CM uses a common method for identification and authentication in case of each role: a unique
identifier and a static password and/or TOTP (Time-based-One-Time Password) and/or a JWT (Json
Web Token). Before using a secret key an authorisation or a reauthorisation is required. The CM
blocks the account/key after a predefined number of consecutive failed authentication /authorisation
attempts.
The SAM maintains the Privileged Users and Signer roles. The SAM ensures that all users have only
one role, consequently a signer can’t be a privileged user. For the Signer, the SAM requires two
different authentication factors, a password and a TOTP or a JWT. The identification and
authentication method is: a unique user identifier + static password + TOTP or JWT. The SAM blocks
the account after a predefined number of consecutive failed authentication attempts. When a signer
account has been locked the SAM also suspends the usage of all signing keys of the Signer. The SAM
maintains accounts (with different security attributes) belonging to individual users.
7.3.2.2 Security Management (CM)
The Administrator is able to:
• Unblock a blocked user account or a blocked key.
• Specify alternative initial value for the “Key Usage” security attribute, setting its value to
“General” or to “Signing”.
• Export and delete the local audit and error log file.
• Backup and restore of the CM’s TSF state.
The Key User is able to modify the following attributes of his/her key:
• Authorisation Data.
• Unprotected Flag (which indicates whether his/her stored key is protected only with an
infrastructural key, or additionally with his/her Authorisation Data.).
• Operational Flag (which indicates whether the key is in operational state.).
7.3.2.3 Security Management (SAM)
The SAM implements the following management functions:
• Signer management.
• Privileged User management.
Page 16 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
• Configuration management.
• Backup and restore functions.
7.3.2.4 Key Security
The CM implements the following security functions related to the whole lifecycle of the keys:
• Key import.
• Key generation.
• Key restore from backup.
• Binding of a set of attributes to the key.
• Storage of the key.
• Key export.
• Key usage.
• Key backup.
• Key destruction.
For the SAM Crypto - The SAM does not perform cryptographic operations with Key User’s key and
does not delete Key User’s key. The SAM invokes the CM with appropriate parameters whenever a
cryptographic operation, a key generation or a key deletion is required. At the same time SAM
performs non-distributed cryptographic operations with infrastructural keys.
7.3.2.5 Access and information flow control
The CM enforces the following Security Function Policies:
• Key Basics: import of secret keys is not allowed. Export of secret key is allowed only for non-
Assigned keys with “Export Flag=”yes”. Public keys will always be exported with integrity
protection of their key value and attributes. Unblocking access to a key will not allow any
subject other than those authorised to access the key at the time when it was blocked. No
subject will be allowed to access the plaintext value of any secret key directly or to access
intermediate values in any operation that uses a secret key.
• Key Usage: Key User can only change the „Unprotected Flag” and „Operational Flag” key
attributes. The Key User can only change the Authorisation Data. Only subjects with current
authorization for a specific secret key are allowed to conduct operations using the plaintext
value of that key. Only cryptographic functions permitted by the secret key's Key Usage
attribute shall be carried out using the secret key.
• Backup: only Administrator can perform the backup or restore function (restore function is
under dual control). All backups are signed and encrypted. Consequently, any backup
preserves their integrity and confidentiality.
The SAM enforces the following additional security functions:
• Privileged User Creation: only a Privileged User can create a new Privileged User’s account.
• Signer Creation: only a Privileged User can create new Signers.
• Signer Maintenance: only a Privileged User or the owner Signer can delete a key identifier
and a public key from a Signer’s account.
Page 17 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
• Supply DTBS/R: Only an authorised Privileged User is able to supply the DTBS/R on behalf
of the Signer.
• Signer Key Pair Generation: only a Signer can conduct the KeyReq SAP command, requesting
a new asymmetric key pair generation. Only a Privileged User can conduct the keygen CMAPI
command generating a new asymmetric key pair and assigning it to a Signer’s account.
• Signer Key Pair Deletion: only a Signer can conduct the NewKeyDel SAP command,
requesting a key pair deletion.
• Signing: only a Signer can conduct the ChKeyPWD SAP command (which establishes or
modifies the key Authorisation Data) and the "SAD" SAP command.
• SAM Maintenance: only a Privileged User can carry out the SAM Maintenance related
commands, transmitting information to the SAM to manage roles and configuration.
• Signer: the order of “Signer” related commands is regulated and controlled.
• Privileged User: The order of “Privileged User” related commands is regulated and controlled.
7.3.2.6 TSF data protection
The CM ensures the security of its TSF data with:
• Self-tests: which demonstrate the correct operation of the TSF.
• Secure failure: the capability to preserve a secure state when the different types of failures
occur.
• Tamper protection: tamper detecting and tamper response capabilities.
The SAM is implemented as a local application within the same physical boundary as the CM.
Consequently, the CM provides its security services also for protecting the SAM.
7.3.2.7 Audit
The CM and the SAM audit all security related events. Every audit record includes a reliable time
stamp, subject identity (if applicable), identifier of the related CM or SAM and a human readable
descriptive string about the related event. For audit events resulting from actions of identified users,
the CM and SAM associate each auditable event with the identity of the user that caused the event.
The SAM invokes the CM to protect its audit records (from unauthorized modification, deletion and
audit storage exhaustion).
The CM and SAM receives a reliable time source from TOE environment.
7.3.2.8 Communication Protection
The CM enforces:
• A secure channel based on TLS protocol, for communication with ECAs;
• A secure channel based on TLS protocol, for communication with Administrator, through the
SSA.
• Secure channel based on TLS protocol for internal communication among MPCAs.
• A secure channel based on SSH protocol, for communication with Administrators, using the
console command interface in the provided limited shell.
• A direct channel for communication with Administrators, using the console command
interface with a physical keyboard.
Page 18 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
The SAM enforces:
• A secure channel based on TLS protocol, for communication with Privileged Users, through
the SSA.
• A secure channel based on SSH protocol, for communication with Privileged Users, using the
console command interface in the provided limited shell.
• A secure channel based on the proprietary SAP protocol.
• A direct channel for communication with Privileged Users, using the console command
interface with a physical keyboard.
7.3.2.9 Distributed and High availability structure
In case of distributed configuration, this security function based on the distributed structure of the
TOE ensures the following:
• Distributed cryptography.
• Secret sharing.
• Consistency protection.
• Fault tolerance.
In case of high availability configuration, each primary (active) MPCA has a fully redundant
secondary (passive) MPCA couple. The secondary MPCA is only brought online when its associated
primary node fails.
7.3.2.10 Trusted Update
The TOE provides an SSH communication path between itself and remote supplier
(Developer/Manufacturer) for trusted software/firmware update. It ensures the trusted update, trusted
path, and management of security functions behavior.
7.4 Documentation
The guidance documentation specified in “Annex A – Guidelines for the secure usage of the product”
is delivered to the customer together with the product.
The guidance documentation contains all the information for secure initialization, configuration, and
secure usage the TOE in accordance with the requirements of the Security Target [ST].
Customers should also follow the recommendations for the secure usage of the TOE contained in
section 8.2 of this report.
7.5 Protection Profile conformance claims
The Security Target [ST] claims strict conformance to the following Protection Profiles (PPs).
• EN 419221-5:2018, Protection profiles for Trust Service Provider Cryptographic modules -
Part 5: Cryptographic Module for Trust Services [EN 419221-5].
• EN 419241-2:2019, Trustworthy Systems Supporting Server Signing - Part 2: Protection
Profile for QSCD for Server Signing [EN 419241-2].
Page 19 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
7.6 Functional and assurance requirements
All Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) have been selected from CC Part 3 [CC3].
All the SFRs have been selected or derived by extension from CC Part 2 [CC2].
Security Target [ST] provides a complete description of all security objectives, the threats that these
objectives should address, the Security Functional Requirements (SFR) and the security functions
that realize the same objectives.
7.7 Evaluation conduct
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the requirements established by the Italian
Scheme for the evaluation and certification of security systems and products in the field of
information technology and expressed in the Provisional Guideline [LGP3] and the Scheme
Information Note [NIS3] and in accordance with the requirements of the Common Criteria
Recognition Arrangement [CCRA].
The purpose of the evaluation is to provide assurance on the effectiveness of the TOE to meet the
requirements stated in the relevant Security Target [ST]. Initially the Security Target has been
evaluated to ensure that constitutes a solid basis for an evaluation in accordance with the requirements
expressed by the standard CC. Then, the TOE has been evaluated on the basis of the statements
contained in such a Security Target. Both phases of the evaluation have been conducted in accordance
with the CC Part 3 [CC3] and the Common Evaluation Methodology [CEM].
The Certification Body OCSI has supervised the conduct of the evaluation performed by the
evaluation facility (LVS) CCLab Software Laboratory (Debrecen site).
The evaluation was completed on 22 January 2024 with the issuance by LVS of the Evaluation
Technical Report v2 [ETR], which was approved by the Certification Body on 15 February 2024.
Then, the Certification Body issued this Certification Report.
7.8 General considerations about the certification validity
The evaluation focused on the security features declared in the Security Target [ST], with reference
to the operational environment specified therein. The evaluation has been performed on the TOE
configured as described in “Annex B – Evaluated configuration”. Potential customers are advised to
check that this corresponds to their own requirements and to pay attention to the recommendations
contained in this Certification Report.
The certification is not a guarantee that no vulnerabilities exist; there is a probability, however small,
that exploitable vulnerabilities can be discovered after the issuance of the certificate. This
Certification Report reflects the conclusions of the certification at the time of issuance. Potential
customers are invited to regularly check the arising of any new vulnerability after the issuance of this
Certification Report, and if the vulnerability can be exploited in the operational environment of the
TOE, check with the Developer if security updates have been developed and if those updates have
been evaluated and certified.
Page 20 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
8 Evaluation outcome
8.1 Evaluation results
Following the analysis of the Evaluation Technical Report v2 [ETR] issued by the LVS CCLab
Software Laboratory (Debrecen site) and documents required for the certification, and considering
the evaluation activities carried out, the Certification Body OCSI concluded that TOE “Trident, the
distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation Device version 3.1.3” meets the requirements of Part
3 of the Common Criteria [CC3] provided for the evaluation assurance level EAL4 augmented with
ALC_FLR.3 and AVA_VAN.5, with respect to the security features described in the Security Target
[ST] and the evaluated configuration, shown in “Annex B – Evaluated configuration”.
Table 1 summarizes the final verdict of each activity carried out by the LVS in accordance with the
assurance requirements established in [CC3] for the evaluation assurance level EAL4 augmented with
ALC_FLR.3 and AVA_VAN.5 (augmentations are represented in italics in Table 1).
Assurance classes and components Verdict
Security Target evaluation Class ASE Pass
Conformance claims ASE_CCL.1 Pass
Extended components definition ASE_ECD.1 Pass
ST introduction ASE_INT.1 Pass
Security objectives ASE_OBJ.2 Pass
Derived security requirements ASE_REQ.2 Pass
Security problem definition ASE_SPD.1 Pass
TOE summary specification ASE_TSS.1 Pass
Development Class ADV Pass
Security architecture description ADV_ARC.1 Pass
Complete functional specification ADV_FSP.4 Pass
Implementation representation of the TSF ADV_IMP.1 Pass
Basic modular design ADV_TDS.3 Pass
Guidance documents Class AGD Pass
Operational user guidance AGD_OPE.1 Pass
Preparative procedures AGD_PRE.1 Pass
Life cycle support Class ALC Pass
Production support, acceptance procedures and automation ALC_CMC.4 Pass
Problem tracking CM coverage ALC_CMS.4 Pass
Delivery procedures ALC_DEL.1 Pass
Identification of security measures ALC_DVS.1 Pass
Developer defined life-cycle model ALC_LCD.1 Pass
Page 21 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
Assurance classes and components Verdict
Well-defined development tools ALC_TAT.1 Pass
Systematic Flaw remediation ALC_FLR.3 Pass
Test Class ATE Pass
Analysis of coverage ATE_COV.2 Pass
Testing: basic design ATE_DPT.1 Pass
Functional testing ATE_FUN.1 Pass
Independent testing - sample ATE_IND.2 Pass
Vulnerability assessment Class AVA Pass
Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis AVA_VAN.5 Pass
Table 1 Final verdicts for assurance requirements
8.2 Recommendations
The conclusions of the Certification Body (OCSI) are summarized in section 6 (Statement of
Certification).
Potential customers of the product “Trident, the distributed remote Qualified Signature Creation
Device version 3.1.3” are suggested to properly understand the specific purpose of the certification
by reading this Certification Report together with the Security Target [ST].
The TOE must be used according to the “Security Objectives for the Operational Environment”
specified in section 4.2 of the Security Target [ST]. It is assumed that, in the operational environment
of the TOE, all Assumptions described in section 3.2 of the Security Target [ST] shall be satisfied.
This Certification Report is valid for the TOE in its evaluated configuration; in particular, “Annex A
– Guidelines for the secure usage of the product” includes a number of recommendations relating to
delivery, initialization, configuration and secure usage of the product, according to the guidance
documentation provided together with the TOE ([CCECG-ADM], and [CCECG-DEV]).
Page 22 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
9 Annex A – Guidelines for the secure usage of the product
This annex provides considerations particularly relevant to the potential customers of the product.
9.1 TOE delivery
The delivery steps and the procedures that are necessary to maintain security when distributing the
TOE to the customer are described in sect. 4 of [DEL].
When the TOE is shipped by the distribution service, the customer also receives an e-mail with the
following information:
• shipment information - including the serial numbers of the tamper evident seals,
• the serial number of the TOE, initial admin credentials,
• steps to be taken when the shipment arrives.
In case of TOE model B31 and B33, customer is further provided with the passwords for “bisk” and
“wisk” infrastructural keys set up for the additional challenge-response check as well as the challenge
and response strings - via the same email as above.
Customer is required to perform the following:
• checks the tamper evident seals on the shipment box
o if shipment box was not physically tampered with then customer unpacks and checks
the tamper evident seals and cables on the TOE;
o if the TOE was not physically tampered with then customer starts the TOE, boots the
device with the supplied disk encryption password, then checks the version and model
information and the serial number shown on the screen;
• checks the TOE version and model information and the serial number with the information
he/she received earlier;
• logs in to the Trident with the supplied credentials and gains access to the Limited Shell;
• (In case of TOE model B31 and B33) checks the hardware integrity by a challenge-response
mechanism of the TDM device in the MPCA. The challenge-response mechanism may be
declared to be optional by I4P.
• checks the validity of the received PTRNG PIN with the trng-test Limited Shell command;
• fills the acceptance checklist, signs it, and sends it back to I4P in scanned or paper form upon
which the customer gets registered for guarantee and flaw remediation;
If any of the tamper seals, version information, serial number control or credential verification shows
a tamper event, the customer should contact I4P and discuss further steps which may include sending
back the TOE to I4P for inspection.
In case of TOE model B31 and B33, if the additional challenge-response mechanism fails it is
considered a tamper event and the steps above should be followed.
Page 23 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
9.2 Installation, configuration, and secure usage of the TOE
TOE installation, configuration and operation should be done following the instructions in the
appropriate sections of the guidance documentation provided with the product to the customer.
In particular, the Common Criteria Evaluated Configuration Guide [CCECG-ADM] [CCECG-DEV]
contains detailed information for the secure initialization of the TOE, the preparation of its operational
environment and the secure operation of the TOE in accordance with the security objectives specified
in the Security Target [ST].
Page 24 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
10 Annex B – Evaluated configuration
The Evaluators has followed the preparation steps for the TOE defined in [CCECG-ADM] and
[CCECG-DEV] for the evaluated configuration.
The evaluated configuration of the TOE includes the following items:
• one, two, three or four MPCAs;
• one CD containing the guidance documentation in PDF format which provides guidance on
the evaluated configuration and refers the reader to the relevant product guides to enable him
to install and operate the Trident correctly [CCECG-ADM] [CCECG-DEV].
All MPCAs include the following items:
• a metal, rack mountable box with external power supply unit;
• physical interfaces of the MPCA and internal hardware;
• the internal software:
o the hardened OS (Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Version 7.9 (based on RHEL v7.1, which
has a Common Criteria EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.3, certification: BSI-DSZ-
CC-0999-2016) with security fixes)
o limited shell;
o Multi-Party Cryptographic Module (in case of distributed configuration, then MPCAs
jointly provide the CM functionality);
o Signature Activation Module local client application (in case of distributed
configuration, the n SAM LCAs jointly provide the SAM functionality);
o OpenSSL v3.0.3 in its FIPS container with security fixes, which performs the TLS
protocol and all non-distributed cryptographic functions, supports distributed
cryptographic functions, and provides base functions for DRNG;
o others LCAs (non-TOE parts).
For more details, please consult sect. 1.4 of the Security Target [ST] and to [CCECG-DEV].
10.1 TOE operational environment
The LVS reproduced the test environment consistent with [ST], [CCECG-ADM] and [CCECG-DEV]
The Evaluator’s test environment is represented in Figure 3:
Page 25 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
Figure 3 - TOE Environment
Page 26 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
11 Annex C – Test activity
This annex describes the task of both the Evaluators and the Developer in testing activities.
11.1 Test configuration
Testing activities have been carried out from the LVS premises.
The Evaluators verified the configuration of the test environment, including the TOE, and found it to
be consistent with the Common Criteria Evaluated Configuration Guides [CCECG-ADM] and
[CCECG-DEV] and the Security Target [ST].
11.2 Functional tests performed by the Developer
11.2.1 Testing approach
The [CCECG-DEV] contains a description about how to use the CMAPI and SAP APIs. Testing the
TOE can be divided into three parts:
• manual tests,
• automated tests,
• tests prepared by the laboratory.
The Developer has provided manual tests with step-by-step description and automated tests. In the
site visit the Evaluators examined the Developer’s testing environment where the automated tests run.
11.2.2 Test coverage
The Evaluators have examined the test plan presented by the Developer and verified the complete
coverage of the functional requirements (SFRs) and the TSFIs described in the functional
specification. The Evaluators verified that the test cases are sufficient to demonstrate the internal
behaviour and the properties of the TSF.
11.2.3 Test results
The actual test results of all Developer’s tests were consistent with the expected ones.
11.3 Functional and independent tests performed by the Evaluators
11.3.1 Test approach
Before initiating the testing activity, the Evaluators verified that the TOE was configured correctly.
Evaluators applied sampling approach for testing the Limited Shell and fully conducted MPCM,
TDM and tamper protection related tests.
Independent tests prepared by the laboratory focus, among the others, on Tampering, user
management and access control functionalities, TOE status information update.
Page 27 of 27 OCSI/CERT/CCL/14/2022/RC Ver. 1.0
11.3.2 Test results
All Developer’s tests were run successfully; the Evaluators verified the correct behaviour of the TSFIs
and TSFs and correspondence between expected results and achieved results for each test.
All test cases devised by the Evaluators were passed successfully and the actual test results were
consistent to the expected test results.
11.4 Vulnerability analysis and penetration tests
The Evaluators conducted vulnerability analysis and penetration testing activities using [AIS34] as a
basis for the applied methodology of Vulnerability Assessment.
A search on public vulnerabilities on TOE and TOE components (e.g. OS) have been conducted. The
analysis confirmed that there are no public vulnerabilities exploitable with the TOE implementation
and configuration.
The Evaluators conducted penetration testing activities on the same instance of the TOE configured
for functional and independent testing.
The Evaluators could then conclude that the TOE is resistant to an attack potential of level High in
its intended operating environment. No exploitable or residual vulnerabilities have been identified.