BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
for
Infineon Technologies AG OPTIGA™ Trusted
Platform Module SLB9672_2.0 v15.24.18954.00
from
Infineon Technologies AG
BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report V1.0 CC-Zert-327 V5.47
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 (*)
Trusted Platform Module
Infineon Technologies AG OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module
SLB9672_2.0 v15.24.18954.00
from Infineon Technologies AG
PP Conformance: Protection Profile PC Client Specific TPM, TPM
Library specification Family “2.0”, Level 0 Revision
1.59, Version: 1.3, Date: 2021-09-29, ANSSI-CC-
PP-2021/02
Functionality: PP conformant
Common Criteria Part 2 extended
Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by AVA_VAN.4 and ALC.FLR.1
valid until: 1 October 2029
SOGIS
Recognition Agreement
The IT Product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an approved evaluation
facility using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1
extended by Scheme Interpretations and CC Supporting Documents as listed in the
Certification Report for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
(CC), Version 3.1. CC and CEM are also published as ISO/IEC 15408 and ISO/IEC
18045.
(*) 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 and
Notification. For details on the validity see Certification Report part A chapter 5.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the certification
scheme of the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) 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 the Federal Office for
Information Security or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, and no warranty of the IT Product by the Federal Office for Information
Security or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is
either expressed or implied.
Common Criteria
Recognition Arrangement
recognition for components
up to EAL 2 and ALC_FLR
only
Bonn, 2 October 2024
For the Federal Office for Information Security
Matthias Intemann L.S.
Head of Section
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0 - Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477 - Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
This page is intentionally left blank.
4 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
Contents
A. Certification.....................................................................................................................6
1. Preliminary Remarks....................................................................................................6
2. Specifications of the Certification Procedure...............................................................6
3. Recognition Agreements..............................................................................................7
4. Performance of Evaluation and Certification................................................................8
5. Validity of the Certification Result................................................................................8
6. Publication...................................................................................................................9
B. Certification Results......................................................................................................10
1. Executive Summary...................................................................................................11
2. Identification of the TOE.............................................................................................12
3. Security Policy...........................................................................................................15
4. Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.....................................................................15
5. Architectural Information............................................................................................16
6. Documentation...........................................................................................................16
7. IT Product Testing......................................................................................................16
8. Evaluated Configuration.............................................................................................18
9. Results of the Evaluation...........................................................................................18
10. Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.....................................................19
11. Security Target.........................................................................................................20
12. Regulation specific aspects (eIDAS, QES)..............................................................20
13. Definitions................................................................................................................20
14. Bibliography.............................................................................................................22
C. Excerpts from the Criteria.............................................................................................24
D. Annexes........................................................................................................................25
5 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
A. Certification
1. Preliminary Remarks
Under the BSIG1
Act, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has the task of
issuing certificates for information technology products.
Certification of a product is carried out on the instigation of the vendor or a distributor,
hereinafter called the sponsor.
A part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product according
to the security criteria published by the BSI or generally recognised security criteria.
The evaluation is normally carried out by an evaluation facility recognised by the BSI or by
BSI itself.
The result of the certification procedure is the present Certification Report. This report
contains among others the certificate (summarised assessment) and the detailed
Certification Results.
The Certification Results contain the technical description of the security functionality of
the certified product, the details of the evaluation (strength and weaknesses) and
instructions for the user.
2. Specifications of the Certification Procedure
The certification body conducts the procedure according to the criteria laid down in the
following:
● Act on the Federal Office for Information Security1
● BSI Certification and Approval Ordinance2
● BMI Regulations on Ex-parte Costs 3
● Special decrees issued by the Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat (Federal
Ministry of the Interior and Community)
● DIN EN ISO/IEC 17065 standard
● BSI certification: Scheme documentation describing the certification process (CC-
Produkte) [3]
● BSI certification: Scheme documentation on requirements for the Evaluation Facility, its
approval and licencing process (CC-Stellen) [3]
● Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.14
[1] also published as
ISO/IEC 15408
1
Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
2
Ordinance on the Procedure for Issuance of Security Certificates and approval by the Federal Office for
Information Security (BSI-Zertifizierungs- und -Anerkennungsverordnung - BSIZertV) of 17 December
2014, Bundesgesetzblatt 2014, part I, no. 61, p. 2231
3
BMI Regulations on Ex-parte Costs - Besondere Gebührenverordnung des BMI für individuell
zurechenbare öffentliche Leistungen in dessen Zuständigkeitsbereich (BMIBGebV), Abschnitt 7 (BSI-
Gesetz) - dated 2 September 2019, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 1365
6 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
● Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 [2] also published
as ISO/IEC 18045
● BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS) [4]
3. Recognition Agreements
In order to avoid multiple certification of the same product in different countries a mutual
recognition of IT security certificates - as far as such certificates are based on ITSEC or
CC - under certain conditions was agreed.
3.1. European Recognition of CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA)
The SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA) Version 3 became effective in
April 2010. It defines the recognition of certificates for IT-Products at a basic recognition
level and, in addition, at higher recognition levels for IT-Products related to certain SOGIS
Technical Domains only.
The basic recognition level includes Common Criteria (CC) Evaluation Assurance Levels
EAL 1 to EAL 4. For "Smartcards and similar devices" a SOGIS Technical Domain is in
place. For "HW Devices with Security Boxes" a SOGIS Technical Domains is in place, too.
In addition, certificates issued for Protection Profiles based on Common Criteria are part of
the recognition agreement.
The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes, details on
recognition, and the history of the agreement can be seen on the website at
https://www.sogis.eu.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the
terms of this agreement by the related bodies of the signatory nations. A disclaimer
beneath the logo indicates the specific scope of recognition.
This certificate is recognized under SOGIS-MRA for all assurance components selected.
3.2. International Recognition of CC – Certificates (CCRA)
The international arrangement on the mutual recognition of certificates based on the CC
(Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement, CCRA-2014) has been ratified on 08
September 2014. It covers CC certificates based on collaborative Protection Profiles (cPP)
(exact use), CC certificates based on assurance components up to and including EAL 2 or
the assurance family Flaw Remediation (ALC_FLR) and CC certificates for Protection
Profiles and for collaborative Protection Profiles (cPP).
The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes can be seen on
the website: https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org.
The Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement logo printed on the certificate indicates
that this certification is recognised under the terms of this agreement by the related bodies
of the signatory nations. A disclaimer beneath the logo indicates the specific scope of
recognition.
This certificate is recognized according to the rules of CCRA-2014, i. e. up to and including
CC part 3 EAL 2 and ALC_FLR components.
4
Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat of 12 February 2007 in the
Bundesanzeiger dated 23 February 2007, p. 3730
7 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
4. Performance of Evaluation and Certification
The certification body monitors each individual evaluation to ensure a uniform procedure, a
uniform interpretation of the criteria and uniform ratings.
The product Infineon Technologies AG OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module SLB9672_2.0
v15.24.18954.00, has undergone the certification procedure at BSI. This is a re-
certification based on BSI-DSZ-CC-1113-V5-2023. Specific results from the evaluation
process BSI-DSZ-CC-1113-V5-2023 were re-used.
The evaluation of the product Infineon Technologies AG OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform
Module SLB9672_2.0 v15.24.18954.00, was conducted by TÜV Informationstechnik
GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 25 September 2024. TÜV Informationstechnik
GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)5
recognised by the certification body of BSI.
For this certification procedure the sponsor and applicant is: Infineon Technologies AG.
The product was developed by: Infineon Technologies AG.
The certification is concluded with the comparability check and the production of this
Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI.
5. Validity of the Certification Result
This Certification Report applies only to the version of the product as indicated. The
confirmed assurance package is valid on the condition that
● all stipulations regarding generation, configuration and operation, as given in the
following report, are observed,
● the product is operated in the environment described, as specified in the following report
and in the Security Target.
For the meaning of the assurance components and assurance levels please refer to CC
itself. Detailed references are listed in part C of this report.
The Certificate issued confirms the assurance of the product claimed in the Security Target
at the date of certification. As attack methods evolve over time, the resistance of the
certified version of the product against new attack methods needs to be re-assessed.
Therefore, the sponsor should apply for the certified product being monitored within the
assurance continuity program of the BSI Certification Scheme (e.g. by a re-assessment or
re-certification). Specifically, if results of the certification are used in subsequent evaluation
and certification procedures, in a system integration process or if a user's risk
management needs regularly updated results, it is recommended to perform a re-
assessment on a regular e.g. annual basis.
In order to avoid an indefinite usage of the certificate when evolved attack methods would
require a re-assessment of the products resistance to state of the art attack methods, the
maximum validity of the certificate has been limited. The certificate issued on 2 October
2024 is valid until 1 October 2029. Validity can be re-newed by re-certification.
The owner of the certificate is obliged:
1. when advertising the certificate or the fact of the product's certification, to refer to
the Certification Report as well as to provide the Certification Report, the Security
5
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
8 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
Target and user guidance documentation mentioned herein to any customer of the
product for the application and usage of the certified product,
2. to inform the Certification Body at BSI immediately about vulnerabilities of the
product that have been identified by the developer or any third party after issuance
of the certificate,
3. to inform the Certification Body at BSI immediately in the case that security relevant
changes in the evaluated life cycle, e.g. related to development and production sites
or processes, occur, or the confidentiality of documentation and information related
to the Target of Evaluation (TOE) or resulting from the evaluation and certification
procedure where the certification of the product has assumed this confidentiality
being maintained, is not given any longer. In particular, prior to the dissemination of
confidential documentation and information related to the TOE or resulting from the
evaluation and certification procedure that do not belong to the deliverables
according to the Certification Report part B, or for those where no dissemination
rules have been agreed on, to third parties, the Certification Body at BSI has to be
informed.
In case of changes to the certified version of the product, the validity can be extended to
the new versions and releases, provided the sponsor applies for assurance continuity (i.e.
re-certification or maintenance) of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural
requirements, and the evaluation does not reveal any security deficiencies.
6. Publication
The product Infineon Technologies AG OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module SLB9672_2.0
v15.24.18954.00, has been included in the BSI list of certified products, which is
published regularly (see also Internet: https://www.bsi.bund.de and [5]). Further
information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline +49 228 9582-111.
Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the developer6
of the
product. The Certification Report may also be obtained in electronic form at the internet
address stated above.
6
Infineon Technologies AG
Am Campeon 1-15
85579 Neubiberg
9 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
B. Certification Results
The following results represent a summary of
● the Security Target of the sponsor for the Target of Evaluation,
● the relevant evaluation results from the evaluation facility, and
● complementary notes and stipulations of the certification body.
10 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
1. Executive Summary
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Trusted Platform Module SLB9672_2.0 v15 (or
SLB9672_v2.0 in short), version v15.24.18954.00, including related guidance
documentation as described in the Security Target [6].
The TOE is an integrated circuit and software platform that provides computer
manufacturers with the core components of a subsystem used to assure authenticity,
integrity and confidentiality in e-commerce and internet communications within a Trusted
Computing Platform. The SLB9672_2.0 is a complete solution implementing the version
2.0 of the TCG Trusted Platform Module Library Family “2.0” Revision 01.59 Specification
and the TCG PC Client Specific Platform TPM Profile (PTP) Family “2.0”.
The SLB9672_2.0 uses the Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) for the integration into existing
PC mainboards. The SLB9672_2.0 is basically a secure controller with the following added
functionality:
• Random number generator (DRBG),
• Asymmetric key generation (RSA keys with key length 1024, 2048, 3072 and 4096
bits, EC keys with key length 256 bits and 384 bits),
• Symmetric key generation (AES keys with 128 and 256 bits),
• Symmetric and asymmetric key procedures (encryption/decryption, generation and
verification of digital signatures),
• Hash algorithms (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384) and MAC (HMAC),
• Secure key and data storage,
• Identification and Authorization mechanisms.
The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is based on the certified
Protection Profile Protection Profile PC Client Specific TPM, TPM Library specification
Family “2.0”, Level 0 Revision 1.59, Version: 1.3, Date: 2021-09-29, ANSSI-CC-PP-
2021/02 [8].
The TOE Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) are based entirely on the assurance
components defined in Part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C or [1], Part 3 for details).
The TOE meets the assurance requirements of the Evaluation Assurance Level EAL 4
augmented by AVA_VAN.4 and ALC.FLR.1.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the
Security Target [6], chapter 7.2. They are selected from Common Criteria Part 2 and some
of them are newly defined. Thus the TOE is CC Part 2 extended.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE
Security Functionality:
TOE Security Functionality Addressed issue
SF_CRY Cryptographic Support
SF_I&A Identification and Authentication
SF_G&T General and Test
SF_OBH Object Hierarchy
SF_TOP TOE Operation
11 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
Table 1: TOE Security Functionalities
For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 8.1.
The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6], chapter 4.1.
Based on these assets the TOE Security Problem is defined in terms of Assumptions,
Threats and Organisational Security Policies. This is outlined in the Security Target [6],
chapters 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
This certification covers the configurations of the TOE as outlined in chapter 8 of this
report.
The vulnerability assessment results as stated within this certificate do not include a rating
for those cryptographic algorithms and their implementation suitable for encryption and
decryption (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2).
The certification results only apply to the version of the product indicated in the certificate
and on the condition that all the stipulations are kept as detailed in this Certification
Report. This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for
Information Security (BSI) or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by BSI or any other organisation that
recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is either expressed or implied.
2. Identification of the TOE
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is called:
Infineon Technologies AG OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module SLB9672_2.0
v15.24.18954.00
The following table outlines the TOE deliverables:
No. Type Item / Identifier Release / Version Form of Delivery
1. HW/SW OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module
SLI9672_2.0
V15.24.18954.00 Packaged module
2. DOC OPTIGA™ TPM, SLB 9672 TPM2.0,
Databook
Revision 1.11,
2024-07-12
PDF-file
3. DOC OPTIGA™ TPM, SLB 9672 TPM2.0,
Application Note User Guidance
Revision 1.04,
2021-10-06
PDF-file
4. DOC OPTIGA™ TPM, SLB 9672 TPM2.0
FW15.xx, Errata and Updates
Revision 1.9,
2024-07-29
PDF-file
5. DOC Trusted Platform Module Library, Part
1: Architecture, Family ”2.0” Level 00
Revision 01.59
Revision 01.59,
2019-11-08
Public document, downloadable
from
https://www.trustedcomputinggr
oup.org
6. DOC Trusted Platform Module Library, Part
2: Structures, Family ”2.0” Level 00
Revision 01.59
Revision 01.59,
2019-11-08
Public document, downloadable
from
https://www.trustedcomputinggr
oup.org
7. DOC Trusted Platform Module Library, Part
3: Commands, Family ”2.0” Level 00
Revision 01.59
Revision 01.59,
2019-11-08
Public document, downloadable
from
https://www.trustedcomputinggr
oup.org
8. DOC Trusted Platform Module Library, Part
4: Supporting Routines, Family ”2.0”
Revision 01.59,
2019-11-08
Public document, downloadable
from
12 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
No. Type Item / Identifier Release / Version Form of Delivery
Level 00 Revision 01.59 https://www.trustedcomputinggr
oup.org
9. DOC TCG PC Client Platform TPM Profile
Specification for TPM 2.0
Version 01.05,
Revision 14,
2020-09-04
Public document, downloadable
from
https://www.trustedcomputinggr
oup.org
10. DOC Errata for TCG Trusted Platform
Module Library, Family “2.0” Level 00
Revision 1.59 November 8, 2019
Version 1.1,
2020-06-18
Public document, downloadable
from
https://www.trustedcomputinggr
oup.org
Table 2: Deliverables of the TOE
TOE Identification
The TOE hardware and firmware is identified by name and version number as listed in the
following table:
Type Name Version number
Security IC with integrated
firmware
OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module SLB9672_2.0 V15.24.18954.00
Table 3: Identifiers of the TOE
The fabricated modules are physically labelled with the TOE reference by printing. The
labelling consists of four lines:
Line Label Remark
0 Infineon Logo and name of producer
1 SLB9672 –
2 VU20 yy or XU20 yy The <yy> is an internal FW indication (only at
manufacturing due to field upgrade option)
3 <Lot number> H <datecode> the <datecode> is given as year (YY) and calendar week
(CW)
Table 4: Labelling of TOE module
The version information of the TOE can be read out electronically with the command
TPM2_GetCapability. The vendor specific return values for the TOE are defined as listed in
the following table:
Property Vendor specific value
TPM_PT_MANUFACTURER “IFX”
TPM_PT_VENDOR_STRING_1 “SLB9”
13 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
Property Vendor specific value
TPM_PT_VENDOR_STRING_2 “672”
TPM_PT_VENDOR_STRING_3 NULL
TPM_PT_VENDOR_STRING_4 NULL
TPM_PT_FIRMWARE_VERSION_1 Major and minor version, e.g. 0x000F0018 indicates v15.24.
TPM_PT_FIRMWARE_VERSION_2 Build number (for instance, 0x00491E00 or 0x00491E02)
Byte 1: reserved for future use (0x00)
Byte 2 and 3: Build number (for instance, 0x491E)
Byte 4: Common Criteria certification state:
0x00 = TPM operational mode/TPM is CC certified,
0x02 = TPM operational mode/TPM is not certified,
0x60 = Manually entered TPM firmware recovery mode
(triggered externally for testing purposes)
0x61 = TPM firmware recovery mode (triggered by code integrity
failure detection)
0x62 = TPM firmware update mode
TPM_PT_MODES Bit 0 (FIPS_140_2) = 1
Bits 1...31 = 0
Table 5: Vendor specific properties of TPM2_GetCapability
TOE Delivery
As the TOE is a security IC product it can be delivered only in form complete mounted
IC`s. Only TOEs, which have undergone and passed all the production tests are delivered
in the state user mode.
The production of the TOE wafers will be performed at TSMC Tainan (Fab14A), Taiwan
(see [6], 2.2.5).
The TOE is delivered in form of complete chips which include the hardware, the firmware,
the Endorsement Primary Seed, one RSA Endorsement Key, two ECC Endorsement Keys
and three Endorsement Certificates. The delivery of the TOE is done from a distribution
center by postal transfer or delivery courier.
The delivery from Infineon Technologies (the TOE Manufacturer) to the Platform
manufacturer is an external delivery process and done from the site IFX Munich.
The TOE is delivered via the logistics sites: DHL Singapore, KWE Shanghai, and K&N
Großostheim.
The individual TOE hardware is uniquely identified by its identification data. The
identification data contains the lot number, the wafer number and the coordinates of the
chip on the wafer. Each individual TOE can therefore be traced unambiguously and thus
assigned to the entire development and production process.
The delivery documentation describes all procedures that are necessary to maintain
security when distributing versions of the TOE or parts of it to the user’s site including the
necessary intermediate delivery procedures.
14 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
3. Security Policy
The security policy enforced is defined by the selected set of Security Functional
Requirements and implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues:
● Cryptographic Support: generation of random numbers, generation of asymmetric
key pairs, RSA and ECC digital signature (generation and verification), RSA, ECC
and AES data encryption and decryption, key destruction, the generation of hash
values and the generation and verification of MAC values.
● Identification and Authentication: mechanisms for the identification and
authentication capability to authorize the use of a Protected Object and Protected
Capability using authentication values or policies.
● General and Test: provision and enforcement of the TPM role model, startup- and
self tests, preservation of secure state in case of failures or shutdown, and
resistance to physical manipulation or probing.
● Object Hierarchy: state control on all subjects, objects and operations, modification
of security attributes, provision of TPM hierarchy model, monitoring of data storage,
enforcement of object hierarchy.
● TOE Operation: access control on different subjects, objects and operations,
enforcement of different rules of operation and interaction between subjects and
objects, enabling and disabling of functions, enforcement of NVM restrictions, and
creation of evidence of origin.
Specific details concerning the above mentioned security policies can be found in chapter
8 of the Security Target [6].
4. Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
The assumptions defined in the Security Target and some aspects of threats and
Organisational Security Policies are not covered by the TOE itself. These aspects lead to
specific security objectives to be fulfilled and measures to be taken by the IT environment,
the user or the risk manager.
The following Security Objectives for the Operational Environment are given in the ST [6],
chapter 5.2; and the PP [8], chapter 6.2 / 9.6.2:
● OE.Configuration: The TOE must be installed and configured properly for starting
up the TOE in a secure state. The security attributes of subjects and objects shall
be managed securely by the authorised user.
● OE.Locality: The developer of the host platform must ensure that trusted processes
indicate their correct locality to the TPM and untrusted processes are able to assert
just the locality 0 or Legacy only to the TPM.
● OE.Credential: The IT environment must create EK and AK credentials by
trustworthy procedures for the root of trust for reporting.
● OE.Measurement: The platform part of the root of trust for measurement provides a
representation of embedded data or program code (measured values) to the TPM
for measurement.
● OE.FieldUpgradeInfo: The developer via AGD documentation will instruct the admin
doing the upgrade how to do the upgrade and that the admin should inform the end
15 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
user regarding the Field Upgrade process , its result, whether the installed firmware
is certified or not, and the version of the certified TPM.
● OE.ECDAA: The ECDAA issuer must support a procedure for attestation without
revealing the attestation information based on the ECDAA signing operation.
5. Architectural Information
The SLB9672_2.0 consists of hardware and firmware components.
The hardware of the TOE consists of the following parts: Security Peripherals (filters,
sensors), Core System, Memories, Coprocessors, Random number generator (RNG),
Checksum module (CRC), Interrupt module (INT), Timer (TIM), Buses (BUS), Serial
Peripheral Interface (SPI), GPIO interface and the Tick Counter.
The firmware of the TOE includes an operating system that provides the functionality
specified by the Trusted Platform Module Library specification. The chip initialisation
routine with security checks and identification mode as well as test routines for production
testing are located in a separate test ROM. The firmware also provides the mechanism for
updating the protected capabilities once the TOE is in the field as defined in the Field
Upgrade procedure in the Trusted Platform Module Library specification and User
Guidance.
The entire firmware of the TOE as defined in the PP [8] is comprised of: Boot Software
(BOS), Professional Secure Operating System (PSOS), Cryptographic Libraries (ACL,
SCL, HCL, RCL), Hardware Support Library (HSL), FieldUpgrade (CFUL), TPM2.0
Application (APP).
6. Documentation
The evaluated documentation as outlined in table 2 is being provided with the product to
the customer. This documentation contains the required information for secure usage of
the TOE in accordance with the Security Target.
Additional obligations and notes for secure usage of the TOE as outlined in chapter 10 of
this report have to be followed.
7. IT Product Testing
7.1. Developer's Test according to ATE_FUN
The tests performed by the developer according to ATE_FUN were divided into six
categories: Simulation Tests (design verification), Qualification Tests, Verification Tests,
Security Evaluation Tests, Production Tests, and Software Tests.
The evaluator has checked the simulation tests, qualification tests, and security evaluation
tests of the developer by sampling. The evaluator’s sample of developer tests performed
covers all portions of the TSF (security features) and related interfaces.
Overall the TSF have been tested against the functional specification, the TOE design and
the security architecture description. The tests demonstrate that the TSF performs as
specified.
16 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
7.2. Evaluator Tests – Independent Testing according to ATE_IND
The evaluator’s testing effort according to ATE_IND is described as follows, outlining the
testing approach, configuration, depth and results.
The evaluator's objective regarding this aspect was to test the functionality of the TOE as
described in [6], and to verify the developer's test results by repeating developer's tests
and additionally add independent tests. In the course of the evaluation of the TOE the
following classes of tests were carried out: Module tests, Simulation tests, Emulation tests,
Tests in user mode, Tests in test mode, Hardware tests, and Software tests. With this kind
of tests the entire security functionality of the TOE was tested.
TOE test configuration:
The tests are performed with the chips OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module SLB9672_2.0
v15, uniquely identified by their serial numbers and version information. For the tests
different chip types are prepared. One of these types is the configuration which is finally
delivered to the user. The others contain special download functionality for test programs
or have some security mechanisms deactivated. The entire functionality is the same for all
chips.
All security features (portions of the TSF) and related interfaces were tested. Therefore no
selection criteria are applied. All security features and related interfaces are tested
regarding their functional behavior. The tests were chosen to perform at minimum one test
for each security feature of TSF and related interfaces.
Verdict for the activity:
The results of the specified and conducted independent evaluator tests confirm the TOE
functionality as described. The TSF and the interfaces were found to behave as specified.
The results of the developer tests, which have been repeated by the evaluator, matched
the results the developer. Overall the TSF have been tested against the functional
specification, the TOE design and the security architecture description. The tests
demonstrate that the TSF performs as specified.
Penetration Testing according to AVA_VAN:
The penetration testing was partially performed using the developer’s testing environment,
partially using the test environment of the evaluation body. All configurations of the TOE
being intended to be covered by the current evaluation were tested. The overall test result
is that no deviations were found between the expected and the actual test results;
moreover, no attack scenario with the attack potential Moderate was actually successful.
Systematic search for potential vulnerabilities and known attacks in public domain sources
has been conducted, using a list of vulnerabilities [4, AIS26], and from a methodical
analysis of the evaluation documents. Analysis has been carried out why these
vulnerabilities are not exploitable in the intended environment of the TOE. If the rationale is
suspect in the opinion of the evaluator penetration tests are devised. Even if the rationale
is convincing in the opinion of the evaluator penetration tests are devised for some
vulnerabilities, especially to support the argument of non-practicability of the exploiting
time in case of SPA, DPA and FI attacks.
For implementation attacks the following test resources were used by the evaluator: Digital
Oscilloscope, Passive Probe, Active Differential Probe, EM Probe, Delay Generator, Laser
Fault Injection System and proprietary measuring/analyzing software.
Amongst others, the following attack scenarios have been tested: Statistical tests of the
TOE DRNG according to AIS 20 requirements, undocumented capabilities which are sent
17 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
by the TOE as response to TPM2_GetCapabilitiy command, circumvention of access
control by injecting faults through laser light (LFI attack), effectiveness of filters and
detectors, effectiveness of bus and memory encryption, Differential Fault Analysis, Simple
and Differential Power Analysis, EMA / SEMA / DEMA Attacks, effectiveness of
deactivation of test functions, bypass of PIN counter, intentional misuse of TPM
commands.
Verdict for the sub-activity:
The evaluator has performed penetration testing based on the systematic search for
potential vulnerabilities and known attacks in public domain sources and from the
methodical analysis of the evaluation documents. During the evaluator’s penetration
testing of potential vulnerabilities the TOE operated as specified. All potential
vulnerabilities are not exploitable in the intended environment for the TOE. The TOE is
resistant to attackers with moderate attack potential in the intended environment for the
TOE.
8. Evaluated Configuration
This certification covers the following configurations of the TOE:
The configuration under evaluation is the OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module
SLB9672_2.0 in version v15.24.18954.00 as described in ST [6] and Databook [10].
9. Results of the Evaluation
9.1. CC specific results
The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [7] was provided by the ITSEF according to the
Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all
interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE.
The Evaluation Methodology CEM [2] was used and guidance specific for the technology
of the product [4] (AIS 34).
The following guidance specific for the technology was used:
(i) The Application of Common Criteria to Integrated Circuits.
(ii) For RNG assessment the scheme interpretations AIS 20 and AIS 31 were used
(see [4]).
As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance
components:
● All components of the EAL 4 package including the class ASE as defined in the CC (see
also part C of this report)
● The components AVA_VAN.4 and ALC.FLR.1 augmented for this TOE evaluation.
As the evaluation work performed for this certification procedure was carried out as a re-
evaluation based on the certificate BSI-DSZ-CC-1113-V5-2023, re-use of specific
evaluation tasks was possible. The current evaluation is the fifth re-certification now
assigned the certification-ID BSI-DSZ-CC-1244. Compared to the previous certification
(BSI-DSZ-CC-1113-V5-2023) a new TOE version v15.24.18954.00 was created. Note that
the old versions of the TOE (SLB9672_2.0 v15.20.15686.00, v15.21.16430.00,
v15.22.16832.00 and v15.23.17664.00) are no longer covered by this re-certification.
18 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
Within the course of this re-certification process, the following changes are the most
relevant to the TOE:
• The TOE’s hardware and IC-firmware (BOS) of the new version v15.24.18954.00
remain unchanged in comparison to the forerunner certification except the
calibration values of the temperature sensor.
• The Operating System used by the TPM Application was updated, and there was a
replacement of the internally used ACL version.
• There are several bugfixes.
• There are changes to the user guidance of the TOE.
The evaluation has confirmed:
● PP Conformance: Protection Profile PC Client Specific TPM, TPM Library
specification Family “2.0”, Level 0 Revision 1.59, Version: 1.3,
Date: 2021-09-29, ANSSI-CC-PP-2021/02 [8]
● for the Functionality: PP conformant
Common Criteria Part 2 extended
● for the Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by AVA_VAN.4 and ALC.FLR.1
For specific evaluation results regarding the development and production environment see
annex B in part D of this report.
The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the TOE as defined in chapter 2 and
the configuration as outlined in chapter 8 above.
9.2. Results of cryptographic assessment
The strength of the cryptographic algorithms was not rated in the course of this certification
procedure (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2). But cryptographic functionalities with a
security level of lower than 120 bits can no longer be regarded as secure without
considering the application context. Therefore, for these functionalities it shall be checked
whether the related crypto operations are appropriate for the intended system. Some
further hints and guidelines can be derived from the 'Technische Richtlinie BSI TR-02102'
(https://www.bsi.bund.de).
The table 7 in annex C of part D of this report gives an overview of the cryptographic
functionalities inside the TOE to enforce the security policy and outlines its rating from
cryptographic point of view. Any Cryptographic Functionality that is marked in column
'Security Level above 120 Bits' of the following table with 'no' achieves a security level of
lower than 120 Bits (in general context) only. Note that the column “Security Level” given
in table 7 refers to the pure cryptographic (mathematical) strength only, and does not take
into account whatever exploitable weaknesses induced by side-channel leakage, physical
attacks, or implementation flaws of any kind.
Detailed results on conformance and non-conformance have been compiled into the report
[17].
10. Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE
The documents as outlined in table 2 contain necessary information about the usage of the
TOE and all security hints therein have to be considered. In addition all aspects of
19 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
Assumptions, Threats and OSPs as outlined in the Security Target not covered by the TOE
itself need to be fulfilled by the operational environment of the TOE.
The customer or user of the product shall consider the results of the certification within his
system risk management process. In order for the evolution of attack methods and
techniques to be covered, he should define the period of time until a re-assessment of the
TOE is required and thus requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
The limited validity for the usage of cryptographic algorithms as outlined in chapter 9 has
to be considered by the user and his system risk management process, too.
If available, certified updates of the TOE should be used. If non-certified updates or
patches are available the user of the TOE should request the sponsor to provide a re-
certification. In the meantime a risk management process of the system using the TOE
should investigate and decide on the usage of not yet certified updates and patches or
take additional measures in order to maintain system security.
Especially the following notice from the Security Target [6] should be taken into account:
The TPM includes two ECC Endorsement Keys (EK) and one RSA Endorsement Key (EK)
and the Endorsement Primary Seed (EPS), which can be used to generate additional EKs
alternatively. The two ECC Endorsement Keys, the RSA Endorsement Key and the
Endorsement Primary Seed are generated outside the TPM with the TPM Personalization
Certification Authority (TPM-CA) located within the secure production area of the TOE in a
secure room. ... The RSA Endorsement Key is generated from a proved random number
generator by the HSM-PDG and not derived from the Endorsement Seed.
The Endorsement Keys RSA EK and ECC EK, personalized by the TPM vendor, are not
visible and changeable for the user, but can be deactivated with the TPM2_EvictControl()
and TPM2_FlushContext commands, and can be activated again with the
TPM2_CreatePrimary command by the user. As these personalized Endorsement Keys
should be used only for the identification of the TPM vendor, the user shall not use these
keys for other functions.
11. Security Target
For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [6] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is
provided within a separate document as Annex A of this report.
12. Regulation specific aspects (eIDAS, QES)
None.
13. Definitions
13.1. Acronyms
AIS Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme
BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for
Information Security, Bonn, Germany
BSIG BSI-Gesetz / Act on the Federal Office for Information Security
20 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
CEM Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation
cPP Collaborative Protection Profile
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
IT Information Technology
ITSEF Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
PP Protection Profile
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SFP Security Function Policy
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TPM Trusted Platform Module
TSF TOE Security Functionality
13.2. Glossary
Augmentation - The addition of one or more requirement(s) to a package.
Collaborative Protection Profile - A Protection Profile collaboratively developed by an
International Technical Community endorsed by the Management Committee.
Extension - The addition to an ST or PP of functional requirements not contained in CC
part 2 and/or assurance requirements not contained in CC part 3.
Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on well-
established mathematical concepts.
Informal - Expressed in natural language.
Object - A passive entity in the TOE, that contains or receives information, and upon which
subjects perform operations.
Package - named set of either security functional or security assurance requirements
Protection Profile - A formal document defined in CC, expressing an implementation
independent set of security requirements for a category of IT Products that meet specific
consumer needs.
Security Target - An implementation-dependent statement of security needs for a specific
identified TOE.
Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics.
Subject - An active entity in the TOE that performs operations on objects.
Target of Evaluation - An IT Product and its associated administrator and user guidance
documentation that is the subject of an Evaluation.
21 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
TOE Security Functionality - Combined functionality of all hardware, software, and
firmware of a TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the SFRs.
14. Bibliography
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
Part 1: Introduction and general model, Revision 5, April 2017
Part 2: Security functional components, Revision 5, April 2017
Part 3: Security assurance components, Revision 5, April 2017
https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org
[2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM),
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Rev. 5, April 2017,
https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org
[3] BSI certification: Scheme documentation describing the certification process (CC-
Produkte) and Scheme documentation on requirements for the Evaluation Facility,
approval and licencing (CC-Stellen), https://www.bsi.bund.de/zertifizierung
[4] Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE7
https://www.bsi.bund.de/AIS
[5] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148), periodically updated list published also
on the BSI Website, https://www.bsi.bund.de/zertifizierungsreporte
[6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024, Version 1.7, August 27, 2024, “Security
Target OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module SLB9672_2.0 v15”, Infineon
Technologies AG (public document)
[7] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 2, Sep. 20, 2024, ”Evaluation Technical Report
Summary”, TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH, (confidential document)
[8] Protection Profile PC Client Specific TPM, TPM Library specification Family “2.0”,
Level 0 Revision 1.59, Version: 1.3, Date: 2021-09-29, ANSSI-CC-PP-2021/02
[9] “Eckpunkte der Bundesregierung zu Trusted Computing”, by the German Federal
Government, April 2017
7
specifically
• AIS 20, Version 3, Funktionalitätsklassen und Evaluationsmethodologie für deterministische
Zufallszahlengeneratoren
• AIS 25, Version 9, Anwendung der CC auf Integrierte Schaltungen including JIL Document and CC
Supporting Document
• AIS 26, Version 10, Evaluationsmethodologie für in Hardware integrierte Schaltungen including JIL
Document and CC Supporting Document
• AIS 31, Version 3, Funktionalitätsklassen und Evaluationsmethodologie für physikalische
Zufallszahlengeneratoren
• AIS 32, Version 7, CC-Interpretationen im deutschen Zertifizierungsschema
• AIS 34, Version 3, Evaluation Methodology for CC Assurance Classes for EAL 5+ (CCv2.3 &
CCv3.1) and EAL 6 (CCv3.1)
• AIS 35, Version 2, Öffentliche Fassung des Security Targets (ST-Lite) including JIL Document and
CC Supporting Document and CCRA policies
• AIS 36, Version 5, Kompositionsevaluierung including JIL Document and CC Supporting Document
• AIS 38, Version 2, Reuse of evaluation results
22 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
[10] OPTIGATM
TPM, SLB 9672 TPM2.0, Databook, Revision 1.11,
2024-07-12, Infineon Technologies AG
[11] OPTIGA™ TPM, SLB 9672 TPM2.0 FW15.xx, Errata and Updates, Revision 1.9,
2024-07-29, Infineon Technologies AG
[12] OPTIGA™ TPM, SLB 9672 TPM2.0, Application Note User Guidance Revision 1.04,
2021-10-06, Infineon Technologies AG (confidential developer document)
[13] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 1: Architecture, Family “2.0”, Level 00 Revision
01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG)
[14] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 2: Structures, Family “2.0”, Level 00 Revision
01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG)
[15] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 3: Commands, Family “2.0”, Level 00 Revision
01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG)
[16] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 4: Supporting Routines, Family “2.0”, Level 00
Revision 01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG)
[17] SINGLE EVALUATION REPORT ADDENDUM to ETR-Part ADV Cryptographic
Standards Compliance Verification; Version 1, August 29, 2024, TÜV
Informationstechnik GmbH, (confidential document)
23 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
C. Excerpts from the Criteria
For the meaning of the assurance components and levels the following references to the
Common Criteria can be followed:
• On conformance claim definitions and descriptions refer to CC part 1 chapter 10.5
• On the concept of assurance classes, families and components refer to CC Part 3
chapter 7.1
• On the concept and definition of pre-defined assurance packages (EAL) refer to CC
Part 3 chapters 7.2 and 8
• On the assurance class ASE for Security Target evaluation refer to CC Part 3
chapter 12
• On the detailed definitions of the assurance components for the TOE evaluation
refer to CC Part 3 chapters 13 to 17
• The table in CC part 3 , Annex E summarizes the relationship between the
evaluation assurance levels (EAL) and the assurance classes, families and
components.
The CC are published at https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/cc/
24 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
D. Annexes
List of annexes of this certification report
Annex A: Security Target provided within a separate document.
Annex B: Evaluation results regarding development
and production environment
Annex C: Overview and rating of cryptographic functionalities implemented in the TOE
25 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
Annex B of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
Evaluation results regarding
development and production
environment
The IT product Infineon Technologies AG OPTIGA™ Trusted Platform Module
SLB9672_2.0 v15.24.18954.00, (Target of Evaluation, TOE) has been evaluated at an
approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation
(CEM), Version 3.1 extended by Scheme Interpretations and CC Supporting Documents
for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1.
As a result of the TOE certification, dated 2 October 2024, the following results regarding
the development and production environment apply. TThe Common Criteria assurance
requirements ALC – Life cycle support (i.e. ALC_CMC.4, ALC_CMS.4, ALC_DEL.1,
ALC_DVS.1, ALC_FLR.1, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.1) are fulfilled for the development and
production sites.
Besides the production and development sites, the relevant TOE distribution centers are
as listed below:
Site ID Company name and address
DHL Singapore DHL Supply Chain Singapore Pte Ltd., Advanced Regional Center
Tampines LogisPark
1 Greenwich Drive
Singapore 533865
K&N
Großostheim
Kühne & Nagel
Stockstädter Strasse 10
63762 Großostheim
Germany
KWE Shanghai KWE Kintetsu World Express (China) Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Pudong Airport Pilot Free Trade Zone
No. 530 Zheng Ding Road
Shanghai,
P.R. China
Table 6: List of relevant TOE distribution sites
For the sites listed above, the requirements have been specifically applied in accordance
with the Security Target [6]. The evaluators verified, that the threats, security objectives
and requirements for the TOE life cycle phases up to delivery (as stated in the Security
Target [6]) are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites.
26 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
Annex C of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
Overview and rating of cryptographic functionalities implemented
in the TOE
No. Cryptographic
Mechanism
Standard of
Implementation
Key Size in Bits Commen
ts
Security Level above 120
Bits
1. Authenticity RSA
signature generation /
verification
[RFC3447] |Modulus| = 1024 [Main_1,
B.1 – B.7]
and
[Main_3,
20.2]
no
RSASSA-PKCS1-
v1_5
[RFC3447, 8.2] no
RSASSA_PSS [RFC3447, 8.1] no
SHA-1, SHA-256,
SHA-384
[FIPS180-4] no
2. Authenticity RSA
signature generation /
verification
[RFC3447] ||Modulus| = 2048
|Modulus| = 3072
|Modulus| = 4096
[Main_1,
B.1 – B.7]
and
[Main_3,
20.2]
(2048: Sec.Lev. > 100 Bits)
yes
yes
RSASSA-PKCS1-
v1_5
[RFC3447, 8.2] yes
RSASSA_PSS [RFC3447, 8.1] yes
SHA-1, SHA-256,
SHA-384
[FIPS180-4] no, yes, yes
3. Authenticity EC
signature generation/
verification
according to
[FIPS186-4] |k| = 256
|k| = 384
[Main_1,
C.4.2]
yes
ECDSA [ISO_14888-3] ECC_NIST_P256
ECC_NIST_P384
yes
SHA-1, SHA-256,
SHA-384
[FIPS180-4] no, yes, yes
4. Authenticity EC
signature generation
according to
[ISO_15946-5] |k| = 256 [Main_1,
C.4.2]
yes
ECDAA [Main_1, C.4.2] ECC_BN_P256
SHA-1, SHA-256,
SHA-384
[ISO_10118-3] no, yes, yes
27 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
No. Cryptographic
Mechanism
Standard of
Implementation
Key Size in Bits Commen
ts
Security Level above 120
Bits
5. EC signature
verification
ECDSA
SHA-512
[FIPS186-4]
[FIPS180-4]
|k| = 521
ECC_NIST_P521
TPM-
FieldUpgr
ade
yes
XMSS
SHA-256
[N8208]
[FIPS180-4]
- yes
6. Authentication HMAC
with SHA-1
[ISO_9797-2]
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 160 [Main_1,
11.4.3]
no
ECDEC [N856, 6.2.2.2] |k| = 256
|k| = 384
[Main_1,
C7]
yes
[FIPS186-4] ECC_NIST_P256
ECC_NIST_P384
RSA decryption
RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5
[RFC3447, 7.2] |Modulus| = 2048 Sec.Lev. > 100 Bits
AES decryption in
CFB mode
[ISO_18033-3],
[ISO_10116]
|k| = 128
|k| = 256
yes
7. Authentication HMAC
with SHA-256 and
SHA-384
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
[Main_1,
11.4.3]
yes
ECDEC [N856, 6.2.2.2] |k| = 256
|k| = 384
[Main_1,
C7]
yes
[FIPS186-4] ECC_NIST_P256
ECC_NIST_P384
RSA decryption
RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5
[RFC3447, 7.2] |Modulus| = 2048
|Modulus| = 3072
|Modulus| = 4096
(2048: Sec.Lev. > 100 Bits)
yes
yes
AES decryption in
CFB mode
[ISO_18033-3],
[ISO_10116]
|k| = 128
|k| = 256
yes
8. Key Agreement Diffie-
Hellmann (ECDH)
[N856, 6.2.2.2] |k| = 256
|k| = 384
[Main_1,
11.4.9.3]
yes
[FIPS186-4] ECC_NIST_P256
ECC_NIST_P384
KDFe [N856] [Main_1,
C7]
yes
HMAC with SHA-256,
SHA-384 and
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
yes
SHA-1 |k| = 160 no
9. Key Agreement KDFa [Main_1, 11.4.9.1],
[N808]
[Main_1,
11.4.9.1]
yes
HMAC with SHA-256,
SHA-384 and
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
yes
28 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
No. Cryptographic
Mechanism
Standard of
Implementation
Key Size in Bits Commen
ts
Security Level above 120
Bits
SHA-1 |k| = 160 no
10. Key Agreement
AES CMAC
[N808]
[ISO_18033-3],
[ISO_9797-1]
|k| = 256 TPM-
FieldUpgr
ade
yes
11. Integrity HMAC with
SHA-256, SHA-384
and
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
[Main_1,
11.4.3]
yes
SHA-1 |k| = 160 no
12. Integrity XMSS with
SHA-256
[N8208]
[ISO_10118-3]
- TPM-
FieldUpgr
ade
yes
13. Confidentiality AES in
CFB mode
[ISO_18033-3],
[ISO_10116]
|k| = 128
|k| = 256
[TPM] yes
14. Confidentiality RSA
encryption /
decryption
[RFC3447] |Modulus| = 1024 [Main_1,
B.1 – B.7]
no
RSAES -PKCS1-v1_5 [RFC3447, 7.2] [Main_3,
14]
no
RSAES-OAEP [RFC3447, 7.1] no
15. Confidentiality RSA
encryption /
decryption
[RFC3447] |Modulus| = 2048
|Modulus| = 3072
|Modulus| = 4096
[Main_1,
B.1 – B.7]
(2048: Sec.Lev. > 100 Bits)
yes
yes
RSAES -PKCS1-v1_5 [RFC3447, 7.2] [Main_3,
14]
yes
RSAES-OAEP [RFC3447, 7.1] yes
16. Cryptographic
Primitive SHA-384
[FIPS180-4] none [Main_1,
11.4.2]
yes
17. Cryptographic
Primitive SHA-256
[FIPS180-4] none [Main_1,
11.4.2]
yes
18. Cryptographic
Primitive SHA-1
[FIPS180-4] none [Main_1,
11.4.2]
no
19. Cryptographic
Primitive HMAC with
SHA-1
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 160 [Main_1,
11.4.3]
no
20. Cryptographic
Primitive HMAC with
SHA-256
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 256 [Main_1,
11.4.3]
yes
21. Cryptographic
Primitive HMAC with
SHA-384
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 384 [Main_1,
11.4.3]
yes
22. Cryptographic
Primitive
Deterministic RNG
DRG.3
[AIS20], [N890A] CTR_DRBG
implemented
[Main_1,
11.4.10]
yes
29 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
No. Cryptographic
Mechanism
Standard of
Implementation
Key Size in Bits Commen
ts
Security Level above 120
Bits
23. Trusted Channel
HMAC with SHA-256
and SHA-384
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
[TPM] yes
24. Trusted Channel AES
in CFB mode
[ISO_18033-3],
[ISO_10116]
|k| = 128
|k| = 256
[TPM] yes
RSA [RFC3447] |k| = 1024,
|k| = 2048
|k| = 3072
|k| = 4096
no (1024),
(2048: Sec.Lev. > 100 Bits)
yes
yes
ECC [FIPS186-4],
[N856]
ECC_NIST_P256,
ECC_NIST_P384,
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
yes
HMAC with SHA-256,
SHA-384 and
[ISO_9797-2],
[ISO_10118-3]
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
yes
SHA-1 |k| = 160 no
25. Key Generation RSA
primary keys
[TPM],
[FIPS186-4],
[N890A] using
CRT_DRBG
|k| = 2048
|k| = 3072
|k| = 4096
– (2048: Sec.Lev. > 100 Bits)
yes
yes
26. Key Generation RSA [TPM],
[FIPS186-4],
[N890A] using
CRT_DRBG
|k| = 2048
|k| = 3072
|k| = 4096
(2048: Sec.Lev. > 100 Bits)
yes
yes
27. Key Generation RSA [TPM], |k| = 1024 Infineon
key
generatio
n method
“TPM_RS
AGEN2”
Not rated
28. Key Generation ECC [TPM],
[FIPS186-4],
[N890A] using
CRT_DRBG
|k| = 256
|k| = 384
– yes
yes
ECC_NIST_P256
ECC_NIST_P384
[FIPS186-4] yes
ECC_BN_P256 [ISO_15946-5] no
29. Key Generation AES [TPM], [N8133],
[N808], [N890A]
|k| = 128
|k| = 256
– yes
Table 7: TOE cryptographic functionality
Reference of Legislatives and Standards specified in Table 7 above:
[FIPS180-4] Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, Secure Hash
Standard (SHS), 2015-08, U.S. department of Commerce / National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST).
30 / 32
BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024 Certification Report
[FIPS186-4] Federal Information Processing Standards Publication FIPS PUB 186-4,
Digital Signature Standard (DSS), 2013-07, U.S. department of Commerce / National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
[FIPS186-5] Federal Information Processing Standards Publication FIPS PUB 186-5
(Draft), Digital Signature Standard (DSS), 2019-10, U.S. department of Commerce /
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
[ISO_10116] ISO/IEC 10116: Information technology - Security techniques – Modes of
operation for an n-bit block cipher, 2006, ISO/IEC.
[ISO_10118-3] ISO 10118-3: Information technology - Security techniques – Hash-
functions – Part 3: Dedicated hash-functions, 2004, ISO/IEC.
[ISO_14888-3] ISO 14888-3: Information technology - Security techniques – Digital
signatures with appendix -- Part 3: Discrete logarithm based mechanisms, 2006, ISO/IEC.
[ISO_15946-5] ISO 15946-5: Information technology – Security techniques –
Cryptographic techniques based on elliptic curves – Part 5: Elliptic curve generation, 2009,
ISO/IEC.
[ISO_18033-3] ISO 18033-3: Information technology – Security techniques – Encryption
algorithms -- Part 3: Block ciphers, 2005, ISO/IEC.
[ISO_9797-2] Information technology - Security techniques- Message Authentication
Codes (MACs) - Part 2: Mechanisms using a dedicated hash-function, 2011-05, ISO/IEC.
[Main_1] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 1: Architecture, Family “2.0”, Level 00
Revision 01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG).
[Main_2] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 2: Structures, Family “2.0”, Level 00
Revision 01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG).
[Main_3] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 3: Commands, Family “2.0”, Level 00
Revision 01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG).
[Main_4] Trusted Platform Module Library Part 4: Supporting Routines, Family “2.0”, Level
00 Revision 01.59, 2019-11-08, Trusted Computing Group (TCG).
[N8133] NIST Special Publication 800-133 Revision 1, Recommendation for Cryptographic
Key Generation, 2019-03, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
[N8133_2012] NIST Special Publication 800-133, Recommendation for Cryptographic Key
Generation, 2012-12, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
[N8208] Draft NIST Special Publication 800-208, Recommendation for Stateful Hash-
Based Signature Schemes, 2019-12, National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
[N856] NIST SP800-56A, Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes
Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography, (revised), Revision 1, 2007-03, National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST).
[N890A] NIST Special Publication 800-90A: Recommendation for Random Number
Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators, 2015-06, National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
31 / 32
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-1244-2024
[RFC3447] RFC 3447 - Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA
Cryptography Specifications, Version 2.1, published by The Internet Society, 2003-02,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3447.
[RFC8391] RFC 8391 – XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme, 2018-05, Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8391
[TPM] Trusted Platform Module Library, consisting of [Main_1], [Main_2], [Main_3] and
[Main_4].
Note: End of report
32 / 32