UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
515-EWA
COMMON CRITERIA CERTIFICATION REPORT
Fortinet FortiGate™ Next Generation
Firewalls with FortiOS 6.2.7
15 October 2021
2
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
FOREWORD
This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief, Communications Security
Establishment (CSE).
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has been
evaluated at an approved testing laboratory established under the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (a branch of CSE).
This certification report, and its associated certificate, applies only to the identified version and release of the product in its
evaluated configuration. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Common
Criteria Program, and the conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation report are consistent with the evidence
adduced.
This report, and its associated certificate, are not an endorsement of the IT product by Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, or
any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report, and its associated certificate, and no warranty for the IT
product by the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report,
and its associated certificate, is either expressed or implied.
If your organization has identified a requirement for this certification report based on business needs and would like more
detailed information, please contact:
Canadian Centre for Cyber Security
Contact Centre and Information Services
contact@cyber.gc.ca | 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788)
3
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
OVERVIEW
The Canadian Common Criteria Program provides a third-party evaluation service for determining the trustworthiness of
Information Technology (IT) security products. Evaluations are performed by a commercial Common Criteria Testing
Laboratory (CCTL) under the oversight of the Certification Body, which is managed by the Canadian Centre for Cyber
Security.
A CCTL is a commercial facility that has been approved by the Certification Body to perform Common Criteria evaluations; a
significant requirement for such approval is accreditation to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025, the General Requirements
for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, the Certification Body asserts that the product complies with the security
requirements specified in the associated security target. A security target is a requirements specification document that
defines the scope of the evaluation activities. The consumer of certified IT products should review the security target, in
addition to this certification report, in order to gain an understanding of any assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT
product's intended environment, the evaluated security functionality, and the testing and analysis conducted by the CCTL.
The certification report, certificate of product evaluation and security target are posted to the Common Criteria portal (the
official website of the International Common Criteria Project).
4
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 6
1 Identification of Target of Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Common Criteria Conformance.......................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 TOE Description................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3 TOE Architecture ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2 Security Policy......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Cryptographic Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 9
3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope ......................................................................................................10
3.1 Usage and Environmental Assumptions.............................................................................................................10
3.2 Clarification of Scope .......................................................................................................................................10
4 Evaluated Configuration............................................................................................................................11
4.1 Documentation.................................................................................................................................................12
5 Evaluation Analysis Activities....................................................................................................................13
5.1 Development....................................................................................................................................................13
5.2 Guidance Documents........................................................................................................................................13
5.3 Life-Cycle Support ............................................................................................................................................13
6 Testing Activities ....................................................................................................................................14
6.1 Assessment of Developer tests.........................................................................................................................14
6.2 Conduct of Testing...........................................................................................................................................14
6.3 Independent Functional Testing ........................................................................................................................14
6.3.1 Functional Test Results.................................................................................................................................14
6.4 Independent Penetration Testing.......................................................................................................................15
6.4.1 Penetration Test results................................................................................................................................15
7 Results of the Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................16
7.1 Recommendations/Comments..........................................................................................................................16
8 Supporting Content..................................................................................................................................17
8.1 List of Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................................17
5
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
8.2 References.......................................................................................................................................................17
LIST OF FIGURES
TOE Architecture..................................................................................................................................................8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: TOE Identification ................................................................................................................................................7
Table 2: Cryptographic Implementation.............................................................................................................................9
6
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fortinet FortiGate™ Next Generation Firewalls with FortiOS 6.2.7 (hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE),
from Fortinet, Incorporated , was the subject of this Common Criteria evaluation. A description of the TOE can be found in
Section 1.2. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that the TOE meets the requirements of the conformance claim
listed in Section 1.1 for the evaluated security functionality.
EWA-Canada is the CCTL that conducted the evaluation. This evaluation was completed on 15 October 2021 and was carried
out in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Common Criteria Program.
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the Security Target, which identifies assumptions made during the evaluation, the
intended environment for the TOE, and the security functional/assurance requirements. Consumers are advised to verify
that their operating environment is consistent with that specified in the security target, and to give due consideration to the
comments, observations, and recommendations in this Certification Report.
The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, as the Certification Body, declares that this evaluation meets all the conditions of
the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product is listed on the Certified Products
list (CPL) for the Canadian Common Criteria Program and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Program).
7
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows:
Table 1: TOE Identification
TOE Name and Version Fortinet FortiGate™ Next Generation Firewalls with FortiOS 6.2.7
Developer Fortinet, Incorporated
1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 5, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5.
The TOE claims the following conformance:
EAL 4+ ALC_FLR.3 - Systematic Flaw Remediation
1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION
The TOE is a network appliance designed to provide firewall, Virtual Private Network (VPN), Virtual Local Area Network
(VLAN), antivirus protection, antispam protection and content filtering to provide network protection for Internet Protocol
version 4 (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) networks.
8
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE
A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows:
TOE Architecture
9
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
2 SECURITY POLICY
The TOE implements and enforces policies pertaining to the following security functionality:
 Security Audit
 Cryptographic Support
 User Data Protection
 Identification and Authentication
 Security Management
 Protection of the TSF
 Trusted Path/Channel
 Anti-Virus Actions
 Intrusion Prevention
Complete details of the security functional requirements (SFRs) can be found in the Security Target (ST) referenced in
section 8.2.
2.1 CRYPTOGRAPHIC FUNCTIONALITY
The following cryptographic implementation has been evaluated by the CMVP and is used by the TOE:
Table 2: Cryptographic Implementation
Cryptographic Module Certificate Number
FortiOS 6.0 and 6.2 #3814
10
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
Consumers of the TOE should consider assumptions about usage and environmental settings as requirements for the
product’s installation and its operating environment. This will ensure the proper and secure operation of the TOE.
3.1 USAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made regarding the use and deployment of the TOE:
 The hardware appliances will be located within controlled access facilities and protected from unauthorized
physical modification
 There will be one or more competent individuals assigned to manage the TOE and the security of the information it
contains
 Information cannot flow among the internal and external networks unless it passes through the TOE
3.2 CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
The following TOE features are excluded from this evaluation:
 Centralized management of the TOE by FortiManager servers
 The TOE’s antispam, content filtering and traffic shaping features
 The ICMP, SNMP, LDAP, Windows AD, NTP, Radius and Routing protocols
 The FortiGate REST API (not used in the evaluated configuration)
 FortiGuard-Antispam, Endpoint Control, and FortiSandbox services
 The TOE’s DHCP, DDNS, or DNS server capabilities
 Traffic offloading to the FortiASIC NPx network processors
The following TOE features are disabled by default and are excluded from the scope of this evaluation:
 HTTP GUI
 The TOE acting as a telnet client or server
 The TOE acting as a TFTP client.
11
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION
The evaluated configuration for the TOE comprises:
TOE Software/Firmware FortiOS 6.2.7 (Build # 5081)
Virtual Models
FortiGate-VM00 FortiGate-VM08
FortiGate-VM01 FortiGate-VM16
FortiGate-VM02 FortiGate-VM32
FortiGate-VM04 FortiGate-VMUL
TOE Hardware FWF-60E-DSL FG-101F FG-601E FG-3200D
FG-60F FG-140E FG-900D FG-3300E
FG-60F-3G4G FG-140E-PoE FG-1000D FG-3301E
FG-61E FG-200E FG-1100E FG-3400E
FG-61F FG-201E FG-1100E-DC FG-3401E
FWF-60F FG-300D FG-1101E FG-3600E
FWF-61E FG-300E FG-1200D FG‐3601E
FWF-61F FG-301E FG-1500D FG-3700D
FG-80E FG-400D FG-1500DT FG-3800D
FG-80E-PoE FG-400E FG-1500D-DC FG-3810D
FG-81E FG-401E FG-2000E FG-3815D
FG-81E-PoE FG-500D FG-2200E FG-3960E
FG-100E FG-500E FG-2201E FG-3980E
FG-100EF FG-501E FG2500E FG-5001D
FG-100F FG-600D FG-3000D FG-5001E
FG-101E FG-600E FG-3100D FG-5001E1
FG-6301F FGR-60F FWF-30E FWF-50E
FG-6501F FGR-60F-3G4G FG-40F FG-51E
FGR-30D FG-30E FG-50E FWF-51E
FG-52E FG-60E FG-60E-DSL FG-60E-PoE
FWF-60E FG-40F-3G4G
12
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
Environmental Support • ESXi v6.7 (Virtual Models)
• FortiGuard Distribution Server
• Araneus Alea II Entropy token
• FortiAnalyzer Server v6.2.7 (Build 1398)
4.1 DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE:
a) FortiOS – CLI Reference, Version 6.2.7, February 9, 2021
b) FortiOS - Log Reference, Version 6.2.7, December 17, 2020
c) FortiOS - Cookbook, Version 6.2.7, February 10, 2021
d) FortiOS – Handbook, Version 6.0, June 17, 2020
e) FortiOS 6.2 and FortiGate NGFW Appliances, EAL4 Common Criteria Technote, May 25, 2021
13
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
5 EVALUATION ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES
The evaluation analysis activities involved a structured evaluation of the TOE. Documentation and process dealing with
Development, Guidance Documents, and Life-Cycle Support were evaluated.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT
The evaluators analyzed the documentation provided by the vendor; they determined that the design completely and
accurately describes the TOE security functionality (TSF) interfaces and how the TSF implements the security functional
requirements. The evaluators determined that the initialization process is secure, that the security functions are protected
against tamper and bypass, and that security domains are maintained.
5.2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The evaluators examined the TOE preparative user guidance and operational user guidance and determined that it
sufficiently and unambiguously describes how to securely transform the TOE into its evaluated configuration and how to use
and administer the product. The evaluators examined and tested the preparative and operational guidance and determined
that they are complete and sufficiently detailed to result in a secure configuration.
Section 4.1 provides details on the guidance documents.
5.3 LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT
An analysis of the TOE configuration management system and associated documentation was performed. The evaluators
found that the TOE configuration items were clearly marked.
The evaluators examined the delivery documentation and determined that it described all the procedures required to
maintain the integrity of the TOE during distribution to the consumer.
14
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
6 TESTING ACTIVITIES
Testing consists of the following three steps: assessing developer tests, performing independent functional tests, and
performing penetration tests.
6.1 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPER TESTS
The evaluators verified that the developer has met their testing responsibilities by examining their test evidence, and
reviewing their test results, as documented in the Evaluation Test Report (ETR). The correspondence between the tests
identified in the developer’s test documentation and the functional specification was complete.
6.2 CONDUCT OF TESTING
The TOE was subjected to a comprehensive suite of formally documented, independent functional and penetration tests. The
detailed testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected results and observed results are
documented in a separate Test Results document.
6.3 INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL TESTING
During this evaluation, the evaluator developed independent functional tests by examining design and guidance
documentation.
All testing was planned and documented to a sufficient level of detail to allow repeatability of the testing procedures and
results. The following testing activities were performed:
a. Repeat of Developer's Tests: The evaluator repeated a subset of the developer's tests
b. Cryptographic Implementation Verification: The evaluator verified that the claimed cryptographic implementation
was present in the TOE
c. GUI Session Hijacking: The evaluator confirmed that the TOE is not susceptible to privilege escalation through
cookie hijacking
d. Bypass of session lockout: The evaluator confirmed that the TOE enforces session lockouts across interfaces
e. GUI Control bypass: The evaluator confirmed that the TOE is not susceptible to privilege escalation through
manipulation of the GUI implementation
6.3.1 FUNCTIONAL TEST RESULTS
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests yielded the expected results, providing assurance that the TOE
behaves as specified in its ST and functional specification.
15
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
6.4 INDEPENDENT PENETRATION TESTING
The penetration testing effort focused on 4 flaw hypotheses.
 Public Vulnerability based (Type 1)
 Technical community sources (Type 2)
 Evaluation team generated (Type 3)
 Tool Generated (Type 4)
The evaluators conducted an independent review of all evaluation evidence, public domain vulnerability databases and
technical community sources (Type 1 & 2). Additionally, the evaluators used automated vulnerability scanning tools to
discover potential network, platform, and application layer vulnerabilities (Type 4). Based upon this review, the evaluators
formulated flaw hypotheses (Type 3), which they used in their penetration testing effort.
6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
Type 1 & 2 searches were conducted on 4/19/2021 and included the following search terms:
FortiGate FortiOS Fortinet Firewall
CP8 CP9 CP9XLite
CP9Lite FortiOS Cryptographic Library
Vulnerability searches were conducted using the following sources:
National Vulnerability Database:
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search
Fortinet support:
https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt
Google
The independent penetration testing did not uncover any residual exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating
environment.
16
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
7 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has been
evaluated at an approved testing laboratory established under the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS). This
certification report, and its associated certificate, apply only to the specific version and release of the product in its
evaluated configuration.
This evaluation has provided the basis for the conformance claim documented in Table 1. The overall verdict for this
evaluation is PASS. These results are supported by evidence in the ETR.
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS
It is recommended that all guidance outlined in Section 4.1 be followed to configure the TOE in the evaluated configuration.
17
TLP:WHITE
UNCLASSIFIED / NON CLASSIFIÉ
8 SUPPORTING CONTENT
8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
CCTL Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
CM Configuration Management
CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program
CSE Communications Security Establishment
CCCS Canadian Centre for Cyber Security
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
GC Government of Canada
IT Information Technology
ITS Information Technology Security
PP Protection Profile
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Function
8.2 REFERENCES
Reference
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017.
Security Target Fortinet FortiGate™ Next Generation Firewalls with FortiOS 6.2.7, 12 October 2021, v1.10
Evaluation Technical Report Fortinet FortiGate™ Next Generation Firewalls with FortiOS 6.2.7, 15 October 2021,
v1.4