National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
for the
Cisco Jabber 11.8 for Windows 10
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-10802-2017
Dated: 6/13/2017
Version: 1.0
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Security Agency
Information Technology Laboratory Information Assurance Directorate
100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road STE 6940
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6940
®
TM
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Sheldon Durrant
Joanne Fitzpatrick
The MITRE Corporation
Jerome Myers
The Aerospace Corporation
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Pascal Patin
Acumen Security, LLC
3
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 5
2 Identification.......................................................................................................................... 6
3 Architectural Information .................................................................................................... 7
3.1 ISR G2 – ............................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2 ISR-800 -............................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3 CGR 2010 -........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4 Example TOE Deployment.............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4 Security Policy........................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Security Audit ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2 Cryptographic Support.................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3 User Data Protection ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4 Identification and Authentication ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5 Security Management ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.6 Packet Filtering................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.7 Protection of the TSF ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.8 TOE Access ....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.9 Trusted Path/Channels .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope ............................................................... 10
5.1 Assumptions..................................................................................................................................................10
5.2 Threats...........................................................................................................................................................10
5.3 Clarification of Scope...................................................................................................................................11
6 Documentation..................................................................................................................... 12
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration ........................................................................................... 13
7.1 Evaluated Configuration..............................................................................................................................13
7.2 Excluded Functionality ................................................................................................................................13
8 IT Product Testing............................................................................................................... 14
8.1 Developer Testing .........................................................................................................................................14
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing.......................................................................................................14
9 Results of the Evaluation .................................................................................................... 15
9.1 Evaluation of Security Target .....................................................................................................................15
9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation...............................................................................................15
9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents............................................................................................................15
9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities...............................................................................................16
9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity)........................................................................16
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity ..............................................................................................................16
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results..................................................................................................................16
10 Validator Comments & Recommendations ...................................................................... 18
11 Annexes................................................................................................................................. 19
4
12 Security Target .................................................................................................................... 20
13 Glossary ................................................................................................................................ 21
14 Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 22
5
1 Executive Summary
This Validation Report (VR) is intended to assist the end user of this product and any security
certification Agent for that end user in determining the suitability of this Information Technology
(IT) product for their environment. End users should review the Security Target (ST), which is
where specific security claims are made, in conjunction with this VR, which describes how those
security claims were tested and evaluated and any restrictions on the evaluated configuration.
Prospective users should carefully read the Assumptions and Clarification of Scope in Section 5
and the Validator Comments in Section 10, where any restrictions on the evaluated configuration
are highlighted.
This report documents the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) assessment of the
evaluation of the Cisco Jabber for Windows 11.8 Target of Evaluation (TOE). It presents the
evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance results. This VR is not an
endorsement of the TOE by any agency of the U.S. Government and no warranty of the TOE is
either expressed or implied. This VR applies only to the specific version and configuration of
the product as evaluated and documented in the ST.
The evaluation was completed by Acumen Security in May, 2017. The information in this report
is largely derived from the Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test report, all
written by Acumen Security. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common
Criteria Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant, and meets the assurance requirements defined in
the U.S. Government Protection Profile for Security Requirements for Voice over IP (VoIP)
Applications.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) identified in this Validation Report has been evaluated at a
NIAP approved Common Criteria Testing Laboratory using the Common Methodology for IT
Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 4) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 4), as interpreted by the Assurance Activities contained in
the Voice over IP (VoIP) Applications Protection Profile. This Validation Report applies only to
the specific version of the TOE as evaluated. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme and the
conclusions of the testing laboratory in the ETR are consistent with the evidence provided.
The validation team provided guidance on technical issues and evaluation processes and
reviewed the individual work units documented in the ETR and the Assurance Activities Report
(AAR). The validation team found that the evaluation showed that the product satisfies all
functional requirements and assurance requirements stated in the Security Target (ST). Based on
these findings, the validation team concludes that the testing laboratory's findings are accurate,
the conclusions justified, and the conformance results are correct. The conclusions of the testing
laboratory in the ETR are consistent with the evidence produced.
6
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of
Standards effort to establish commercial facilities to perform trusted product evaluations.
Under this program, security evaluations are conducted by commercial testing
laboratories called Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs). CCTLs evaluate
products against Protection Profile containing Assurance Activities, which are
interpretation of CEM work units specific to the technology described by the PP.
The NIAP Validation Body assigns Validators to monitor the CCTLs to ensure quality
and consistency across evaluations. Developers of information technology products
desiring a security evaluation contract with a CCTL and pay a fee for their product's
evaluation. Upon successful completion of the evaluation, the product is added to NIAP's
Product Compliance List.
Table 1 provides information needed to completely identify the product, including:
 The Target of Evaluation (TOE): the fully qualified identifier of the product as
evaluated.
 The Security Target (ST), describing the security features, claims, and assurances
of the product.
 The conformance result of the evaluation.
 The Protection Profile(s) to which the product is conformant.
 The organizations and individuals participating in the evaluation.
Table 1: Evaluation Identifiers
Item Identifier
Evaluation Scheme United States NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
TOE Cisco Jabber 11.8 for Windows 10
Protection Profile Protection Profile for Voice Over IP (VoIP) Applications, Version 1.3
Security Target Cisco Jabber for Windows 10 Security Target
Evaluation Technical
Report
VID10802_AAR.doc
CC Version Version 3.1, Revision 4
Conformance Result CC Part 2 Extended and CC Part 3 Conformant
Sponsor Cisco Systems, Inc.
Developer Cisco Systems, Inc.
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Acumen Security
Montgomery Village, MD
CCEVS Validators Sheldon Durrant
Joanne Fitzpatrick
Jerome Myers
7
3 Architectural Information
The TOE is Cisco Jabber v11.8 for Windows 10 (herein after referred to as Cisco Jabber, VoIP
Client, or the TOE). Cisco Jabber is an application that provides a single, intuitive interface for
integration of collaborative communications including:
 Presence - View real-time availability of co-workers and colleagues within the enterprise
network.
 Instant messaging (IM) - Chat in real time using instant messaging to save time and reduce
phone tag.
 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), voice messaging, and video calling capabilities with
the ability to escalate calls into a Cisco WebEx meeting.
The focus of the evaluation is on the VoIP capabilities of Cisco Jabber.
8
4 Security Policy
The TOE is comprised of several security features. Each of the security features identified above
consists of several security functionalities, as identified below.
• Cryptographic Support
• User Data Protection
• Identification and Authentication
• Security Management
• Protection of the TSF
• Trusted Channels
These features are described in more detail in the subsections below. In addition, the TOE
implements all RFCs of the [VoIP PP], as necessary to satisfy testing/assurance measures
prescribed therein.
Cryptographic Support
The TOE provides cryptography in support of SIP connections via Security Real-Time Transport
Protocol (SRTP) that has been established using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) and the
Security Descriptions for Media Streams (SDES) for SDP. The TOE also protects
communications between itself and the CUCM SIP Server by using a Transport Layer Security
(TLS)-protected signaling channel.
The cryptographic algorithm implementation has been validated for CAVP conformance.
The TOE Platform provides cryptography to support digital signature verification of X.509v3
certificates used to authenticate TLS and SDES/SRTP connections.
User Data Protection
The TOE ensures that voice data is not transmitted when a call is placed on hold, call placed on
mute and when not connected.
Identification and authentication
The TOE performs authentication using passwords for SIP Register functions. The passwords
must be at least eight (8) characters and include the use of upper and lower case characters,
numbers and special characters.
The TOE Platform validates certificates using Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP). The
certificates are used to support authentication for SDES/SRTP and TLS connections
Security Management
The TOE provides the capability to manage the following functions:
• Specify/Prompt the SIP Server to use for connections;
• Specify/Prompt the user to enter VoIP client credentials to use for connections;
9
• Specify/Prompt the password requirements for SIP authentications;
• Configure cryptographic algorithms;
• Ability to query the current version of the TOE; and
• Action taken when connection to verify validity of certificate cannot be established.
The TOE supports the administrative user to perform the above security relevant management
functions.
The TOE Platform provides the capability to manage the following functions:
• Load X.509v3 certificates;
• Configure certificate revocation check; and
• Ability to update the TOE, and to verify the updates.
The TOE Platform supports the administrative user to perform the above security relevant
management functions
Protection of the TSF
The TOE performs a suite of self-tests during initial start-up to verify correct operation of its
CAVP validated algorithms. Upon execution, the integrity of the TOEs software executables is
also verified.
The TOE Platform provides for verification of TOE software updates prior installation.
Trusted Channels
The TOE’s implementation of SDES-SRTP allows secure voice communications between itself
and a remote VoIP application. In addition, the TOE provides secure signaling communications
between itself and a remote CUCM SIP Server using TLS.
10
5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope
5.1 Assumptions
The specific conditions listed in the following subsections are assumed to exist in the TOE’s
environment. These assumptions include both practical realities in the development of the TOE
security requirements and the essential environmental conditions on the use of the TOE.
Assumption Assumption Definition
A.AVAILABILITY Network resources shall be available to allow VoIP clients to satisfy mission
requirements and to transmit information.
A.OPER_ENV The operational environment of the TOE appropriately addresses those
requirements, threats, and policies not applicable to the TOE itself, but that
are necessary to support the correct operation of the TOE.
A.TRUSTED_CONFIG Personnel configuring the TOE and its operational environment will follow
the applicable security configuration guidance.
5.2 Threats
The following table lists the threats addressed by the TOE and the IT Environment. The
assumed level of expertise of the attacker for all the threats identified below is Enhanced-Basic.
Threat Threat Definition
T.TSF_CONFIGURATION Failure to allow configuration of the TSF may prevent its users from
being able to adequately implement their particular security policy,
leading to a compromise of user information.
T.TSF_FAILURE Security mechanisms of the TOE may fail, leading to a compromise of
the TSF.
T.UNAUTHORIZED_ACCESS A user may gain unauthorized access to the TOE data. A malicious
user, process, or external IT entity may masquerade as an authorized
entity in order to gain unauthorized access to data or TOE resources.
A malicious user, process, or external IT entity may misrepresent
itself as the TOE to obtain
T.UNAUTHORIZED_UPDATE A malicious party attempts to supply the end user with an update to
the product that may compromise the security features of the TOE.
T.USER_DATA_REUSE Voice data may be inadvertently sent to a destination not intended
because it is sent outside the voice call.
11
5.3 Clarification of Scope
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that need
clarifying. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications of this
evaluation. Note that:
 As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration meets
the security claims made, with a certain level of assurance. The level of assurance for this
evaluation is defined within the VoIP PP.
 Consistent with the expectations of the Protection Profile, this evaluation did not
specifically search for, nor seriously attempt to counter, vulnerabilities that were not
“obvious” or vulnerabilities to objectives not claimed in the ST. The CEM defines an
“obvious” vulnerability as one that is easily exploited with a minimum of understanding
of the TOE, technical sophistication and resources.
 The evaluation of security functionality of the product was limited to the functionality
specified in the claimed PPs. Any additional security related functional capabilities
included in the product were not covered by this evaluation.
12
6 Documentation
The following documents were provided by the vendor with the TOE for evaluation:
 Cisco Jabber 11.8 for Windows 10 Security Target, Version 0.8
 Cisco Jabber 11.8 for Windows 10 Common Criteria Configuration Guide, Version 0.4
13
7 TOE Evaluated Configuration
7.1 Evaluated Configuration
The TOE is a VoIP client application executing on a Microsoft Windows 10 platform. It
requires one of the following Common Criteria certified Microsoft Windows 10 Operating
System to run:
 Microsoft Windows 10 Home Edition (32-bit and 64-bit versions)
 Microsoft Windows 10 Pro Edition (32-bit and 64-bit versions)
 Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise Edition (32-bit and 64-bit versions)
Refer to the Microsoft Windows 10 Security Target1
certified on 2016-04-05 for information
regarding the evaluated configuration requirements.
The TOE requires support of Cisco Unified Communications Manager (CUCM), release 11.0 or
later as the SIP Server. Cisco CUCM serves as the call-processing component for voice that
includes IP telephony, mobility features and calls controls. In addition, there are configuration
settings pushed to the Cisco Jabber TOE that are required in the evaluated configuration. This
form of management is permitted in [VoIP PP].
The Cisco CUCM is required to deploy Cisco Jabber for On-Premise deployment scenario, that
is one in which the Administrator sets up, manages, and maintains all services on the
organization’s network. Additionally, Cisco Jabber must be deployed in Phone Mode, where
the user's primary authentication is to Cisco Unified Communications Manager. In Phone Mode,
the user is provisioned with VoIP capabilities without the functionality of presence or instant
messaging (IM).
7.2 Excluded Functionality
Excluded Functionality Exclusion Rationale
Non-FIPS 140-2 mode of operation This mode of operation includes non-FIPS allowed operations.
Presence, instant messaging (IM),
voice messaging, and video
functionality.
These Jabber functions are not covered in the CC evaluation.
SIP connection over TLS using
NULL-SHA encryption
Provides only integrity and authentication without encryption.
1
http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/products/
14
8 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the evaluation team. It is derived
from information contained in Evaluation Test Report for Cisco Jabber for Windows 11.8, which
is not publicly available. The Assurance Activities Report provides an overview of testing,
including test configuration and testbeds (AAR section 4.9), as well as the prescribed assurance
activities.
8.1 Developer Testing
No evidence of developer testing is required in the Assurance Activities for this product.
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
The evaluation team verified the product according the vendor-provided guidance documentation
and ran the tests specified in the VoIP PP. The Independent Testing activity is documented in
the Assurance Activities Report, which is publicly available, and is not duplicated here.
15
9 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are
presented in detail in the proprietary documents: the Detailed Test Report (DTR) and the
Evaluation Technical Report (ETR). The reader of this document can assume that activities and
work units received a passing verdict.
A verdict for an assurance component is determined by the resulting verdicts assigned to the
corresponding evaluator action elements. The evaluation was conducted based upon CC version
3.1 rev 4 and CEM version 3.1 rev 4. The evaluation determined the Cisco Jabber for Windows
11.8 to be Part 2 extended, and meets the SARs contained in the PP. Additionally the evaluator
performed the Assurance Activities specified in the VoIP PP.
9.1 Evaluation of Security Target
The evaluation team applied each ASE CEM work unit. The ST evaluation ensured the ST
contains a description of the environment in terms of policies and assumptions, a statement of
security requirements claimed to be met by the Cisco Jabber for Windows 11.8 that are
consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that support the
requirements. Additionally, the evaluator performed an assessment of the Assurance Activities
specified in the VoIP PP.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation
team was justified.
9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ADV CEM work unit. The evaluation team assessed
the design documentation and found it adequate to aid in understanding how the TSF provides
the security functions. The design documentation consists of a functional specification contained
in the Security Target's TOE Summary Specification. Additionally, the evaluator performed the
Assurance Activities specified in the VoIP PP related to the examination of the information
contained in the TOE Summary Specification.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted
in accordance with the Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation
team was justified.
9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AGD CEM work unit. The evaluation team ensured the
adequacy of the user guidance in describing how to use the operational TOE. Additionally, the
evaluation team ensured the adequacy of the administrator guidance in describing how to
securely administer the TOE. The guides were assessed during the design and testing phases of
16
the evaluation to ensure they were complete. Additionally, the evaluator performed the
Assurance Activities specified in the VoIP PP related to the examination of the information
contained in the operational guidance documents.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by
the evaluation team was justified.
9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found
that the TOE was identified.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation
team was justified.
9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set
of tests specified by the Assurance Activities in the VoIP PP and recorded the results in a Test
Report, summarized in the Evaluation Technical Report and Assurance Activities Report.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence was
provided by the evaluation team to show that the evaluation activities addressed the test activities
in the VoIP PP, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team performed
a public search for vulnerabilities, performed vulnerability testing, and did not discover any
issues with the TOE. A list of databases searched, and keywords used, may be found in section
4.8.2 of the AAR.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and
justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation addressed the
vulnerability analysis Assurance Activities in the VoIP PP, and that the conclusion reached by
the evaluation team was justified.
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results
The evaluation team's assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims in
the ST are met. Additionally, the evaluation team's test activities also demonstrated the
accuracy of the claims in the ST.
The validation team's assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it
17
demonstrates that the evaluation team performed the Assurance Activities in the VoIP PP, and
correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST.
18
10 Validator Comments & Recommendations
This section contains observations, recommendations, and caveats formulated by the validation team during
the course of the evaluation and validation effort.
 As mentioned in previous portions of this report, the Cisco Jabber client can only be used with the
evaluated Cisco CUCM server. The CUCM server offers functionality that is needed for Jabber
to operate in the manner in which it was tested against the Assurance Activities in the VOIP PP.
19
11 Annexes
Not applicable.
20
12 Security Target
Cisco Jabber 11.8 for Windows 10 Security Target, Version 0.5
21
13 Glossary
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
 Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL). An IT security evaluation facility
accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and
approved by the CCEVS Validation Body to conduct Common Criteria-based
evaluations.
 Conformance. The ability to demonstrate in an unambiguous way that a given
implementation is correct with respect to the formal model.
 Evaluation. The assessment of an IT product against the Common Criteria using the
Common Criteria Evaluation Methodology to determine whether or not the claims made
are justified; or the assessment of a protection profile against the Common Criteria using
the Common Evaluation Methodology to determine if the Profile is complete, consistent,
technically sound and hence suitable for use as a statement of requirements for one or
more TOEs that may be evaluated.
 Evaluation Evidence. Any tangible resource (information) required from the sponsor or
developer by the evaluator to perform one or more evaluation activities.
 Feature. Part of a product that is either included with the product or can be ordered
separately.
 Target of Evaluation (TOE). A group of IT products configured as an IT system, or an
IT product, and associated documentation that is the subject of a security evaluation
under the CC.
 Validation. The process carried out by the CCEVS Validation Body leading to the issue
of a Common Criteria certificate.
 Validation Body. A governmental organization responsible for carrying out validation
and for overseeing the day-to-day operation of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation
and Validation Scheme.
22
14 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
1. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 1: Introduction
and general model, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
2. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 2: Security
functional requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
3. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 3: Security
assurance requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
4. Common Evaluation Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 4.