UNCLASSIFIED © Government of Canada. This document is the property of the Government of Canada. It shall not be altered, distributed beyond its intended audience, produced, reproduced or published, in whole or in any substantial part thereof, without the express permission of CSE. COMMON CRITERIA CERTIFICATION REPORT Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention 14.5 383-4-375 14 December 2016 v1.0 UNCLASSIFIED FOREWORD This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief, Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Suggestions for amendments should be forwarded through departmental communications security channels to your Client Services Representative at CSE. The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility – established under the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme – using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4. 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 CC Scheme, and the conclusions of the evaluation facility 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 the Communications Security Establishment, 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 Communications Security Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report, and its associated certificate, is either expressed or implied. If your department has identified a requirement for this certification report based on business needs and would like more detailed information, please contact: ITS Client Services Telephone: (613) 991-7654 E-mail: itsclientservices@cse-cst.gc.ca UNCLASSIFIED OVERVIEW The Canadian Common Criteria Scheme provides a third-party evaluation service for determining the trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT) security products. Evaluations are performed by a commercial Common Criteria Evaluation Facility (CCEF) under the oversight of the Certification Body, which is managed by the Communications Security Establishment. A CCEF 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 17025:2005, the General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. Accreditation is performed under the Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories - Canada (PALCAN), administered by the Standards Council of Canada. The CCEF that carried out this evaluation is EWA-Canada. 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 CCEF. The certification report, certificate of product evaluation and security target are posted to the Certified Products list (CPL) for the Canadian CC Scheme, and to the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the International Common Criteria Project). UNCLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................1 1 Identification of Target of Evaluation......................................................................................................2 1.1 Common Criteria Conformance..................................................................................................................2 1.2 TOE description ..........................................................................................................................................2 1.3 TOE architecture.........................................................................................................................................3 2 Security policy .......................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Cryptographic functionality........................................................................................................................4 3 Assumptions and Clarifications of Scope.................................................................................................5 3.1 Usage and Environmental assumptions .....................................................................................................5 3.2 Clarification of Scope..................................................................................................................................5 4 Evaluated Configuration.........................................................................................................................6 4.1 Documentation...........................................................................................................................................6 5 Evaluation Analysis Activities .................................................................................................................7 5.1 Development..............................................................................................................................................7 5.2 Guidance Documents .................................................................................................................................7 5.3 Life-cycle Support.......................................................................................................................................7 6 Testing Activities....................................................................................................................................8 6.1 Assessment of Developer Tests..................................................................................................................8 6.2 Conduct of Testing......................................................................................................................................8 6.3 Independent Functional Testing.................................................................................................................8 6.4 Independent Penetration Testing ..............................................................................................................9 7 Results of the Evaluation......................................................................................................................10 7.1 Recommendations/Comments................................................................................................................ 10 8 Supporting Content..............................................................................................................................11 8.1 List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ 11 8.2 References............................................................................................................................................... 12 UNCLASSIFIED LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 TOE Architecture ....................................................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 TOE Identification.......................................................................................................................................2 Table 2 Cryptographic Algorithm(s) ........................................................................................................................4 UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention 14.5(hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE), from Symantec Corporation, was the subject of this Common Criteria evaluation. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that TOE meets the requirements of the conformance claim listed in Table 1 for the evaluated security functionality. The TOE is a data loss prevention product (DLP) used by organizations to safeguard sensitive data such as company information, customer data, and intellectual property. The TOE provides this functionality through the discovery, monitoring, and protection of sensitive information on network resources within an organization’s IT infrastructure. Sensitive data may include credit card numbers, names, addresses, identification numbers or any data a company deems proprietary. The TOE enables an organization to: • Discover stored data on network resources • Monitor how that data is being used • Protect the data from being leaked or stolen The central component for a DLP implementation is the DLP Enforce Server, which provides a management interface for defining the policies that are enforced throughout the network. The Enforce Server works with one or more Detection servers to protect data and report on violations. Detection servers may be deployed on a single server or in a distributed architecture, depending upon the organization’s network requirements. EWA-Canada is the CCEF that conducted the evaluation. This evaluation was completed on 14 December 2016 and was carried out in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme. The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target, which identifies assumptions made during the evaluation, the intended environment for 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. Communications Security Establishment, as the Certification Body, declares that the TOE evaluation meets all the conditions of the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will be listed on the Certified Products list (CPL) and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the International Common Criteria Project). UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 2 1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows: Table 1 TOE Identification TOE Name and Version Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention 14.5 Developer Symantec Corporation Conformance Claim EAL 2+ (ALC_FLR.2) 1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4. 1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION The TOE is a data loss prevention product (DLP) used by organizations to safeguard sensitive data such as company information, customer data, and intellectual property. The TOE provides this functionality through the discovery, monitoring, and protection of sensitive information on network resources within an organization’s IT infrastructure. Sensitive data may include credit card numbers, names, addresses, identification numbers or any data a company deems proprietary. The TOE enables an organization to: • Discover stored data on network resources • Monitor how that data is being used • Protect the data from being leaked or stolen The central component for a DLP implementation is the DLP Enforce Server, which provides a management interface for defining the policies that are enforced throughout the network. The Enforce Server works with one or more detection servers to protect data and report on violations. Detection servers may be deployed on a single server or in a distributed architecture, depending upon the organization’s network requirements. UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 3 1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows: Figure 1 TOE Architecture UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 4 2 SECURITY POLICY The TOE implements policies pertaining to the following security functional classes: • Security Audit • Cryptographic Support • User Data Protection • Identification and Authentication • Security Management • Protection of the TSF • Trusted Path/Channels 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 Government of Canada approved cryptographic algorithms were evaluated for correct implementation in the TOE: Table 2 Cryptographic Algorithm(s) Cryptographic Algorithm Standard Certificate Number Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) FIPS 197 #2249 & #2397 Rivest Shamir Adleman (RSA) FIPS 186-4 #1154 & #1240 Deterministic Random Bit Generation (DRBG) SP 800-90A #273 & #318 UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 5 3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 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 TOE will be located within controlled access facilities, which will prevent unauthorized physical access. • There are one or more competent individuals assigned to manage the TOE. • Authorized administrators are non-hostile, appropriately trained, and follow all TOE guidance documentation. 3.2 CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE The TOE incorporates CAVP-validated cryptography and was not subjected to CMVP (FIPS-140) validation. The evaluation of the cryptographic functionality is limited to secure communications. The following features are excluded from this evaluation: • Mobile Email Monitor and Mobile Prevent • Exact Data Matching • Vector Machine Learning • Regular expressions • International language content • File properties • Enterprise Vault Data Classification • Email subject • Described identity matching • Sender/recipient patterns • Directory Group Matching UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 6 4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION The evaluated configuration for the TOE comprises: Symantec DLP 14.5.0.24034 and Symantec DLP Agent 14.5.0.24028 with the following licenses: • Network Prevent for Email • Network Prevent for Web • Network Discover/Cloud Storage Discover • Network Protect • Network Monitor • Endpoint Discover • Endpoint Protect With the following installed components; Enforce Server • Installed on a GPC running Windows Server 2012 R2 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 Symantec DLP Detection Server • Installed on a GPC running Windows Server 2012 R2 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 Symantec DLP Agent • Installed on a GPC running Windows 7 or OS X 10.11 4.1 DOCUMENTATION The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE: a. Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention Installation Guide for Linux Version 14.5, Version 14.5a b. Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention Installation Guide for Windows Version 14.5, Version 14.5a c. Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention Administration Guide Version 14.5, Version 14.5a d. Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention Common Criteria Guidance Supplement, Version 1.0 UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 7 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 TOE functional specification and design documentation; they determined that the design completely and accurately describes the TOE security functionality (TSF) interfaces, the TSF subsystems and how the TSF implements the security functional requirements (SFRs). The evaluators analyzed the TOE security architectural description and determined that the initialization process is secure, that the security functions are protected against tamper and bypass, and that security domains are maintained. The evaluators also independently verified that the correspondence mappings between the design documents are correct. 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 of the procedures required to maintain the integrity of the TOE during distribution to the consumer. The evaluators reviewed the flaw remediation procedures used by developer for the TOE. During a site visit, the evaluators also examined the evidence generated by adherence to the procedures. The evaluators concluded that the procedures are adequate to track and correct security flaws, and distribute the flaw information and corrections to consumers of the TOE. UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 8 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 ETR. The evaluators analyzed the developer’s test coverage analysis and found it to be complete and accurate. 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. Password Rule Enforcement: This test case confirms that all password rules are enforced. c. Concurrent User Login: This test case confirms that user session separation is maintained when two users with different credentials are logged in concurrently to the same system. d. Delete DLP Agent Files: This test case confirms that an endpoint user cannot delete the Endpoint Agent program files folder or registry keys. e. Test Network Monitor: This test case confirms that the network monitor functionality can detect keywords in FTP traffic. 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. UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 9 6.4 INDEPENDENT PENETRATION TESTING Subsequent to the independent review of public domain vulnerability databases and all evaluation deliverables, limited independent evaluator penetration testing was conducted. The penetration tests focused on: a. Use of automated vulnerability scanning tools to discover potential network, platform and application layer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, Shellshock, FREAK, POODLE, and GHOST 6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS The independent penetration testing did not uncover any exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating environment. UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 10 7 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION This evaluation has provided the basis for the conformance claim documented in Table 1. The overall verdict for the evaluation is PASS. These results are supported by evidence in the ETR. The IT product identified in this report has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility established under the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4. These evaluation results apply only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration and in conjunction with the complete certification report. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent with the evidence adduced. This is not an endorsement of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this certificate, is expressed or implied. 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. UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 11 8 SUPPORTING CONTENT 8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Term Definition CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program CCEF Common Criteria Evaluation Facility CM Configuration Management CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program CSE Communications Security Establishment DLP Data Loss Prevention EAL Evaluation Assurance Level ETR Evaluation Technical Report GC Government of Canada IT Information Technology ITS Information Technology Security ITSET Information Technology Security Evaluation and Testing PALCAN Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories – Canada PP Protection Profile SFR Security Functional Requirement ST Security Target TOE Target of Evaluation TSF TOE Security Function UNCLASSIFIED v1.0 12 8.2 REFERENCES Reference Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2012. Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2012. Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention 14.5 Security Target, version 1.2, 15 November 2016 Evaluation Technical report for Symantec™ Data Loss Prevention 14.5, version 1.0, 14 December 2016