National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Forcepoint LLC
10900-A Stonelake Blvd.
Austin, TX USA 78759
ForcepointTM
Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall
Version 5.10
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-10669-2016
Dated: March 3, 2016
Version: 0.3
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
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Tony Chew
Rob Heald
Meredith Hennan
Jerome Myers
Aerospace Corporation
Columbia, MD
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Ed Morris
Catherine Sykes
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 2
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms ................................................................................... 4
3.2 TOE Architecture................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Physical Boundaries............................................................................................ 5
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 5
4.1 Security audit ...................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Cryptographic support ........................................................................................ 6
4.3 User data protection ............................................................................................ 6
4.4 Identification and authentication......................................................................... 6
4.5 Security management.......................................................................................... 6
4.6 Protection of the TSF.......................................................................................... 6
4.7 TOE access.......................................................................................................... 7
4.8 Trusted path/channels ......................................................................................... 7
5 Assumptions................................................................................................................ 7
6 Documentation............................................................................................................ 8
7 IT Product Testing ...................................................................................................... 8
7.1 Developer Testing............................................................................................... 8
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ............................................................... 9
8 Evaluated Configuration ............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
9 Results of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 9
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)............................................................ 9
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV).............................................................. 9
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD) ............................................... 10
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) ................................... 10
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ............... 10
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)....................................................... 10
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results........................................................................ 10
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations .................................................................. 11
11 Annexes..................................................................................................................... 11
12 Security Target.......................................................................................................... 11
13 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 11
14 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 12
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation
Firewall solution provided by Forcepoint LLC. It presents the evaluation results, their
justifications, and the conformance results. This Validation Report is not an endorsement
of the Target of Evaluation by any agency of the U.S. government, and no warranty is
either expressed or implied.
The evaluation was performed by the Gossamer Security Solutions (Gossamer) Common
Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL) in Catonsville, MD, United States of America, and
was completed in February 2016. The information in this report is largely derived from the
Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test reports, all written by Gossamer
Security Solutions. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria
Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall
Version 5.10. The Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) is a stateful packet
filtering firewall. Being a stateful packet filtering firewall, the NGFW filters network
traffic optimized through the use of stateful packet inspection. The NGFW is intended to be
used as a network perimeter security gateway that provides a controlled connection. The
NGFW is centrally managed and generates audit records for security critical events.
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). 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 evaluation technical report are
consistent with the evidence provided.
The validation team monitored the activities of the evaluation team, provided guidance on
technical issues and evaluation processes, and reviewed the individual work units and
successive versions of the ETR. The validation team found that the evaluation showed that
the product satisfies all of the functional requirements and assurance requirements stated in
the Security Target (ST). Therefore 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 evaluation technical report are
consistent with the evidence produced.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Stonesoft Next
Generation Firewall (NDPP11e3/STFFEP10) Security Target, Version 0.7, February 29,
2016 and analysis performed by the Validation Team.
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
2
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 that 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 Validated
Products 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 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: ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall Version 5.10
Protection Profile
(Specific models identified in Section 3.1)
Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 1.1 (with Errata #3), 8 June 2012
and Network Device Protection Profile (NDPP) Extended Package Stateful Traffic
Filter Firewall, Version 1.0, 19 December 2011 (including the optional TLS
requirements)
ST: Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall (NDPP11e3/STFFEP10) Security Target,
Version 0.7, February 29, 2016
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation
Firewall Version 5.10, Version 0.3, March 1, 2016.
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 4
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor Forcepoint LLC
Developer Forcepoint LLC
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
3
Item Identifier
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators Tony Chew, Rob Heald, Meredith Hennan, and Jerome Myers of The Aerospace
Corporation
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) is a stateful packet filtering firewall. The
Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) system is composed of two physical
appliances: the NGFW engine and the Security Management Center (SMC) Appliance.
The NGFW engine controls connectivity and information flow between internal and
external connected networks. The SMC Appliance provides administrative functionality
supporting the configuration and operation of one or more NGFW engines. Throughout the
remainder of this document, references to the NGFW engine are meant to reference the
firewall engine as a TOE component, while references to the NGFW are meant to refer to
the TOE as a whole.
The NGFW engine controls connectivity and information flow between internal and
external connected networks. Being a stateful packet filtering firewall, the NGFW filters
network traffic optimized through the use of stateful packet inspection. The NGFW engine
also provides a means to keep the internal host’s IP-address private from external users.
The NGFW engine is intended to be used as a network perimeter security gateway that
provides a controlled connection. The NGFW is centrally managed and generates audit
records for security critical events.
The NGFW is assumed to be installed and operated within a physically protected
environment, administered by trusted and trained administrators over a trusted and separate
management network. Multiple installations of the NGFW engine may be used in
combination to provide a company with an overall network topology.
The NGFW engine runs on a hardened Linux operating system that is shipped with the
product. The software (which is also part of the NGFW engine product) runs on a single or
multi-processor Forcepoint platform.
The SMC appliance – a management system comprising a Management Server, Log Server
and McAfee Linux Operating System (MLOS) to support the management and operation of
the firewall – is included as part of the product. The MLOS that is used for the
management server is the same underlying OS that is used in several other evaluated
security products and has undergone prior evaluation as part of those products.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) version
5.10.
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
4
3.1 TOE Evaluated Configuration
ForcepointTM
Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall is composed of the NGFW Engine
(version 5.10.1) and Security Management Center (SMC) Appliance (version 5.10.0 with
SMC Appliance patch 5.10.0P001). The NGFW Engine is evaluated on the following
models:
Firewall Appliances:
Rack Mounted Firewall models
 1035
 1065
 1401
 1402
 3202 (2U)
 3207 (2U)
 3206 (2U)
 3301 (2U)
 5206 (3U)
Desktop Firewall models
 320X-C1
 321-C2
 325-C2
3.2 TOE Architecture
The Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall (NGFW) system is composed of two physical
appliances: the NGFW engine and the Security Management Center (SMC) Appliance.
The NGFW engine is an appliance composed of firewall functionality, an Engine OpenSSL
Library and a Linux operating system. The SMC Appliance is composed of two custom
built Java applications called the Management Server and the Log Server, running on the
McAfee Linux Operating System (MLOS) with support from OpenSSL and a Java runtime
environment.
The NGFW engine (a.k.a., the engine) is responsible for performing all firewall packet
handling, analysis and filtering that is provided by the NGFW system.
The Management server on the SMC appliance provides the majority of the administrative
capabilities in the NGFW system. A very limited console interface is provided on the SMC
appliance by the MLOS and used to verify and update TOE software.
Given that this Security Target conforms to the NDPP and STFFEP, the security claims
focus on the TOE as a secure network infrastructure device with stateful traffic filtering
firewall capabilities and do not focus on other key functions provided by the TOE, such as
virtual private networking. However, those functions can be freely used without affecting
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
5
the claimed and evaluated security functions; they simply have not been evaluated to work
correctly themselves.
The TOE protects itself from tampering and bypass by offering only a limited and
controlled set of functions at each of its physical interfaces to its environment.
Communication via those interfaces is either directed at the TOE for the purpose of
administration or is directed through the TOE for communication among network devices.
In both cases the TOE implements a set of policies to control the services available and
those services are designed to protect and ensure the secure operation of the TOE.
3.3 Physical Boundaries
The TOE is composed of two physical components: the NGFW engine appliance and the
SMC appliance. Each of these appliances have physical network connections to its
environment to facilitate communication between TOE components as well as to position
the TOE to monitor and filter network traffic. All management of the TOE occurs through
the SMC appliance, while all firewall packet filtering occurs through the NGFW engine.
The TOE is accessed and managed from a PC in the environment which is expected to have
a communication pathway to the SMC appliance.
The TOE can be configured to forward its audit records to an external syslog server in the
environment. All audit records sent to the external syslog server, are sent from the SMC
appliance. The NGFW engine does not send audit data directly to an external syslog
server. Instead, the NGFW engine passes all of its audit data to the Logging server on the
SMC appliance, which forwards the data to the external syslog server.
The TOE can be configured to synchronize it internal clock using an NTP server in the
operational environment. The SMC appliance synchronizes with the external NTP server,
then configures the NGFW engine’s time to be in synch with itself. The NGFW engine
does not synchronize to the external NTP server itself.
The NGFW engine utilizes the Error! Reference source not found. to support the NGFW
engine’s use of TLS to protect Internal-TOE-transfers. The SMC appliance uses RSA’s
Crypto-J Library to provide TLS, which protects Internal-TOE-transfers, the trusted
channel mechanism and the trusted path mechanism.
4 Security Policy
This section summaries the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Security audit
2. Cryptographic support
3. User data protection
4. Stateful Traffic Filtering Firewall
5. Identification and authentication
6. Security Management
7. Protection of the TSF
8. TOE access
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
6
9. Trusted path/channels
4.1 Security audit
The TOE generates audit events for numerous activities including policy enforcement,
system management and authentication. A syslog server in the environment is relied on to
store audit records generated by the TOE. The TOE generates a complete audit record
including the IP address of the TOE, the event details, and the time the event occurred.
The time stamp is provided by the TOE appliance hardware. When the syslog server writes
the audit record to the audit trail, it applies its own time stamp, placing the entire TOE-
generated syslog protocol message MSG contents into an encapsulating syslog record.
4.2 Cryptographic support
Because the TOE is distributed into two physically distinct parts, each physical component
of the TOE must be considered when discussing the TOE cryptographic support. Both
components of the TOE utilize cryptography to support its use of the TLS protocol to
protect network communication and to support verification of TOE updates.
4.3 User data protection
The TOE ensures that residual information is protected from potential reuse in accessible
objects such as network packets.
4.4 Identification and authentication
The TOE requires users to be identified and authenticated before they can use functions
mediated by the TOE, with the exception of reading the login banner and performing
firewall packet filtering operations. The TOE authenticates administrative users. In order
for an administrative user to access the TOE, a user account including a user name and
password must be created for the user.
4.5 Security management
Security management commands are limited to authorized users (i.e., administrators) and
available only after they have provided acceptable user identification and authentication
data to the TOE. Administrators access the TOE remotely using a TLS protected
communication channel between the Management server and the Client GUI (which runs
on a workstation in the IT environment).
4.6 Protection of the TSF
The TOE implements a number of features designed to protect itself to ensure the
reliability and integrity of its security features. The TOE performs self-tests that cover the
correct operation of the TOE. It provides functions necessary to securely update the TOE
and a hardware clock to ensure reliable timestamps. The TOE protects sensitive data such
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
7
as stored passwords and cryptographic keys so that they are not accessible through the
TOE, even to an authorized administrator. The TOE also utilizes the TLS protocol to
protect communication between distributed parts of the TOE.
4.7 TOE access
The TOE can be configured to display a logon banner before a user session is established.
The TOE also enforces inactivity timeouts for local and remote sessions.
4.8 Trusted path/channels
The TOE protects interactive communication with administrators using TLS for GUI
access, ensuring both integrity and disclosure protection. If the negotiation of an encrypted
session fails the attempted connection will not be established.
The TOE protects communication with network peers, such as an external syslog server,
using TLS connections to prevent unintended disclosure or modification of logs.
The TOE also protects internal communication between components of the TOE using TLS
connections which prevent unintended disclosure and modification of TSF
communications.
5 Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
documents:
 Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 1.1 (with Errata #3), 8 June 2012
(NDPP11e3) with the following two extended packages:
 Network Device Protection Profile Extended Package Stateful Traffic Filter
Firewall, Version 1.0, 19 December 2011 (STFFEP10)
That information has not been reproduced here and the NDPP should be consulted if there
is interest in that material.
6 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 assurance
activities specified in the claimed PP and EP and performed by the evaluation team.
 This evaluation covers only the specific device models and software version
identified in this document.
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
8
 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 functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the security functional
requirements specified in the NDPP11e3/STFFEP10. Any additional security
related functional capabilities of the TOE were not covered by this evaluation.
7 Documentation
The following documents were available with the TOE for evaluation:
 Intel Security Product Guide, McAfee Next Generation Firewall 5. 10, Revision A
 Intel Security Installation Guide, McAfee Next Generation Firewall 5.10, Revision
B
 Intel Security Common Criteria Evaluated Configuration Guide, McAfee Next
Generation Firewall 5.10.1, Revision F
 McAfee Security Management Center Appliance Hardware Guide, Revision B
 Hardware Guide, Revision D, McAfee Next Generation Firewall, Models 321, 325,
1035, 1065, 1401, 1402
 Hardware Guide, Revision D, McAfee Next Generation Firewall, Models 3201,
3202, 3205, 3206, 3207, 3301
 Hardware Guide, Revision B, McAfee Next Generation Firewall, Models 5201,
5205, 5206
 Hardware Guide, Revision B, McAfee Next Generation Firewall, Model 320X
8 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the Evaluation Team. It is
derived from information contained in the Detailed Test Report (NDPP11e3/STFFEP10)
for Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall, Version 0.6, February 29, 2016, and summarized
in the Assurance Activity Report (NDPP11e3/STFFEP10) for Stonesoft Next Generation
Firewall, Version 0.5, March 1, 2016 (AAR), which is publically available.
8.1 Developer Testing
No evidence of developer testing is required in the assurance activities for this product.
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
9
8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
The evaluation team verified the product according a Common Criteria Certification
document and ran the tests specified in the NDPP and STFFEP including the tests
associated with optional requirements.
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 ETR. The reader of this document can assume that all
assurance 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 Stonesoft
Next Generation Firewall Version 5.10 TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the SARs
contained in the NDPP and STFFEP.
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)
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 Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall
Version 5.10 products that are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security
function descriptions that support the requirements.
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 the Development (ADV)
The evaluation team applied each 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 and Guidance documents. Additionally the evaluator
performed the assurance activities specified in the NDPP and STFFEP related to the
examination of the information contained in the TSS.
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.
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
10
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The evaluation team applied each 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. All of the guides were assessed during the design and
testing phases of the evaluation to ensure they were complete.
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.
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The evaluation team applied each 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 the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)
The evaluation team applied each ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set of
tests specified by the assurance activities in the NDPP and STFFEP and recorded the
results in a Test Report, summarized in the Assurance Activities Report.
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.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)
The evaluation team applied each AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team performed a
public search for vulnerabilities and did not discover any public issues with the TOE.
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.
9.7 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 testing also demonstrated the
accuracy of the claims in the ST.
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
11
The validation team’s assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it
demonstrates that the evaluation team followed the procedures defined in the CEM, and
correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST.
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations
During the evaluation, the vendor provided a minimal patch to the SMC component of the
TOE. This patch was tested for efficacy and is not deemed to affect the TOE security
functionality, however, regression testing of the TOE as a whole was not performed.
11 Annexes
Not applicable
12 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall
(NDPP11e3/STFFEP10) Security Target, Version 0.7, February 29, 2016.
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.
ForcepointTM Stonesoft Next Generation FirewallValidation Report Version 0.3, March 3, 2016
12
 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.
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, September 2012.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2102.
[4] Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 1.1 (with Errata #3), 8 June 2012
(NDPP11e3)
[5] Network Device Protection Profile Extended Package Stateful Traffic Filter
Firewall, Version 1.0, 19 December 2011 (STFFEP10)
[6] Stonesoft Next Generation Firewall (NDPP11e3/STFFEP10) Security Target,
Version 0.7, February 29, 2016 (ST)
[7] Assurance Activity Report (NDPP11e3/STFFEP10) for Stonesoft Next Generation
Firewall, Version 0.5, March 1, 2016 (AAR)
[8] Detailed Test Report (NDPP11e3/STFFEP10) for Stonesoft Next Generation
Firewall, Version 0.6, February 29, 2016 (DTR)