BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
for
SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java
7.02 SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum
(material no. 51039496)
from
SAP AG
BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Postfach 20 03 63, D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0, Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477, Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report V1.0 CC-Zert-327 V4.4
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Java Application Server
SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java
7.02 SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496)
from SAP AG
PP Conformance: None
Functionality: Product specific Security Target
Common Criteria Part 2 conformant
Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.1
Common Criteria
Recognition
Arrangement
The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility using the
Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 and guidance specific for the
technology of the product for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version
3.1.
This certificate applies only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration
and in conjunction with the complete Certification Report.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the certification scheme of the
German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the
evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for Information Security or any
other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by the
Federal Office for Information Security or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
Bonn, 8 February 2011
For the Federal Office for Information Security
Bernd Kowalski L.S.
Head of Department
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
Godesberger Allee 185-189 - D-53175 Bonn - Postfach 20 03 63 - D-53133 Bonn
Phone +49 (0)228 99 9582-0 - Fax +49 (0)228 9582-5477 - Infoline +49 (0)228 99 9582-111
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
This page is intentionally left blank.
4 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
Preliminary Remarks
Under the BSIG1
Act, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has the task of
issuing certificates for information technology products.
Certification of a product is carried out on the instigation of the vendor or a distributor,
hereinafter called the sponsor.
A part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product according
to the security criteria published by the BSI or generally recognised security criteria.
The evaluation is normally carried out by an evaluation facility recognised by the BSI or by
BSI itself.
The result of the certification procedure is the present Certification Report. This report
contains among others the certificate (summarised assessment) and the detailed
Certification Results.
The Certification Results contain the technical description of the security functionality of
the certified product, the details of the evaluation (strength and weaknesses) and
instructions for the user.
1
Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
5 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Contents
A Certification........................................................................................................................7
1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure.................................................................7
2 Recognition Agreements................................................................................................7
2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA).........................7
2.2 International Recognition of CC – Certificates (CCRA)...........................................8
3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification..................................................................8
4 Validity of the Certification Result...................................................................................9
5 Publication......................................................................................................................9
B Certification Results.........................................................................................................11
1 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................12
2 Identification of the TOE...............................................................................................13
3 Security Policy..............................................................................................................14
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................................15
5 Architectural Information...............................................................................................16
6 Documentation.............................................................................................................17
7 IT Product Testing.........................................................................................................17
7.1 Developer Testing..................................................................................................17
7.2 Evaluator Independent Testing..............................................................................17
7.3 Evaluator Penetration Testing................................................................................18
8 Evaluated Configuration...............................................................................................19
9 Results of the Evaluation..............................................................................................20
9.1 CC specific results.................................................................................................20
9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment....................................................................20
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE.......................................................20
11 Security Target............................................................................................................21
12 Definitions...................................................................................................................21
12.1 Acronyms.............................................................................................................21
12.2 Glossary...............................................................................................................22
13 Bibliography................................................................................................................23
C Excerpts from the Criteria................................................................................................25
D Annexes...........................................................................................................................35
6 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
A Certification
1 Specifications of the Certification Procedure
The certification body conducts the procedure according to the criteria laid down in the
following:
● BSIG2
● BSI Certification Ordinance3
● BSI Schedule of Costs4
● Special decrees issued by the Bundesministerium des Innern (Federal Ministry of the
Interior)
● DIN EN 45011 standard
● BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125) [3]
● Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.15
[1]
● Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 [2]
● BSI certification: Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS) [4]
2 Recognition Agreements
In order to avoid multiple certification of the same product in different countries a mutual
recognition of IT security certificates - as far as such certificates are based on ITSEC or
CC - under certain conditions was agreed.
2.1 European Recognition of ITSEC/CC – Certificates (SOGIS-MRA)
The SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA) Version 3 became effective in
April 2010. It defines the recognition of certificates for IT-Products at a basic recognition
level and in addition at higher recognition levels for IT-Products related to certain technical
domains only.
The basic recognition level includes Common Criteria (CC) Evaluation Assurance Levels
EAL1 to EAL4 and ITSEC Evaluation Assurance Levels E1 to E3 (basic). For higher
recognition levels the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices has been defined.
It includes assurance levels beyond EAL4 resp. E3 (basic).
The new agreement was initially signed by the national bodies of Finland, France,
Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
2
Act on the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI-Gesetz - BSIG) of 14 August 2009,
Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 2821
3
Ordinance on the Procedure for Issuance of a Certificate by the Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI-Zertifizierungsverordnung, BSIZertV) of 07 July 1992, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 1230
4
Schedule of Cost for Official Procedures of the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
(BSI-Kostenverordnung, BSI-KostV) of 03 March 2005, Bundesgesetzblatt I p. 519
5
Proclamation of the Bundesministerium des Innern of 12 February 2007 in the Bundesanzeiger dated
23 February 2007, p. 3730
7 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Within the terms of this agreement the German Federal Office for Information Security
(BSI) recognises
● for the basic recognition level certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national
certification bodies of France, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom.
● for the higher recognition level in the technical domain Smart card and similar Devices
certificates issued as of April 2010 by the national certification bodies of France, The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
In addition, certificates issued for Protection Profiles based on Common Criteria are part of
the recognition agreement.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the
terms of this agreement.
Historically, the first SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement Version 1 (ITSEC only)
became initially effective in March 1998. It was extended in 1999 to include certificates
based on the Common Criteria (MRA Version 2). Recognition of certificates previously
issued under these older versions of the SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement is being
continued.
2.2 International Recognition of CC – Certificates (CCRA)
An arrangement (Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement) on the mutual recognition of
certificates based on the CC Evaluation Assurance Levels up to and including EAL 4 has
been signed in May 2000 (CCRA). It includes also the recognition of Protection Profiles
based on the CC.
As of January 2009 the arrangement has been signed by the national bodies of: Australia,
Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Pakistan, Republic of Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States of America. The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes
can be seen on the web site: http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org
The Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement logo printed on the certificate indicates
that this certification is recognised under the terms of this agreement.
3 Performance of Evaluation and Certification
The certification body monitors each individual evaluation to ensure a uniform procedure, a
uniform interpretation of the criteria and uniform ratings.
The product SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02 SP3 with Common Criteria
Addendum (material no. 51039496) has undergone the certification procedure at BSI.
The evaluation of the product SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02 SP3 with
Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496) was conducted by TÜV
Informationstechnik GmbH. The evaluation was completed on 2 February 2011. The TÜV
Informationstechnik GmbH is an evaluation facility (ITSEF)6
recognised by the certification
body of BSI.
For this certification procedure the sponsor and applicant is: SAP AG.
The product was developed by: SAP AG.
6
Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
8 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
The certification is concluded with the comparability check and the production of this
Certification Report. This work was completed by the BSI.
4 Validity of the Certification Result
This Certification Report only applies to the version of the product as indicated. The
confirmed assurance package is only valid on the condition that
● all stipulations regarding generation, configuration and operation, as given in the
following report, are observed,
● the product is operated in the environment described, where specified in the following
report and in the Security Target.
For the meaning of the assurance levels please refer to the excerpts from the criteria at
the end of the Certification Report.
The Certificate issued confirms the assurance of the product claimed in the Security Target
at the date of certification. As attack methods evolve over time, the resistance of the
certified version of the product against new attack methods needs to be re-assessed.
Therefore, the sponsor should apply for the certified product being monitored within the
assurance continuity program of the BSI Certification Scheme (e.g. by a re-certification).
Specifically, if results of the certification are used in subsequent evaluation and certification
procedures, in a system integration process or if a user's risk management needs regularly
updated results, it is recommended to perform a re-assessment on a regular e.g. annual
basis.
In case of changes to the certified version of the product, the validity can be extended to
the new versions and releases, provided the sponsor applies for assurance continuity (i.e.
re-certification or maintenance) of the modified product, in accordance with the procedural
requirements, and the evaluation does not reveal any security deficiencies.
5 Publication
The product SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02 SP3 with Common Criteria
Addendum (material no. 51039496) has been included in the BSI list of the certified
products, which is published regularly (see also Internet: https://www.bsi.bund.de and [5]).
Further information can be obtained from BSI-Infoline +49 228 9582-111.
Further copies of this Certification Report can be requested from the developer7
of the
product. The Certification Report may also be obtained in electronic form at the internet
address stated above.
7
SAP AG
Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16
69190 Walldorf
9 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
This page is intentionally left blank.
10 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
B Certification Results
The following results represent a summary of
● the Security Target of the sponsor for the Target of Evaluation,
● the relevant evaluation results from the evaluation facility, and
● complementary notes and stipulations of the certification body.
11 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
1 Executive Summary
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) defined as SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02
SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496) (in the following also called
NWAS Java or NWAS Java 7.02) consists solely of software (accompanied by the
associated guidance documentation). This software application represents a fundamental
component used in modern SAP systems.
As an application server, the TOE represents a framework for the development and
execution of Java applications based on the J2EE software architecture. The TOE
provides a complex set of services and infrastructure to be used by such applications.
The Security Target [6] is the basis for this certification. It is not based on a certified
Protection Profile.
The TOE Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) are based entirely on the assurance
components defined in Part 3 of the Common Criteria (see part C or [1], Part 3 for details).
The TOE meets the assurance requirements of the Evaluation Assurance Level EAL 4
augmented by ALC_FLR.1.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFR) relevant for the TOE are outlined in the
Security Target [6], chapter 6.2. They are all selected from Common Criteria Part 2. Thus
the TOE is CC Part 2 conformant.
The TOE Security Functional Requirements are implemented by the following TOE
Security Functionality:
TOE Security Functionality Addressed issue
Security Audit The TOE maintains a security log to keep track of security relevant
events. It further provides functionality for review of the audit to
authorized administrators.
Users and Authorization The TOE provides two different concepts for access control:
Declarative Security: Within the declarative security concept for access
control applications inform the TOE about the required permissions for
users to access an object under access control. Every time the
application requests access to an object under control (on behalf of a
user) the TOE verifies the permissions of that user and denies the
access to the object in case that the user does not have the required
permission.
Programmatic Security: In an application using the programmatic access
control concept the application itself forms an important part of the
overall policy. The TOE provides the application with services to acquire
the (confirmed) identity of the user and to check whether the current user
has the requested permissions. However, it falls into the responsibility of
the application to deny user access to resources in case that the user
does not have the appropriate permissions.
Identification and Authentication In order to provide access control the TOE has to be aware of the identity
of the connection user. Therefore the TOE provides an identification and
authentication function based on usernames and passwords. The
identification of subjects can be used for attaching authorizations to
these subjects and allows access control decisions based on a subject’s
identity and authorizations.
Security Management The focus of this security functionality is to provide only authorized
administrators with the functionality to manage all relevant aspects of the
security functionality of the TOE.
Table 1: TOE Security Functionality
12 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
For more details please refer to the Security Target [6], chapter 7.
The assets to be protected by the TOE are defined in the Security Target [6], chapter 3.2.
Based on these assets the TOE Security Problem Definition is defined in terms of
Assumptions, Threats and Organisational Security Policies. This is outlined in the Security
Target [6], chapters 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.
For the configuration of the TOE covered by this certification please refer to chapter 8 of
this report.
The vulnerability assessment results as stated within this certificate do not include a rating
for those cryptographic algorithms and their implementation suitable for encryption and
decryption (see BSIG Section 9, Para. 4, Clause 2).
The certification results only apply to the version of the product indicated in the certificate
and on the condition that all the stipulations are kept as detailed in this Certification
Report. This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the Federal Office for
Information Security (BSI) or any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this
certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by BSI or any other organisation that
recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is either expressed or implied.
2 Identification of the TOE
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is called:
SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java
7.02 SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496)
The following table outlines the product deliverables:
No Type Identifier Version Form of Delivery
1 SW SAP NetWeaver Application Server
Java
7.02 SP3 with Common
Criteria Addendum
(material no. 51039496)
Physically via DVD-ROM
2 DOC
(Guidance
part)
TOE documentation SAP Library
[10]
7.02 SP3 with Common
Criteria Addendum
(material no. 51039496)
3 DATA Hash files (SHA-1) shafile.dat
(stored on the DVDs)
7.02 SP3 with Common
Criteria Addendum
(material no. 51039496)
4 DOC
(Guidance
part)
NWAS Java 7.02 Guidance
Addendum (File name:
NWAS_EAL4_AGD_A DD_0
97.pdf) [9]
0.97
File size: 2.357.558 Bytes
SHA-1 hash value:
49A4813ADEA60AEFCCB
87C3C20C8D1AD2B3041
97
Download (via SSL-
secured SAP Common
Criteria website) [11]
5 DATA Hash values (SHA-1) for the
shafile.dat hash files
N/A Published on SSL-
secured SAP Common
Criteria website [11]
6 SW Java Development Kit (JDK) 1.4.2_25 Rev b02,
platform ‘Windows x64’
Download (via SUN JDK
download website) [12]
7 SW Cryptography Extension (JCE)
Unlimited Strength Jurisdiction
Policy Files 1.4.2
1.4.2
13 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
No Type Identifier Version Form of Delivery
8 DATA Hash value (SHA-1) for the JDK N/A Published on SSL-
secured SAP Common
Criteria website [11]
9 DATA Hash value (SHA-1) for the
Java(TM) Cryptography Extension
(JCE) Unlimited Strength
Jurisdiction Policy Files 1.4.2
10 SW SHAValidator 1.01 Download via SSL-
secured SAP website
[13]
Table 2: Deliverables of the product
The TOE (No. 1-4, software accompanied by guidance documentation) is delivered partly
via physical distribution on a set of DVDs (comprising 5 DVDs) and partly (particularly the
guidance addendum) via download from dedicated website [11]. Additional components
(No. 5-10, e.g. integrity check tool, files and data) are part of the delivery process as they
are required for the TOE integrity check process.
The TOE label is displayed to the consumer in various forms during the delivery and
operational phase of the TOE. In detail, the TOE can be identified by the following
methods referring to the placement of label as well as the kind of label (e.g. electronically,
engraved, printed, etc.):
● Service Marketplace (SAP internet portal for software delivery) [14]: TOE referenced
by its reference label SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02 SP3 with
Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496).
● Delivery media (DVD set with the TOE installation media): TOE referenced as SAP
EHP2 FOR SAP NETWEAVER 7.0. The DVD set shipped physically is equipped with
a label, i.e. the installation basis DVDs include the identifier ‘SAP EHP2 FOR SAP
NETWEAVER 7.0’, while the Common Criteria Addendum DVD includes the identifier
‘Common Criteria Addendum – SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02 SP03’.
It should be noted that the reference ‘SAP EHP2 FOR SAP NETWEAVER 7.0’ is
equivalent to the identification ‘SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02‘, since
the information ‘EHP2 for 7.0’ corresponds one-to-one to the product release ‘7.02’.
After installation of the installation basis DVDs and the Common Criteria Addendum
DVD (material no. 51039496) the complete TOE SAP NetWeaver Application Server
Java Release 7.02 SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496) is
build. This DVD labelling facilitates the TOE identification for consumers at the point
of receipt of the DVDs.
● Operational TOE: In the running TOE, several status info screens are available
containing the version info of the underlying NWAS, see [9] chapter 3.4.
Both parts of the guidance documentation (consisting of TOE documentation and
Guidance Addendum) include a unique reference see table 2, so that it is possible to
identify them uniquely. In addition, table 2 contains the SHA-1 checksum for NWAS Java
7.02 Guidance Addendum in order to enable customers to verify the correctness of the
guidance document obtained.
14 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
3 Security Policy
The Security Policy is expressed by the set of Security Functional Requirements and
implemented by the TOE. It covers the following issues:
● Security Audit
● Users and Authorization
● Identification and Authentication
● Security Management
For more information on these issues, see Security Target [6], chapter 3.5.
4 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
The Assumptions defined in the Security Target are not covered by the TOE itself. These
assumptions lead to specific security objectives to be fulfilled by the TOE-Environment.
The following topics are of relevance:
● The administrator of the TOE shall be non hostile and well trained.
● The administrator of the TOE shall know and follow all instructions provided in the
relevant guidance documentation.
● It has to be ensured that the emergency user account “SAP*” is not used in the
operational use of the TOE.
● Authentication data for each user account for the TOE is kept securely and not
disclosed to persons not authorized to use that account.
● Administrators and users must specifically ensure that no hardware or software key
loggers are installed on the machines used to enter the authentication data.
● The TOE is connected to the Internet and/or terminals and workstations.
● Authentication and authorization data transported between client and server data is
protected and the TOE is appropriately protected by a firewall.
● An appropriate hardware architecture and a suitable operating system shall be
available.
● The runtime environment shall supply a reliable clock for the TOE's usage.
● The TOE and its underlying abstract machine are used in a controlled environment.
● It has to be ensured that the TOE is used with suitable user interfaces as set out in
the TOE guidance documents.
● It has to be ensured that the development of applications for the TOE will comply with
all the guidelines and restrictions specified in [9].
Details can be found in the Security Target [6], chapter 4.2.
15 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
5 Architectural Information
The following Figure 1 provides a graphical overview of the TOE architecture with
consideration of the subsystems:
Figure 1: TOE architecture
The TOE consists of the following subsystems:
Subsystem Description
Dispatcher ● Realizes network access to TOE
● Hands on network connections to the J2EE Engine server
process(es)
J2EE Engine ● Provides the infrastructure for J2EE applications that consist of EJB
modules (business logic) and Web modules (presentation logic)
● Allows the modules to communicate with each other and controls
access of callers to applications
UME Administration Application ● Used by authorized users to administer the TOE (except
management of J2EE roles)
J2EE Administration Application ● Used by authorized users to administer the J2EE roles
Log Viewer Application ● Used by authorized users to view TOE logs
Log Configuration Application ● Used by authorized users to configure TOE logs
Central Services ● Provides communication services via the Message Server and
synchronization services via the Enqueue Server
● Message Server informs all the servers (instances) belonging to an
SAP System of the existence of the other servers
● Enqueue Server implements the lock management for data objects
stored in the database
Table 3: TOE design
16 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
6 Documentation
The evaluated documentation as outlined in table 2 (No. 2 and 4) is being provided with
the product to the customer. This documentation contains the required information for
secure usage of the TOE in accordance with the Security Target.
Additional obligations and notes for secure usage of the TOE as outlined in chapter 10 of
this report have to be followed.
7 IT Product Testing
7.1 Developer Testing
TOE Test Configuration
All developer’s tests in the context of the evaluation have been conducted using the final
version of the TOE. Independently on whether manual or automatic tests were performed
the following software configuration was in place:
● Operating System: Microsoft Windows Server 2008, Enterprise Edition (x64)
● Additional Software: JDK Version 1.4.2_25 Rev b02 (for platform ‘Windows x64’)
The developer used different hardware for automated and manual testing as stated below:
● The hardware used for the automatic tests is an Intel Xeon E5504 2GHZ CPU based
PC with 8 GB RAM and 464 GB hard disk space.
● The hardware used for the manual tests is a virtual machine running Windows Server
2008 Enterprise Edition (x64) on a 2.6 GHz AMD Opteron Processor. The machine is
configured with 8GB RAM and 120 GB disk space and is hosted by VMWare ESX
v3.5 U5 Build 213532 on a HP ProLiant DL585D2. The JDK used is Sun 1.4.2_25-
rev-b02 x64, and the DB used is SAP DB (a.k.a. MaxDB), version 7.8.01.
Testing Approach
The developer used four different test tools for different aspects of the testing activities, e.g
for managing manual and automated test cases.
Conclusion
The developer has tested the TOE systematically at the level of TSFI as well as at the
level of subsystems. The tests results demonstrate that no discrepancy between the TOE
behaviour and the TOE specification has been found.
7.2 Evaluator Independent Testing
TOE Test Configuration
1. Repetition of developer tests:
● NWAS Java 7.02 installed on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition
x64 running on an x64 CPU. The TOE uses the MaxDB database delivered on
the TOE installation DVDs and the Sun JDK version as specified in the
Guidance Addendum which are installed on the same machine as the TOE.
● The hardware used for the repetition of the developer tests is an Intel Xeon
E5504 2GHZ CPU based PC with 8 GB RAM and 464 GB hard disk space.
17 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
2. Evaluation body’s own testing:
NWAS Java 7.02 installed according to [9] on:
● Hardware: HP ProLiant ML330 G6 Server, 8GB RAM, Dual Core, 2 GHz
● Operating System: Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise (x64)
Testing Approach
The evaluator repeated all automatic developer tests, thereby covering all TSFI. The
evaluator further developed a set of own manual test cases for independent testing.
Thereby he had chosen the approach to cover TSF from all the functional areas of the
TOE (Audit, Identification and Authentication, Users and Authorization and Security
Management). This approach extends the one used for the repetition of the developer
tests, so that both TSF and TSFI coverage is given.
The following TSFI where used for testing of SFR-relevant behaviour during evaluation
body testing:
● Dispatcher Network Interface
● J2EE API
● SAP API
● UME Admin App
● J2EE Admin App
● Log Configuration Tool
● Log Viewer Tool
Conclusion
The overall test result is that no deviations were found between the expected and the
actual test results, i.e. all test cases have passed.
7.3 Evaluator Penetration Testing
TOE Test Configuration
The penetration testing was performed using the evaluation body’s testing environment:
● Operation System: Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise (x64)
● Hardware: HP ProLiant ML330 G6 Server, 8GB RAM, Dual Core, 2 GHz
Testing Approach
The evaluator analysed the development and guidance documentation from an attacker’s
perspective to find security flaws in design and implementation of the TOE. In addition to
that he applied security scanners to find common vulnerabilities in web applications and
used a static code analysis tool to detect programming errors in TOE functionality that
could lead to security vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, publicly known vulnerabilities were searched on the internet and considered
for penetration testing.
The following list summarizes areas considered for vulnerability testing:
● Common vulnerabilities in web applications were searched
● A port scan has been conducted to identify attack vectors
18 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
● It was examined whether the TOE is vulnerable against common vulnerabilities by
using a sophisticated security scanner
● Static code analysis has been performed on the source code of the TOE in order to
identify security relevant programming errors
● Possible TOE specific vulnerabilities have been addressed by dedicated tests
Conclusion
No deviations were found between the expected and the actual test results. No attack
scenario with the attack potential enhanced-basic was actually successful in the TOE’s
operational environment as defined in the Security Target [6].
8 Evaluated Configuration
The TOE under evaluation is SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02 SP3 with
Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496). The Security Target [6] has
identified solely one configuration (NWAS Java single stack mode installation) of the TOE
under evaluation. This configuration is achieved by strict adherence of the Guidance
Addendum. The TOE as specified in the Security Target [6] is set up as a single system,
i.e. its environment does not connect to other SAP systems or application servers.
The operational environment of the TOE in its evaluated configuration can be summarized
as follows:
● Software requirements:
• TOE platform (OS): Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition (x64),
• supported Database management system
• Java Development Kit (JDK), 1.4.2_25 Rev b02, platform ‘Windows x64’
● Hardware requirements (minimum characteristics):
• CPU: 1.4 GHz (x64 processor)
• RAM: 5 GB
• Hard disk: 64 GB,
• Others: Super VGA (800×600) resolution monitor, DVD-ROM drive, Keyboard and
Microsoft Mouse (or compatible pointing device), Internet access.
For the certified configuration of the TOE the following patches have to be installed:
Vendor/Name Target Release SPLevel PatchLevel
sap.com/CORE-TOOLS 7.02.3.7
sap.com/JLOGVIEW 7.02.3.2
sap.com/LM-TOOLS 7.02.3.4
sap.com/SAP-JEE 7.02.3.8
sap.com/SAP-JEECOR 7.02.3.15
sap.com/SAP_JTECHF 7.02.3.4
19 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Vendor/Name Target Release SPLevel PatchLevel
sap.com/SAP_JTECHS 7.02.3.11
Table 4: Patches
9 Results of the Evaluation
9.1 CC specific results
The Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) [7] was provided by the ITSEF according to the
Common Criteria [1], the Methodology [2], the requirements of the Scheme [3] and all
interpretations and guidelines of the Scheme (AIS) [4] as relevant for the TOE.
As a result of the evaluation the verdict PASS is confirmed for the following assurance
components:
● All components of the EAL 4 package including the class ASE as defined in the CC
(see also part C of this report)
● The components ALC_FLR.1 augmented for this TOE evaluation.
The evaluation has confirmed:
● PP Conformance: None
● For the Functionality: Product specific Security Target
Common Criteria Part 2 conformant
● For the Assurance: Common Criteria Part 3 conformant
EAL 4 augmented by ALC_FLR.1
For specific evaluation results regarding the development and production environment see
annex B in part D of this report.
The results of the evaluation are only applicable to the TOE as defined in chapter 2 and
the configuration as outlined in chapter 8 above.
9.2 Results of cryptographic assessment
The TOE does not include cryptoalgorithms. Thus, no such mechanisms were part of the
assessment.
10 Obligations and Notes for the Usage of the TOE
The operational guidance documents as outlined in table 2 contain necessary information
about the usage of the TOE and all security hints therein have to be considered. In
addition all aspects of assumptions as outlined in the Security Target not covered by the
TOE itself need to be fulfilled by the operational environment of the TOE.
The customer or user of the product shall consider the results of the certification within his
system risk management process. In order for the evolution of attack methods and
techniques to be covered, he should define the period of time until a re-assessment for the
TOE is required and thus requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
If available, certified updates of the TOE shall be used. If non-certified updates or patches
are available he should request the sponsor for providing a re-certification. In the
20 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
meantime the risk management process of the system using the TOE shall investigate and
decide on the usage of not yet certified updates and patches or to take additional
measures in order to maintain system security.
In addition, the following aspects need to be fulfilled when using the TOE:
● The emergency user (‘super admin user’) account “SAP*” that is provided by the
system (and disabled by default) shall not be used in the operational phase of the
TOE.
● The customer is required to verify the integrity of all relevant guidance documentation
using SHA-1 checksums and comparing those against the values provided in table 2.
11 Security Target
For the purpose of publishing, the Security Target [6] of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) is
provided within a separate document as Annex A of this report.
12 Definitions
12.1 Acronyms
AIS Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme
BSI Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik / Federal Office for
Information Security, Bonn, Germany
BSIG BSI-Gesetz / Act on the Federal Office for Information Security
CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
CC Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation
CEM Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation
DB Database
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
EJB Enterprise Java Beans
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
IT Information Technology
ITSEC Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria
ITSEF Information Technology Security Evaluation Facility
J2EE Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition
JCL Java Class Library
JDK Java Development Kit
NWAS NetWeaver Application Server
PP Protection Profile
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SFP Security Function Policy
SFR Security Functional Requirement
21 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
SHA Secure Hash Algorithm
SSL Secure Sockets Layer
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functionality
TSFI TSF Interfaces
UME User Management Engine
VGA Video Graphics Array
12.2 Glossary
Augmentation - The addition of one or more requirement(s) to a package.
Authenticated user - This subject belongs to a user of the operational functions (e.g. HR,
FI) of an SAP system who has gone through a logon process and is thus identified and
authenticated.
Authentication - Verifying the claimed identity of a user.
Authentication Data - information used to verify the claimed identity of a user
Authorization - The authority to execute a particular action in the SAP System. Each
authorization references an authorization object and defines one or more permissible
values for each authorization field contained in the authorization object.
Authorized User - TOE user who may, in accordance with the SFRs, perform an
operation
Extension - The addition to an ST or PP of functional requirements not contained in part 2
and/or assurance requirements not contained in part 3 of the CC.
Formal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics based on well-
established mathematical concepts.
Informal - Expressed in natural language.
Object - An passive entity in the TOE, that contains or receives information, and upon
which subjects perform operations.
Protection Profile - An implementation-independent statement of security needs for a
TOE type.
Security Target - An implementation-dependent statement of security needs for a specific
identified TOE.
Semiformal - Expressed in a restricted syntax language with defined semantics.
Subject - An active entity in the TOE that performs operations on objects.
Target of Evaluation - A set of software, firmware and/or hardware possibly accompanied
by guidance.
TOE Security Functionality - combined functionality of all hardware, software, and
firmware of a TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the SFRs
22 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
13 Bibliography
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
Part 1: Introduction and general model, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 2: Security functional components, Revision 3, July 2009
Part 3: Security assurance components, Revision 3, July 2009
[2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM),
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Rev. 3, July 2009
[3] BSI certification: Procedural Description (BSI 7125)
[4] Application Notes and Interpretations of the Scheme (AIS) as relevant for the TOE8
[5] German IT Security Certificates (BSI 7148), periodically updated list published also
in the BSI Website
[6] Security Target BSI-DSZ-0659-2011, Version 1.16, 2010-12-20, Security Target
NWAS Java, SAP AG
[7] Evaluation Technical Report, Version 4, 2011-02-02, Evaluation Technical Report
Summary, TÜViT (confidential document)
[8] Configuration list for the TOE (confidential document):
[Clist_Perforce] Configuration List from Perforce, SAP AG, Version 1.0, 2010-
12-20, List of SAP Perforce files for 'SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02
SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496)'
[Clist_Java-Code_DTR] Configuration List from DTR, SAP AG, Version 1.1,
2010-12-23, List of SAP DTR files for 'SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02
SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496)
[Clist_KW] Configuration List from Knowledge Warehouse, SAP AG, Version 1.0,
2010-12-17, List of SAP KW files for 'SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02
SP3 with Common Criteria Addendum (material no. 51039496)'
[BOM] Bill of Material, SAP AG, Materialnumber: 52026088, 2011-01-25,
BOM: SAP NW 7.0 EHP2 Java Common Criteria
[Ref] Reference List, SAP AG, Version 1.6, 2011-01-25, NWAS Java 7.02
Reference-List
[Bug_List] List of security flaws, Version 1.0, 2010-11-15, List of all security bugs
for NWAS Java 7.02
8
specifically
• AIS 1, Version 13, 14. August 2008, Durchführung der Ortsbesichtigung in der
Entwicklungsumgebung des Herstellers
• AIS 11, Version 2, 02. Februar 1998, Programmiersprachen und Compiler
• AIS 14, Version 7, 03. August 2010, Anforderungen an Aufbau und Inhalt der ETR-Teile (Evaluation
Technical Report) für Evaluationen nach CC (Common Criteria)
• AIS 19, Version 8, 19. Oktober 2010, Anforderungen an Aufbau und Inhalt der Zusammenfassung
des ETR (Evaluation Technical Report) für Evaluationen nach CC (Common Criteria) und ITSEC
• AIS 23, Version 2, 11. März 2009, Zusammentragen von Nachweisen der Entwickler
• AIS 32, Version 6, 03. August 2010, CC-Interpretationen im deutschen Zertifizierungsschema
• AIS 41, Version 1, 20. August 2008, Guidelines for PPs and STs
23 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
[9] Guidance documentation for the TOE, SAP AG, Version 0.97, 20. December 2010,
NWAS Java 7.02 Guidance Addendum
[10] Guidance documentation for the TOE, SAP AG, Version 7.02, 2010-04, SAP
Product documentation
[11] SAP Common Criteria website, https://service.sap.com/commoncriteria
[12] SUN JDK download website, http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/SAPsite/download.html
[13] SAP Notes, https://service.sap.com/notes
[14] SAP Service Marketplace, https://service.sap.com
24 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
C Excerpts from the Criteria
CC Part1:
Conformance Claim (chapter 10.4)
„The conformance claim indicates the source of the collection of requirements that is met
by a PP or ST that passes its evaluation. This conformance claim contains a CC
conformance claim that:
● describes the version of the CC to which the PP or ST claims conformance.
● describes the conformance to CC Part 2 (security functional requirements) as either:
– CC Part 2 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 conformant if all SFRs in that
PP or ST are based only upon functional components in CC Part 2, or
– CC Part 2 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 2 extended if at least one SFR in
that PP or ST is not based upon functional components in CC Part 2.
● describes the conformance to CC Part 3 (security assurance requirements) as either:
– CC Part 3 conformant - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 conformant if all SARs in that
PP or ST are based only upon assurance components in CC Part 3, or
– CC Part 3 extended - A PP or ST is CC Part 3 extended if at least one SAR in
that PP or ST is not based upon assurance components in CC Part 3.
Additionally, the conformance claim may include a statement made with respect to
packages, in which case it consists of one of the following:
● Package name Conformant - A PP or ST is conformant to a pre-defined package
(e.g. EAL) if:
– the SFRs of that PP or ST are identical to the SFRs in the package, or
– the SARs of that PP or ST are identical to the SARs in the package.
● Package name Augmented - A PP or ST is an augmentation of a predefined package
if:
– the SFRs of that PP or ST contain all SFRs in the package, but have at least
one additional SFR or one SFR that is hierarchically higher than an SFR in the
package.
– the SARs of that PP or ST contain all SARs in the package, but have at least
one additional SAR or one SAR that is hierarchically higher than an SAR in the
package.
Note that when a TOE is successfully evaluated to a given ST, any conformance claims of
the ST also hold for the TOE. A TOE can therefore also be e.g. CC Part 2 conformant.
Finally, the conformance claim may also include two statements with respect to Protection
Profiles:
● PP Conformant - A PP or TOE meets specific PP(s), which are listed as part of the
conformance result.
● Conformance Statement (Only for PPs) - This statement describes the manner in
which PPs or STs must conform to this PP: strict or demonstrable. For more
information on this Conformance Statement, see Annex D.”
25 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
CC Part 3:
Class APE: Protection Profile evaluation (chapter 10)
“Evaluating a PP is required to demonstrate that the PP is sound and internally consistent,
and, if the PP is based on one or more other PPs or on packages, that the PP is a correct
instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the PP to be
suitable for use as the basis for writing an ST or another PP.
Assurance Class Assurance Components
Class APE: Protection
Profile evaluation
APE_INT.1 PP introduction
APE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
APE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
APE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
APE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
APE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
APE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
APE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
APE: Protection Profile evaluation class decomposition”
Class ASE: Security Target evaluation (chapter 11)
“Evaluating an ST is required to demonstrate that the ST is sound and internally
consistent, and, if the ST is based on one or more PPs or packages, that the ST is a
correct instantiation of these PPs and packages. These properties are necessary for the
ST to be suitable for use as the basis for a TOE evaluation.”
26 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
Assurance Class Assurance Components
Class ASE: Security
Target evaluation
ASE_INT.1 ST introduction
ASE_CCL.1 Conformance claims
ASE_SPD.1 Security problem definition
ASE_OBJ.1 Security objectives for the operational environment
ASE_OBJ.2 Security objectives
ASE_ECD.1 Extended components definition
ASE_REQ.1 Stated security requirements
ASE_REQ.2 Derived security requirements
ASE_TSS.1 TOE summary specification
ASE_TSS.2 TOE summary specification with architectural design
summary
ASE: Security Target evaluation class decomposition
Security assurance components (chapter 7)
“The following Sections describe the constructs used in representing the assurance
classes, families, and components.“
“Each assurance class contains at least one assurance family.”
“Each assurance family contains one or more assurance components.”
The following table shows the assurance class decomposition.
Assurance Class Assurance Components
ADV: Development
ADV_ARC.1 Security architecture description
ADV_FSP.1 Basic functional specification
ADV_FSP.2 Security-enforcing functional specification
ADV_FSP.3 Functional specification with complete summary
ADV_FSP.4 Complete functional specification
ADV_FSP.5 Complete semi-formal functional specification with
additional error information
ADV_FSP.6 Complete semi-formal functional specification with
additional formal specification
ADV_IMP.1 Implementation representation of the TSF
ADV_IMP.2 Implementation of the TSF
ADV_INT.1 Well-structured subset of TSF internals
ADV_INT.2 Well-structured internals
ADV_INT.3 Minimally complex internals
ADV_SPM.1 Formal TOE security policy model
ADV_TDS.1 Basic design
ADV_TDS.2 Architectural design
ADV_TDS.3 Basic modular design
ADV_TDS.4 Semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.5 Complete semiformal modular design
ADV_TDS.6 Complete semiformal modular design with formal high-
27 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Assurance Class Assurance Components
level design presentation
AGD:
Guidance documents
AGD_OPE.1 Operational user guidance
AGD_PRE.1 Preparative procedures
ALC: Life cycle support
ALC_CMC.1 Labelling of the TOE
ALC_CMC.2 Use of a CM system
ALC_CMC.3 Authorisation controls
ALC_CMC.4 Production support, acceptance procedures and
automation
ALC_CMC.5 Advanced support
ALC_CMS.1 TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.2 Parts of the TOE CM coverage
ALC_CMS.3 Implementation representation CM coverage
ALC_CMS.4 Problem tracking CM coverage
ALC_CMS.5 Development tools CM coverage
ALC_DEL.1 Delivery procedures
ALC_DVS.1 Identification of security measures
ALC_DVS.2 Sufficiency of security measures
ALC_FLR.1 Basic flaw remediation
ALC_FLR.2 Flaw reporting procedures
ALC_FLR.3 Systematic flaw remediation
ALC_LCD.1 Developer defined life-cycle model
ALC_LCD.2 Measurable life-cycle model
ALC_TAT.1 Well-defined development tools
ALC_TAT.2 Compliance with implementation standards
ALC_TAT.3 Compliance with implementation standards - all parts
ATE_COV.1 Evidence of coverage
ATE_COV.2 Analysis of coverage
ATE_COV.3 Rigorous analysis of coverage
ATE: Tests
ATE_DPT.1 Testing: basic design
ATE_DPT.2 Testing: security enforcing modules
ATE_DPT.3 Testing: modular design
ATE_DPT.4 Testing: implementation representation
ATE_FUN.1 Functional testing
ATE_FUN.2 Ordered functional testing
ATE_IND.1 Independent testing – conformance
ATE_IND.2 Independent testing – sample
ATE_IND.3 Independent testing – complete
AVA: Vulnerability
assessment
AVA_VAN.1 Vulnerability survey
AVA_VAN.2 Vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.3 Focused vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.4 Methodical vulnerability analysis
AVA_VAN.5 Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis
Assurance class decomposition
28 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance levels (chapter 8)
“The Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs) provide an increasing scale that balances the
level of assurance obtained with the cost and feasibility of acquiring that degree of
assurance. The CC approach identifies the separate concepts of assurance in a TOE at
the end of the evaluation, and of maintenance of that assurance during the operational use
of the TOE.
It is important to note that not all families and components from CC Part 3 are included in
the EALs. This is not to say that these do not provide meaningful and desirable
assurances. Instead, it is expected that these families and components will be considered
for augmentation of an EAL in those PPs and STs for which they provide utility.”
Evaluation assurance level (EAL) overview (chapter 8.1)
“Table 1 represents a summary of the EALs. The columns represent a hierarchically
ordered set of EALs, while the rows represent assurance families. Each number in the
resulting matrix identifies a specific assurance component where applicable.
As outlined in the next Section, seven hierarchically ordered evaluation assurance levels
are defined in the CC for the rating of a TOE's assurance. They are hierarchically ordered
inasmuch as each EAL represents more assurance than all lower EALs. The increase in
assurance from EAL to EAL is accomplished by substitution of a hierarchically higher
assurance component from the same assurance family (i.e. increasing rigour, scope,
and/or depth) and from the addition of assurance components from other assurance
families (i.e. adding new requirements).
These EALs consist of an appropriate combination of assurance components as described
in Chapter 7 of this CC Part 3. More precisely, each EAL includes no more than one
component of each assurance family and all assurance dependencies of every component
are addressed.
While the EALs are defined in the CC, it is possible to represent other combinations of
assurance. Specifically, the notion of “augmentation” allows the addition of assurance
components (from assurance families not already included in the EAL) or the substitution
of assurance components (with another hierarchically higher assurance component in the
same assurance family) to an EAL. Of the assurance constructs defined in the CC, only
EALs may be augmented. The notion of an “EAL minus a constituent assurance
component” is not recognised by the standard as a valid claim. Augmentation carries with
it the obligation on the part of the claimant to justify the utility and added value of the
added assurance component to the EAL. An EAL may also be augmented with extended
assurance requirements.”
29 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Assurance
Class
Assurance
Family
Assurance Components by
Evaluation Assurance Level
EAL1 EAL2 EAL3 EAL4 EAL5 EAL6 EAL7
Development ADV_ARC 1 1 1 1 1 1
ADV_FSP 1 2 3 4 5 5 6
ADV_IMP 1 1 2 2
ADV_INT 2 3 3
ADV_SPM 1 1
ADV_TDS 1 2 3 4 5 6
Guidance
Documents
AGD_OPE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
AGD_PRE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Life cycle
Support
ALC_CMC 1 2 3 4 4 5 5
ALC_CMS 1 2 3 4 5 5 5
ALC_DEL 1 1 1 1 1 1
ALC_DVS 1 1 1 2 2
ALC_FLR
ALC_LCD 1 1 1 1 2
ALC_TAT 1 2 3 3
Security Target
Evaluation
ASE_CCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_ECD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_INT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_OBJ 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
ASR_REQ 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
ASE_SPD 1 1 1 1 1 1
ASE_TSS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tests ATE_COV 1 2 2 2 3 3
ATE_DPT 1 1 3 3 4
ATE_FUN 1 1 1 1 2 2
ATE_IND 1 2 2 2 2 2 3
Vulnerability
assessment
AVA_VAN 1 2 2 3 4 5 5
Table 1: Evaluation assurance level summary
30 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 1 (EAL1) - functionally tested (chapter 8.3)
“Objectives
EAL1 is applicable where some confidence in correct operation is required, but the threats
to security are not viewed as serious. It will be of value where independent assurance is
required to support the contention that due care has been exercised with respect to the
protection of personal or similar information.
EAL1 requires only a limited security target. It is sufficient to simply state the SFRs that the
TOE must meet, rather than deriving them from threats, OSPs and assumptions through
security objectives.
EAL1 provides an evaluation of the TOE as made available to the customer, including
independent testing against a specification, and an examination of the guidance
documentation provided. It is intended that an EAL1 evaluation could be successfully
conducted without assistance from the developer of the TOE, and for minimal outlay.
An evaluation at this level should provide evidence that the TOE functions in a manner
consistent with its documentation.”
Evaluation assurance level 2 (EAL2) - structurally tested (chapter 8.4)
“Objectives
EAL2 requires the co-operation of the developer in terms of the delivery of design
information and test results, but should not demand more effort on the part of the
developer than is consistent with good commercial practise. As such it should not require a
substantially increased investment of cost or time.
EAL2 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
low to moderate level of independently assured security in the absence of ready
availability of the complete development record. Such a situation may arise when securing
legacy systems, or where access to the developer may be limited.”
Evaluation assurance level 3 (EAL3) - methodically tested and checked (chapter 8.5)
“Objectives
EAL3 permits a conscientious developer to gain maximum assurance from positive
security engineering at the design stage without substantial alteration of existing sound
development practises.
EAL3 is applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a moderate
level of independently assured security, and require a thorough investigation of the TOE
and its development without substantial re-engineering.”
31 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Evaluation assurance level 4 (EAL4) - methodically designed, tested, and reviewed
(chapter 8.6)
“Objectives
EAL4 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from positive security engineering
based on good commercial development practises which, though rigorous, do not require
substantial specialist knowledge, skills, and other resources. EAL4 is the highest level at
which it is likely to be economically feasible to retrofit to an existing product line.
EAL4 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
moderate to high level of independently assured security in conventional commodity TOEs
and are prepared to incur additional security-specific engineering costs.”
Evaluation assurance level 5 (EAL5) - semiformally designed and tested (chapter 8.7)
“Objectives
EAL5 permits a developer to gain maximum assurance from security engineering based
upon rigorous commercial development practises supported by moderate application of
specialist security engineering techniques. Such a TOE will probably be designed and
developed with the intent of achieving EAL5 assurance. It is likely that the additional costs
attributable to the EAL5 requirements, relative to rigorous development without the
application of specialised techniques, will not be large.
EAL5 is therefore applicable in those circumstances where developers or users require a
high level of independently assured security in a planned development and require a
rigorous development approach without incurring unreasonable costs attributable to
specialist security engineering techniques.”
Evaluation assurance level 6 (EAL6) - semiformally verified design and tested
(chapter 8.8)
“Objectives
EAL6 permits developers to gain high assurance from application of security engineering
techniques to a rigorous development environment in order to produce a premium TOE for
protecting high value assets against significant risks.
EAL6 is therefore applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in high
risk situations where the value of the protected assets justifies the additional costs.”
32 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
Evaluation assurance level 7 (EAL7) - formally verified design and tested
(chapter 8.9)
“Objectives
EAL7 is applicable to the development of security TOEs for application in extremely high
risk situations and/or where the high value of the assets justifies the higher costs. Practical
application of EAL7 is currently limited to TOEs with tightly focused security functionality
that is amenable to extensive formal analysis.”
Class AVA: Vulnerability assessment (chapter 16)
“The AVA: Vulnerability assessment class addresses the possibility of exploitable
vulnerabilities introduced in the development or the operation of the TOE.”
Vulnerability analysis (AVA_VAN) (chapter 16.1)
"Objectives
Vulnerability analysis is an assessment to determine whether potential vulnerabilities
identified, during the evaluation of the development and anticipated operation of the TOE
or by other methods (e.g. by flaw hypotheses or quantitative or statistical analysis of the
security behaviour of the underlying security mechanisms), could allow attackers to violate
the SFRs.
Vulnerability analysis deals with the threats that an attacker will be able to discover flaws
that will allow unauthorised access to data and functionality, allow the ability to interfere
with or alter the TSF, or interfere with the authorised capabilities of other users.”
33 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
This page is intentionally left blank
34 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
D Annexes
List of annexes of this certification report
Annex A: Security Target provided within a separate document.
Annex B: Evaluation results regarding development
and production environment
35 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
This page is intentionally left blank.
36 / 38
BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011 Certification Report
Annex B of Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
Evaluation results regarding
development and production
environment
The IT product SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java 7.02 SP3 with Common Criteria
Addendum (material no. 51039496) (Target of Evaluation, TOE) has been evaluated at an
approved evaluation facility using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation
(CEM), Version 3.1 and guidance specific for the technology of the product for
conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1.
As a result of the TOE certification, dated 8 February 2011, the following results regarding
the development and production environment apply. The Common Criteria assurance
requirements ALC – Life cycle support (ALC_CMC.4, ALC_CMS.4, ALC_DEL.1,
ALC_DVS.1, ALC_FLR.1, ALC_LCD.1, ALC_TAT.1)
are fulfilled for the development and production sites of the TOE listed below:
a) SAP AG, Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16, 69190 Walldorf; Germany (Development)
b) SAP AG, Raiffeisenring 45, 68789 St.Leon-Rot, Germany (Development and
Production)
c) SAP Labs Israel, 15 Ha'tidhhar St', 43665 Ra'anana, Israel (Development)
d) SAP Labs Bulgaria, Бул.”Цар Борис” III 136 А, 1618 Sofia, Bulgaria (Development)
e) SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd., #138, EPIP Zone Whitefield Bangalore – 560066, India
(Development)
f) SAP Moscow, Представительство SAP AG в, России Moskau, Russia 115054
г.Москва Космодамианская наб., 52/2 (Development)
For the sites listed above, the requirements have been specifically applied in accordance
with the Security Target [6]. The evaluators verified, that the threats, security objectives
and requirements for the TOE life cycle phases up to delivery (as stated in the Security
Target [6]) are fulfilled by the procedures of these sites.
37 / 38
Certification Report BSI-DSZ-CC-0659-2011
This page is intentionally left blank.
38 / 38