National Information Assurance Partnership Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme Validation Report for the Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Report Number: CCEVS-VR-VID11421-2024 Dated: July 18, 2024 Version: 1.0 National Institute of Standards and Technology Department of Defense Information Technology Laboratory ATTN: NIAP, SUITE: 6982 100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort Meade, MD 20755-6982 ® TM Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Validation Team Lauren Brandt Jenn Dotson Sheldon Durrant Lori Sarem The MITRE Corporation Anne Gugel Robert Wojcik John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Common Criteria Testing Laboratory Sean Bennett Wasif Sikder Khushmit Kaur Nil Folquer Lightship Security USA, Inc. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 iii Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1 2. Identification............................................................................................................... 2 3. Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 4 3.1. TOE Evaluated Configuration ........................................................................ 4 3.2. Physical Boundary .......................................................................................... 4 3.3. Required Non-TOE Hardware, Software, and Firmware ............................... 9 4. Security Policy.......................................................................................................... 10 4.1. Security Audit............................................................................................... 10 4.2. Cryptographic Support.................................................................................. 10 4.3. Residual Data Protection............................................................................... 10 4.4. Stateful Traffic & Packet Filtering ............................................................... 10 4.5. Identification and Authentication ................................................................. 10 4.6. Security Management ................................................................................... 10 4.7. Protection of the TSF.................................................................................... 10 4.8. TOE Access .................................................................................................. 10 4.9. Trusted Path/Channels .................................................................................. 11 5. Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 12 6. Clarification of Scope ............................................................................................... 13 7. Documentation.......................................................................................................... 14 8. IT Product Testing .................................................................................................... 15 8.1. Developer Testing......................................................................................... 15 8.2. Evaluation Team Independent Testing ......................................................... 15 8.3. Evaluated Configuration............................................................................... 15 9. Results of the Evaluation .......................................................................................... 19 9.1. Evaluation of Security Target (ASE)............................................................ 19 9.2. Evaluation of Development Documentation (ADV) .................................... 19 9.3. Evaluation of Guidance Documents (AGD)................................................. 19 9.4. Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)..................................... 20 9.5. Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ................. 20 9.6. Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)................................................... 20 9.7. Summary of Evaluation Results.................................................................... 22 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 iv 10. Validator Comments................................................................................................. 23 11. Annexes..................................................................................................................... 24 12. Security Target.......................................................................................................... 25 13. Glossary .................................................................................................................... 26 14. Acronym List ............................................................................................................ 27 15. Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 28 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 1 1. Executive Summary This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) Validation team of the evaluation of Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 provided by Fortinet, Inc. It presents the evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance results. This Validation Report (VR) is not an endorsement of the Target of Evaluation (TOE) by any agency of the U.S. government, and no warranty is either expressed or implied. The evaluation was performed by the Lightship Security USA Common Criteria Laboratory (CCTL) in Baltimore, MD, United States of America, and was completed in July 2024. The information in this report is largely derived from the Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test reports, all written by Lightship Security (LS). The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant and meets the assurance requirements of the PP-Configuration for Network Devices, Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, and Virtual Private Network Gateways, Version 1.3 (CFG_NDcPP-FW-VPNGW_V1.3), which includes the Base-PP: Collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.2e, 23 March 2020 (CPP_ND_V2.2E), and the PP-Modules: PP-Module for VPN Gateways, Version 1.3, 16 August 2023 (MOD_VPNGW_v1.3) and PP-Module for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, Version 1.4 + Errata 20200625, 25 June 2020 (MOD_CPP_FW_v1.4e). The TOE is Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0. The TOE identified in this VR has been evaluated at a NIAP approved CCTL using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 5) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 5). This VR 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 (CCEVS) and the conclusions of the testing laboratory in the ETR 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 ETR are consistent with the evidence produced. The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Security Target, Version 1.5, July 2024, and analysis performed by the Validation Team. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 2 2. Identification The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 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) using the Common Evaluation Methodology (CEM) in accordance with National Voluntary Laboratory Assessment Program (NVLAP) accreditation. 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 TOE: the fully qualified identifier of the product as evaluated. • The ST, describing the security features, claims, and assurances of the product. • The conformance result of the evaluation. • The Protection Profiles 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 Evaluated Product Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Sponsor and Developer Fortinet, Inc. 899 Kifer Road Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CCTL Lightship Security USA, Inc. 3600 O’Donnell St., Suite 2 Baltimore, MD 21224 CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 3 Item Identifier CEM Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation: Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017. Protection Profile PP-Configuration for Network Devices, Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, and Virtual Private Network Gateways, Version 1.3 (CFG_NDcPP-FW-VPNGW_V1.3) This PP-Configuration includes the following components: i) Base-PP: collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.2e (CPP_ND_V2.2E) ii) PP-Module: PP-Module for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, Version 1.4e (MOD_FW_V1.4E) iii) PP-Module: PP-Module for VPN Gateways, Version 1.3 (MOD_VPNGW_V1.3) ST FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Security Target, Version 1.5, July 2024 Evaluation Technical Report Fortinet, Inc., FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Evaluation Technical Report, Version 0.7, July 2024 Conformance Result CC Part 2 Extended, CC Part 3 Conformant Evaluation Personnel Sean Bennett, Wasif Sikder, Khushmit Kaur, Nil Folquer CCEVS Validators Lauren Brandt, Jenn Dotson, Sheldon Durrant, Lori Sarem, Anne Gugel, Robert Wojcik Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 4 3. Architectural Information Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the Security Target. FortiGate Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW) appliances running FortiOS software are designed to provide high performance, multilayered security functionality and allows for granular visibility and protection of enterprise network traffic. 3.1. TOE Evaluated Configuration The TOE is Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Version 7.0.12 (FIPS-CC-70-16) running on a physical or virtual device. The physical and virtual devices are listed in Section 3.2. The TOE contains the following logical interfaces: • CLI. Administrative CLI via direct serial connection or SSH. • GUI. Administrative web GUI via HTTPS. • Remote Logging. Forwarding of TOE audit events to a remote audit server, which is a Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, via TLS. • CRL. Certificate revocation communication via HTTP. • VPN Gateway. VPN connections via IPsec. • WAN/Internet. External IP interface. • LAN/Internal. Internal IP interface. 3.2. Physical Boundary The physical boundary of the TOE includes the FortiGate hardware models shown in Table 2 and the virtual appliances and related hardware shown in Table 3. Table 2: TOE Hardware Models Model CPU Architecture RAM Boot Storage ASIC Entropy CAVP FG-61E Fortinet SoC3 ARMv7-A 2 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC3 A2229 A2270 A2241 FG-61F Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 2 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 XLite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FWF-61E Fortinet SoC3 ARMv7-A 2 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC3 A2229 A2270 A2241 FWF-61F Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 2 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 XLite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 5 Model CPU Architecture RAM Boot Storage ASIC Entropy CAVP FG-71F Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 4 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 XLite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FG-81E Fortinet SoC3 ARMv7-A 2 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC3 A2229 A2270 A2241 FG-81E- PoE Fortinet SoC3 ARMv7-A 2 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC3 A2229 A2270 A2241 FG-81F Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 4 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 XLite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FG-81F- PoE Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 4 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 XLite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FWF-81F- 2R Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 4 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FWF-81F- 2R-3G4G- PoE Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 4 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FWF-81F- 2R-PoE Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 4 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FG-91E Fortinet SoC3 ARMv7-A 2 GB 8GB 128GB CP9 Lite SoC3 A2229 A2270 A2241 FG-101E Fortinet SoC3 ARMv7-A 4 GB 8GB 480GB CP9 Lite SoC3 A2229 A2270 A2241 FG-101F Fortinet SoC4 ARMv8 4 GB 8GB 480GB CP9 XLite SoC4 A2229 A2270 A2242 FG-201E Intel Celeron G1820 Haswell 4GB 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 6 Model CPU Architecture RAM Boot Storage ASIC Entropy CAVP FG-201F Intel Xeon D-1627 Hewitt Lake 8GB 30G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-301E Intel i5- 6500 SkyLake 8GB 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-401E Intel i5- 8500 Coffee Lake 8GB 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-401E- DC Intel i5- 8500 Coffee Lake 8GB 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-401F Intel Xeon E-2336 Cypress Cove (Rocket Lake) 16G B 30G B 960GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-501E Intel i7- 6700 SkyLake 16G B 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-601E Intel i7- 8700 Coffee Lake 16 GB 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-601F Intel Xeon E-2386G Cypress Cove (Rocket Lake) 16 GB 30G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-1101E Intel Xeon E-2186G Coffee Lake 16 GB 16G B 960GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-1801F Intel Xeon W-3223 Cascade Lake 24G B 30G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG- 1801F-DC Intel Xeon W-3223 Cascade Lake 24G B 30G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-2000E Intel Xeon E5- 1660v4 Broadwell 32 GB 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 7 Model CPU Architecture RAM Boot Storage ASIC Entropy CAVP FG-2201E Intel Xeon Gold 6126 SkyLake 24 GB 16G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-2500E Intel Xeon E5- 1650v3 Haswell 32 GB 16G B 480GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-2601F Intel Xeon Gold 6208U Cascade Lake 48 GB 30 GB 2 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG- 2601F-DC Intel Xeon Gold 6208U Cascade Lake 48 GB 30 GB 2 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-3001F AMD EPYC 7502P (Rome) Zen 2 128 GB 30G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-3301E Intel Xeon Gold 5118 SkyLake 96 GB 16G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-3401E Intel Xeon Gold 6130 SkyLake 96 GB 16G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG- 3401E-DC Intel Xeon Gold 6130 SkyLake 96 GB 16G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-3501F AMD EPYC 7542 (Rome) Zen 2 256 GB 30G B 4TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-3601E Intel Xeon Gold 6152 SkyLake 96 GB 16G B 2TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-4201F Intel Xeon Gold 6248 Cascade Lake 384 GB 30 GB 4 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG- 4201F-DC Intel Xeon Gold 6248 Cascade Lake 384 GB 30 GB 4 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 8 Model CPU Architecture RAM Boot Storage ASIC Entropy CAVP FG-4401F Intel Xeon Gold 6248 Cascade Lake 384 GB 30 GB 4 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG- 4401F-DC Intel Xeon Gold 6248 Cascade Lake 384 GB 30 GB 4 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG- 5001E1 Intel Xeon E5- 2690v4 Broadwell 64G B 16G B 480 GB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-6300F Intel Xeon D-1567 Broadwell 192G B 16G B 2 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-6301F Intel Xeon D-1567 Broadwell 192G B 16G B 2 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-6500F Intel Xeon D-1567 Broadwell 320G B 16G B 2 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 FG-6501F Intel Xeon D-1567 Broadwell 320G B 16G B 2 TB CP9 CP9 A2229 A2270 A2240 Table 3: TOE Virtual Appliance and Related Hardware Model License Hypervisor CPU* Entropy CAVP FortiGate- VM (FG-VM) VM01 (1x vCPU core and unlimited RAM) VMware ESXi 6.7 Intel Xeon D-1559 (Broadwell) Intel Xeon E3-1515MV5 (Skylake) Intel Xeon E-2276ME (Coffee Lake) Token via USB pass- through** A2292 A2299 VM02 (2x vCPU cores and unlimited RAM) VM04 (4x vCPU cores and unlimited RAM) VM08 (8x vCPU cores and unlimited RAM) Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 9 Model License Hypervisor CPU* Entropy CAVP VM16 (16x vCPU cores and unlimited RAM) VM32 (32x vCPU cores and unlimited RAM) VMUL (Unlimited vCPU cores and RAM) * Provided with PacStar 451/455 3.3. Required Non-TOE Hardware, Software, and Firmware The TOE operates with the following components in the environment: • Admin’s Workstation. The TOE makes use of a separate workstation for administrative purposes. • Audit Server. The TOE makes use of a FortiAnalyzer for remote logging. • VPN Endpoints. The TOE supports FortiGate VPN endpoints. • CRL Web Server. Web server capable of serving up CRLs over HTTP. • Hypervisor Environment. The TOE virtual appliances can be deployed to. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 10 4. Security Policy This section summarizes the security functionality of the TOE: 4.1. Security Audit The TOE generates logs for auditable events. These logs can be stored locally in protected storage and/or exported to an external audit server via a secure channel. 4.2. Cryptographic Support The TOE implements a variety of key generation and cryptographic methods to provide protection of data both in transit and at rest within the TOE. In the evaluated configuration, the TOE is in FIPS mode to support the cryptographic functionality. The TOE implements cryptographic protocols such as SSH, TLS, HTTPS, and IPsec. 4.3. Residual Data Protection The TOE ensures that data cannot be recovered once deallocated. Data is removed through zeroization. 4.4. Stateful Traffic & Packet Filtering The TOE allows for the configuration and enforcement of stateful packet filtering/firewall rules on all traffic traversing the TOE. 4.5. Identification and Authentication The TOE implements mechanisms to ensure that users are both identified and authenticated before any access to TOE functionality or TSF data is granted. Remote login attempts are limited to an administrator-configured threshold, after which the user must wait for a defined period before login attempts can be made. It provides the ability to both assign attributes (usernames, passwords and roles) and to authenticate users against these attributes. The TOE also provides X.509 certificate validation for its TLS and IPsec connections. 4.6. Security Management The TOE provides a suite of management functionality, allowing for full configuration of the TOE by an authorized administrator. 4.7. Protection of the TSF The TOE implements several protection mechanisms (including authentication requirements, self-tests and trusted update) to ensure the protection of the TOE and all TSF data. The TOE maintains its own time source free from outside interference for the purpose of generating logs and executing time sensitive operations. 4.8. TOE Access The TOE provides session management functions for local and remote administrative sessions. Administrative sessions have a defined lifetime for both local and remote Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 11 sessions, users connecting to the TOE will be presented with a warning and consent banner prior to authentication. 4.9. Trusted Path/Channels The TOE provides secure channels between itself and local/remote administrators and other devices to ensure data security during transit. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 12 5. Assumptions The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, can be found in the following documents: • collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.2e, 23 March 2020 • PP-Module for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, v1.4e, 25 June 2020 • PP-Module for VPN Gateways, 1.3, 16 August 2023 That information has not been reproduced here and CPP_ND_V2.2E, MOD_CPP_FW_v1.4e, and MOD_VPNGW_V1.3 should be consulted if there is interest in that material. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 13 6. Clarification of Scope The scope of this evaluation was limited to the functionality and assurances covered in CPP_ND_V2.2E, MOD_FW_V1.4E and MOD_VPNGW_V1.3 as described for this TOE in the Security Target. Other functionality included in the product was not assessed as part of this evaluation. All other functionality provided by the devices needs to be assessed separately, and no further conclusions can be drawn about their effectiveness. 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 in accordance with the evaluation activities specified in CPP_ND_V2.2-SD, MOD_FW_v1.4E-SD and MOD_VPNGW_v1.3- SD and performed by the Evaluation team • This evaluation covers only the specific software version identified in this document, and not any earlier or later versions released or in process. • This evaluation did not specifically search for, nor attempt to exploit, 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 CPP_ND_V2.2E, MOD_FW_V1.4E and MOD_VPNGW_V1.3 and applicable Technical Decisions. Any additional security related functional capabilities of the TOE were not covered by this evaluation. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 14 7. Documentation The following guidance documents are provided with the TOE upon delivery in accordance with the PP: • FortiOS 7.0 and FortiGate NGFW Appliances FIPS 140-2 and NDcPP Common Criteria Technote, 01-7012-0901346-20240715, July 15, 2024 • FortiOS 7.0.12 Administration Guide, Version 7.0.12, 01-7012-700620-20231020 • FortiOS 7.0.12 CLI Reference, Version 7.0.12, 01-7012-709094-20230728 • FortiOS 7.0.12 Log Reference, Version 7.0.12, 01-7012-709077-20230608 • NDcPP Logging Addendum for FortiOS 7.0 and FortiGate NGFW Appliances, April 10, 2024, 01-712-922520-20240410 • Fortinet FortiOS 7.0.12 Hardware Acceleration Guide, Version 7.0.12 01-7012- 538746-20230727 • FortiOS 6.4.0 Parallel Path Processing, Version 7.0.12, January 25, 2021, 01-640- 619132-20210125 • FortiOS 7.0 VMware ESXi Administration Guide, August 30, 2022, 01-700- 705048-20220830 All documentation delivered with the product is relevant to and within the scope of the TOE. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 15 8. IT Product Testing This section describes the testing efforts of the evaluation team. It is derived from information contained in the Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Assurance Activity Report, v0.6, July 2024 and proprietary DTR FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Detailed Test Report 0.4, June 2024. It provides an overview of testing and the prescribed evaluation activities. 8.1. Developer Testing No evidence of developer testing is required in the SARs or Evaluation Activities. 8.2. Evaluation Team Independent Testing The Evaluation team conducted independent testing at Lightship Security USA in Baltimore, MD from August 2023 until April 2024. The Evaluation team configured the TOE according to vendor installation instructions and as identified in the ST. The Evaluation team confirmed the technical accuracy of the setup and installation guide during installation of the TOE. The Evaluation team confirmed that the TOE version delivered for testing was identical to the version identified in the ST. The Evaluation team used the PP test procedures as a basis for creating each of the independent tests as required by the Evaluation Activities. Each Evaluation Activity was tested as required by the conformant PP and the evaluation team verified that each test passed. 8.3. Evaluated Configuration The TOE testing environment components are identified in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Table 66 below. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 16 Figure 1: Testing Environment Overview Figure 2: FFW and FPF Test setup The evaluator performed full end-to-end testing on the FortiGate VM with VMware ESXi 6.7 and Intel Xeon D-1559 CPU, the FortiGate 2000E and the FortiGate 3001F models. IPsec was also tested on the FortiGate 81E and 81F. Table 6: Tools Used for Testing Tool name Version Description Firefox 91.6.0esr Web Browser for GUI access (evaluator dependent). Chrome 124.0.6367.61 (Official Build) (64- bit) Web Browser for GUI access (evaluator dependent). OpenSSH 8.8p1 SSH server/client OpenSSL 1.1.1m General purpose crypto tool Netcat 1.10-47 TCP/UDP Server/Client Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 17 Tool name Version Description hping3 3.0.0-alpha-2 Arbitrary IPv4 packet creation sendip 2.6-1 Arbitrary IPv4 & IPv6 packet creation apache2 2.4.52 HTTP server Nmap 7.92 Port/Protocol Scanner Scapy 2.4.5 Send custom packets Python 3.9.10 Supports Scapy tcpdump 4.99.1 Packet capture vsftp 3.0.3-13 FTP server. Testssl.sh 3.0.8 SSL/TLS Server vulnerability scanner. Green Light 3.0.47 Custom Lightship Test Tool that performs protocol manipulation and corruption. Includes: Scapy 2.4.5 Python 3.9.10 OpenSSH 8.8p1-Lightship-1.1.1 OpenSSL 1.0.2g-LS 1 Mar 2016 OpenSSH 7.9p1 SSH client for accessing the Remote CLI OpenSSL 1.1.1n General purpose crypto tool. strongSwan 5.7.2 IPsec peer strongSwan (LS) 5.7.1-Lightship Custom strongSwan build for FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1 Python3 3.7.3 HTTP server Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 18 Tool name Version Description tcpdump 4.9.3 Packet capture strongSwan U5.9.8 VPN Peer for FPF testing Python/Python3 3.11.2 Support Scapy Scapy 2.5.0 Send custom packets Green Light 3.0.41 Custom Lightship Test Tool that performs protocol manipulation and corruption. Includes: Scapy 2.4.4 Python 3.9.2 OpenSSH 8.8p1-Lightship-1.0.1 OpenSSL 1.0.2g-LS 1 Mar 2016 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 19 9. Results of the Evaluation The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are presented in detail in the proprietary documents: the Detailed Test Report (DTR) and the Evaluation Technical Report (ETR). The reader of this document can assume that all 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 Revision 5 and CEM Version 3.1 Revision 5. The evaluation determined Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 to be Part 2 extended, and meets the SARs contained in the PP. Additionally, the evaluator performed the Evaluation Activities specified in CPP_ND_V2.2-SD, MOD_FW_v1.4e-SD, MOD_VPNGW_v1.3-SD. 9.1. Evaluation of 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 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 that are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that support the requirements. The Validation team reviewed the work of the Evaluation team and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the Evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the Evaluation team was justified. 9.2. Evaluation of Development Documentation (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 ST and Guidance documents. Additionally, the evaluator performed the Evaluation Activities related to the examination of the information contained in the TSS. The Validation 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. 9.3. Evaluation of 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 the guides were assessed during the design and testing phases of the evaluation to ensure they were complete. The Validation team reviewed the work of the Evaluation team and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the Evaluation team to confirm that the Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 20 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 Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) The Evaluation team applied each ALC CEM work unit. The Evaluation team found that the TOE was appropriately labeled with a unique identifier consistent with the TOE identification in the evaluation evidence and that the TOE references used are consistent. The Validation team reviewed the work of the Evaluation team and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the Evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the Evaluation team was justified. 9.5. Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) The Evaluation team applied each ATE CEM work unit. The Evaluation team ran the set of tests specified by the Test Evaluation Activities and recorded the results in a Test Report, summarized in the AAR. The Validation team 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 vulnerability analysis is in the Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Vulnerability Assessment, v0.3, report prepared by the Evaluation team. The vulnerability analysis includes a public search for vulnerabilities. The public search for vulnerabilities conducted on June 28, 2024, did not uncover any residual vulnerability. The Evaluation team searched: • NIST National Vulnerabilities Database (can be used to access CVE and US-CERT databases identified below): https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search • US-CERT: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/html/search • Tenable Network Security: https://www.tenable.com/plugins • Tipping Point Zero Day Initiative: https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories • Offensive Security Exploit Database: https://www.exploit-db.com/ • Rapid7 Vulnerability Database: https://www.rapid7.com/db/vulnerabilities • Fortinet FortiGuard Services: https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 21 The Evaluation team performed a search using the following keywords: • Each FortiGate hardware and virtual model. • FortiOS 7.0.12 • FIPS-CC-70 • Each Processor and Crypto Accelerator used by the TOE. • OpenSSL 1.1.1u • OpenSSH 7.1 • TLS • IPSec • Fortinet Entropy Token • Araneus USB TRNG hardware token • Araneus Alea • Apache 2.4.52 • Firewall • TCP, UDP, IPv4, IPv6, TLS, IPsec, SSH, ICMP, ICMPv6 When possible, the Evaluation team identified a CPE associated with the search term. A non-SFR relevant information disclosure flaw (CVE-2024-23662) was identified by the evaluators. The vendor has already patched later releases (versions 7.2 and 7.4), but after investigating backporting the patch to the evaluated version 7.0, it was determined that there was a substantial risk in breaking functionality in the TOE’s GUI interface (details provided in the AVA) due to the differences between the versions. Upon inspection, the flaw does exist in the product; however, the impact is low, and the flaw does not affect functionality covered by the SFRs. The information disclosed allows an attacker to determine the TOE version (fingerprinting); however, the vulnerable interface is on a separate interface/subnet and not exposed to the LAN and WAN traffic. Additionally, a successful exploit would only expose the attacker to the TOE version so the attacker would need to use this information to launch a multi-phased attack (and leverage additional vulnerabilities) to impact or gain access to TOE functionality. Given no other vulnerabilities were identified that could be subject to exploit, the Evaluation team concluded that an attacker’s chance of success is low. The Validation team 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. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 22 9.7. Summary of Evaluation Results The Evaluation team's assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims in the ST are met. Additionally, the Evaluation team's test activities also demonstrated the accuracy of the claims in the ST. The Validation team's assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it demonstrates that the Evaluation team followed the procedures defined in the CEM and performed the Evaluation Activities in CPP_ND_V2.2-SD, MOD_FW_v1.4e-SD, MOD_VPNGW_v1.3-SD, and correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 23 10. Validator Comments The Validation team notes that the evaluated configuration is dependent upon the TOE being configured per the evaluated configuration instructions in the documentation referenced in Section 7 of this VR. Consumers are encouraged to download the configuration guides from the NIAP website to ensure the device is configured as evaluated. Any additional customer documentation provided with the product, or that is available online was not included in the scope of the evaluation and, therefore, should not be relied upon when configuring or operating the device as evaluated. The functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the security functional requirements specified in the ST. Other functionality included in the product was not assessed as part of this evaluation. Other functionality provided by devices in the operational environment needs to be assessed separately and no further conclusions can be drawn about their effectiveness. No versions of the TOE and software, either earlier or later, were evaluated. This configuration only includes the VMWare ESXi6.7 hypervisor; other hypervisors are not part of the evaluated configuration. Additionally, FortiAnalyzer is the only remote audit server supported for this evaluation, because it supports a TLS channel. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 24 11. Annexes Not applicable. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 25 12. Security Target Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0, Version 1.5, July 2024 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 26 13. GLOSSARY • 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. • Threat: Means through which the ability or intent of a threat agent to adversely affect the primary functionality of the TOE, facility that contains the TOE, or malicious operation directed towards the TOE. A potential violation of security. • 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. • Vulnerabilities: A vulnerability is a hardware, firmware, or software flaw that leaves an Automated Information System (AIS) open for potential exploitation. A weakness in automated system security procedures, administrative controls, physical layout, internal controls, and so forth, which could be exploited by a threat to gain unauthorized access to information or disrupt critical processing. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 27 14. Acronym List CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program (CAVP) CCEVS Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme CCIMB Common Criteria Interpretations Management Board CCTL Common Criteria Testing Laboratories CEM Common Evaluation Methodology for IT Security Evaluation LS Lightship Security USA CCTL DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol ETR Evaluation Technical Report IT Information Technology LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol MFD Multi-Function Device NIAP National Information Assurance Partnership NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NSA National Security Agency NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Assessment Program OS Operating System OSP Organizational Security Policies PCL Products Compliant List ST Security Target TOE Target of Evaluation VR Validation Report Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 28 15. Bibliography 1. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 1: Introduction and General Model, CCMB-2017-04-001, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017 2. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Security functional requirements, CCMB-2017-04-002, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017 3. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security assurance requirements, CCMB-2017-04-003, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017 4. Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Evaluation Methodology, CCMB-2017-04-004, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017 5. collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.2e, 23 March 2020 6. PP-Module for Stateful Traffic Filter Firewalls, Version 1.4 + Errata 20200625, 25 June 2020 7. PP-Module for VPN Gateways, Version 1.3, 16 August 2023 8. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Security Target, Version 1.5, July 2024 9. FortiOS 7.0 and FortiGate NGFW Appliances FIPS 140-2 and NDcPP Common Criteria Technote, 01-7012-0901346-20240715, July 15, 2024 10. FortiOS 7.0.12 Administration Guide, Version 7.0.12, 01-7012-700620- 20231020 11. FortiOS 7.0.12 CLI Reference, Version 7.0.12, 01-7012-709094-20230728 12. FortiOS 7.0.12 Log Reference, Version 7.0.12, 01-7012-709077-20230608 13. NDcPP Logging Addendum for FortiOS 7.0 and FortiGate NGFW Appliances, April 10, 2024, 01-712-922520-20240410 14. Fortinet FortiOS 7.0.12 Hardware Acceleration Guide, Version 7.0.12 01-7012- 538746-20230727 15. FortiOS 6.4.0 Parallel Path Processing, Version 7.0.12, January 25, 2021, 01- 640-619132-20210125 16. FortiOS 7.0 VMware ESXi Administration Guide, August 30, 2022, 01-700- 705048-20220830 17. Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Assurance Activity Report, v0.6, July 2024 18. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Vulnerability Assessment, v0.3, June 2024 19. Fortinet, Inc., FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Evaluation Technical Report, v0.7, July 2024 20. Fortinet, Inc., FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 NDcPPv2.2E Test Plan, v0.4, June 2024 21. Fortinet, Inc., FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 MOD_CPP_FW_v1.4e Test Plan, v0.2, April 2024 Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Validation Report, Version 1.0 29 22. Fortinet, Inc., FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 MOD_VPNGWv1.3 Test Plan, v0.5, June 2024 23. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-2000E NDcPP 2.2E Test Evidence, v0.4, June 2024 24. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-3001F NDcPP 2.2E Test Evidence, v0.4, June 2024 25. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-VM NDcPP 2.2E Test Evidence, v0.4, June 2024 26. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-2000E MOD_CPP_FW_v1.4e Evidence, v0.2, April 2024 27. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-3001F MOD_CPP_FW_v1.4e Evidence, v0.2, April 2024 28. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-VM MOD_CPP_FW_v1.4e Evidence, v0.2, April 2024 29. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-2000E MOD_VPNGWv1.3 Test Evidence, v0.3, April 2024 30. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-3001F MOD_VPNGWv1.3 Test Evidence, v0.3, April 2024 31. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-VM MOD_VPNGWv1.3 Test Evidence, v0.3, April 2024 32. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-81E MOD_VPNGWv1.3 Test Evidence, v0.2, April 2024 33. Fortinet, Inc. FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 FG-81F MOD_VPNGWv1.3 Test Evidence, v0.2, April 2024 34. Fortinet, Inc., FortiGate/FortiOS 7.0 Detailed Test Report 0.4, June 2024