TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V.
Head Office:
Westervoortsedijk 73
NL-6827 AV Arnhem
P.O. Box 2220
NL-6802 CE Arnhem
The Netherlands
Location Leek:
Eiberkamp 10
NL-9351 VT Leek
P.O. Box 37
NL-9350 AA Leek
The Netherlands
info@nl.tuv.com
www.tuv.com/nl
Tel. +31 (0)88 888 7 888
Fax +31 (0)88 888 7 879
TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. is a
registered company at the
Netherlands Chamber of Commerce
(KVK), under number 27288788.
VAT number: NL815820380B01
IBAN: NL61DEUT0265155096
Version
2022-02
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Certification Report
PKE4 Core version 4.1
Sponsor and developer: Rambus Inc.
4453 North First Street, Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Evaluation facility: SGS Brightsight B.V.
Brassersplein 2
2612 CT Delft
The Netherlands
Report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR
Report version: 1
Project number: 0503107
Author(s): Wim Ton and Jordi Mujal
Date: 11 December 2023
Number of pages: 12
Number of appendices: 0
Reproduction of this report is authorised only if the report is reproduced in its entirety.
Page: 2/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
CONTENTS
Foreword 3
Recognition of the Certificate 4
International recognition 4
European recognition 4
1 Executive Summary 5
2 Certification Results 6
2.1 Identification of Target of Evaluation 6
2.2 Security Policy 6
2.3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 6
2.3.1 Assumptions 6
2.3.2 Clarification of scope 7
2.4 Architectural Information 7
2.5 Documentation 8
2.6 IT Product Testing 8
2.6.1 Testing approach and depth 8
2.6.2 Independent penetration testing 8
2.6.3 Test configuration 9
2.6.4 Test results 9
2.7 Reused Evaluation Results 9
2.8 Evaluated Configuration 9
2.9 Evaluation Results 9
2.10 Comments/Recommendations 9
3 Security Target 11
4 Definitions 11
5 Bibliography 12
Page: 3/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Foreword
The Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the Area of IT Security (NSCIB) provides a third-party
evaluation and certification service for determining the trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT)
security products. Under this NSCIB, TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. has the task of issuing
certificates for IT security products, as well as for protection profiles and sites.
Part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product, protection profile or site
according to the Common Criteria assessment guidelines published by the NSCIB. Evaluations are
performed by an IT Security Evaluation Facility (ITSEF) under the oversight of the NSCIB Certification
Body, which is operated by TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. in cooperation with the Ministry of the
Interior and Kingdom Relations.
An ITSEF in the Netherlands is a commercial facility that has been licensed by TÜV Rheinland
Nederland B.V. to perform Common Criteria evaluations; a significant requirement for such a licence is
accreditation to the requirements of ISO Standard 17025 “General requirements for the accreditation
of calibration and testing laboratories”.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. asserts that the product or
site complies with the security requirements specified in the associated (site) security target, or that
the protection profile (PP) complies with the requirements for PP evaluation specified in the Common
Criteria for Information Security Evaluation. A (site) security target is a requirements specification
document that defines the scope of the evaluation activities.
The consumer should review the (site) security target or protection profile, in addition to this
certification report, to gain an understanding of any assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT
product's intended environment, its security requirements, and the level of confidence (i.e., the
evaluation assurance level) that the product or site satisfies the security requirements stated in the
(site) security target.
Reproduction of this report is authorised only if the report is reproduced in its entirety.
Page: 4/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
Recognition of the Certificate
The presence of the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) and the SOG-IS logos on the
certificate indicates that this certificate is issued in accordance with the provisions of the CCRA and
the SOG-IS Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOG-IS MRA) and will be recognised by the participating
nations.
International recognition
The CCRA was signed by the Netherlands in May 2000 and provides mutual recognition of certificates
based on the Common Criteria (CC). Since September 2014 the CCRA has been updated to provide
mutual recognition of certificates based on cPPs (exact use) or STs with evaluation assurance
components up to and including EAL2+ALC_FLR.
For details of the current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes, see
http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org.
European recognition
The SOG-IS MRA Version 3, effective since April 2010, provides mutual recognition in Europe of
Common Criteria and ITSEC certificates at a basic evaluation level for all products. A higher
recognition level for evaluation levels beyond EAL4 (respectively E3-basic) is provided for products
related to specific technical domains. This agreement was signed initially by Finland, France,
Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Italy joined the SOG-IS
MRA in December 2010.
For details of the current list of signatory nations, approved certification schemes and the list of
technical domains for which the higher recognition applies, see https://www.sogis.eu.
Page: 5/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
1 Executive Summary
This Certification Report states the outcome of the Common Criteria security evaluation of the PKE4
Core version 4.1. The developer of the PKE4 Core version 4.1 is Rambus Inc. located in San Jose,
USA and they also act as the sponsor of the evaluation and certification. A Certification Report is
intended to assist prospective consumers when judging the suitability of the IT security properties of
the product for their particular requirements.
The TOE is a Soft-IP cryptographic hardware block designed to perform public-key cryptographic
operations. The TOE is delivered to the integrator as synthesizable Verilog RTL description together
with other supporting SW files and guidance. The integrator is responsible for integrating the TOE into
their system, which is referred to as the Security IC throughout this document.
The TOE is not in itself a Security IC, it supports development of Security IC.
The evaluation and certification of this TOE was performed to enable re-use of the PKE4 Core IP into
an EAL4+ Security IC, hence to fulfil the composition requirements [COMP] assurance up to and
including EAL4 augmented (EAL4(+)) is needed.
Due to the form of the TOE (Verilog), only a limited amount of attacks is directly applicable and
countered by the TOE. For example, physical attacks are not countered by this TOE. Users of the
TOE, developers of a Security IC, must strictly follow the guidance and must successfully pass
a composite evaluation against [PP_0084] to claim full EAL4+ and/or AVA_VAN.5 resistance.
This TOE is critically dependent on the operational environment to provide countermeasures against
specific attacks as described in guidance documents. As such it is vital that meticulous adherence to
the user guidance of the TOE is maintained. During composition into a full Security IC, significant
vulnerability analysis and testing must be performed. However, the [ETRfR] and the guidance enable
efficient re-use.
The TOE has been evaluated by SGS Brightsight B.V. located in Delft, The Netherlands. The
evaluation was completed on 11 December 2023 with the approval of the ETR. The certification
procedure has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Netherlands Scheme for
Certification in the Area of IT Security [NSCIB].
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target [ST], which identifies assumptions made
during the evaluation, the intended environment for the PKE4 Core version 4.1, the security
requirements, and the level of confidence (evaluation assurance level) at which the product is
intended to satisfy the security requirements. Consumers of the PKE4 Core version 4.1 are advised to
verify that their own environment is consistent with the security target, and to give due consideration to
the comments, observations and recommendations in this certification report.
The results documented in the evaluation technical report [ETR] 1 for this product provide sufficient
evidence that the TOE meets the EAL4 augmented (EAL4+) assurance requirements for the evaluated
security functionality. This assurance level is augmented with ALC_DVS.2 (Sufficiency of security
measures), ATE_DPT.2 (Testing: Security Enforcing Modules) and AVA_VAN.5 (Advanced
methodical vulnerability analysis).
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5 [CEM] for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information
Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5 [CC] (Parts I, II and III).
TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V., as the NSCIB Certification Body, declares that the evaluation meets
all the conditions for international recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will
be listed on the NSCIB Certified Products list. Note that the certification results apply only to the
specific version of the product as evaluated.
1 The Evaluation Technical Report contains information proprietary to the developer and/or the
evaluator, and is not available for public review.
Page: 6/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
2 Certification Results
2.1 Identification of Target of Evaluation
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) for this evaluation is the PKE4 Core version 4.1 from Rambus Inc.
located in San Jose, USA.
The TOE is comprised of the following main components:
Package Name Version
Hardware
Package
(source code and
test bench)2
Synthesizable Verilog RTL description of PKE Engine Part Number
950-029004-410
Test bench C files and SystemVerilog files
Test bench scripts and file lists
Simulation vectors with self-checks
Software package
(source code and
documentation)
Software library source code in C Part Number
951-029004-410
Software reference manual
Software unit tests
To ensure secure usage a set of guidance documents is provided, together with the PKE4 Core
version 4.1. For details, see section 2.5 “Documentation” of this report.
For a detailed and precise description of the TOE lifecycle, see the [ST], Chapter 2.5.
2.2 Security Policy
The TOE provides the following features:
• ECDH calculation using NIST P-192, NIST P-224, NIST P-256, NIST P-384, NIST P-521,
Brainpool-224, Brainpool 256, Brainpool 320, Brainpool 384, Brainpool 512 and ANSSI
frp256v1;
• ECDH calculation using the Montgomery X-coordinates X25519 and X448 based on
Curve25519 and Curve448;
• ECDSA key generation, signature generation and signature verification using NIST P-192,
NIST P-224, NIST P-256, NIST P-384, NIST P-521, Brainpool-224, Brainpool 256, Brainpool
320, Brainpool 384, Brainpool 512, ANSSI frp256v1;
• EdDSA key generation, signature generation and signature verification using Ed448 and
Ed25519;
• SM2DSA key generation, signature generation and signature verification using SM2(256);
• Auxiliary elliptic-curve functionality e.g. verification of the curve equation,
• RSA public-key and private key operations for non-CRT implementations;
• Modular exponentiation.
2.3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
2.3.1 Assumptions
The assumptions defined in the Security Target are not covered by the TOE itself. These aspects lead
to specific Security Objectives to be fulfilled by the TOE-Environment. For detailed information on the
security objectives that must be fulfilled by the TOE environment, see section 5.2 of the [ST].
2 This TOE comprises the design of a crypto-processor. As such, no physical hardware is delivered,
but the synthesisable Verilog is intended to be integrated into a hardware solution.
Page: 7/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
2.3.2 Clarification of scope
The TOE is the set of functionalities, encoded in Verilog, for a crypto-processor in a Security IC. The
intended environment for the TOE is the Security IC for smart card applications or similar services as
identified and described in [PP_0084].
The TOE is not in itself a Security IC, it supports development of Security IC.
The evaluation and certification of this TOE was performed to enable re-use of the PKE4 Core IP into
an EAL4+ Security IC, hence to fulfil the composition requirements [COMP] assurance up to and
including EAL4 augmented (EAL4(+)) is needed.
Due to the form of the TOE (Verilog), only a limited amount of attacks is directly applicable and
countered by the TOE. For example, physical attacks are not countered by this TOE. Users of the
TOE, developers of a Security IC, must strictly follow the guidance and must successfully pass
an evaluation against [PP_0084] to claim full EAL4+ and/or AVA_VAN.5 resistance
During integration and re-use into a full Security IC, significant vulnerability analysis and testing must
be performed. However, the [ETRfR] and the guidance enable efficient re-use.
See [ST-lite] chapters 4.3 and 4.4 for details regarding policies and assumptions that are countered by
the environment.
Please note that the TOE contains a SW Library providing access to the TOE functionality and adding
additional functionality (without security claims). The functionality and security of these features have
not explicitly been addressed in this certification (see [ST] section 7 for exact security functionality
claimed by the TOE). Therefore, if these features are required by the integrated product the
developer/evaluator should do their own security analysis and/or testing. In order to support this
analysis, the Vendor asked the Lab to carry out additional analysis/testing that is included in the
[ETRfR].
2.4 Architectural Information
The logical architecture, originating from the Security Target [ST] of the TOE can be depicted as
follows:
Page: 8/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
2.5 Documentation
The following documentation is provided with the product by the developer to the customer:
Identifier Version Date
PKE v4.1 Integration and Testing Guide, Document Number:
007-029410-228
Rev. A 2021-01-12
Security IP, PKE v4.1, User Security Guidance, Document
Number: 007-029410-424
Rev, G 2023-01-13
PKE v4.1 External Reference Specification,
Document Number: 007-029410-222
Rev. A 2021-01-12
DPA Resistant Software Libraries Version 2.0 2022-08-09
Secure Data Handling Requirements for Intellectual Property
and Information, Spec No 000425,
Version D 2021-08-16
2.6 IT Product Testing
Testing (depth, coverage, functional tests, independent testing): The evaluators examined the
developer’s testing activities documentation and verified that the developer has met their testing
responsibilities.
2.6.1 Testing approach and depth
The developer performed extensive testing on functional specification, subsystem and module level.
All parameter choices were addressed at least once. All boundary cases identified were tested
explicitly, and additionally the near-boundary conditions were covered probabilistically. The testing
was largely automated using industry standard and proprietary test suites. Test scripts were used
extensively to verify that the functions return the expected values.
The testing of the TOE takes place during development and during the integration. Both were
considered during ATE_FUN analysis.
The overall completeness is being monitored using code coverage tools during the TOE development
phase. The evaluator analysed the output and asked the developer for a rationale for all cases where
an interface (TSFI and module interface) was not 100% covered.
For the testing performed by the evaluators, the developer provided samples and a test environment.
The evaluators reproduced a selection of the developer tests, as well as a small number of test cases
designed by the evaluator.
2.6.2 Independent penetration testing
The independent vulnerability analysis performed was conducted along the following steps:
• When evaluating the evidence in the classes ASE, ADV and AGD the evaluator considers whether
potential vulnerabilities can already be identified due to the TOE type and/or specified behaviour in
such an early stage of the evaluation.
• For ADV_IMP a thorough implementation representation review is performed on the TOE. During
this attack-oriented analysis the protection of the TOE is analysed using the knowledge gained
from all evaluation classes. This results in the identification of (additional) potential vulnerabilities.
This analysis used the attack methods in [JIL-AM] and [JIL-AAPS].
• All potential vulnerabilities were analysed using the knowledge gained from all evaluation classes
and information from the public domain. A judgment was made on how to assure that these
potential vulnerabilities were not exploitable. The potential vulnerabilities were addressed by
penetration testing, a guidance update or in other ways that are deemed appropriate.
Page: 9/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
The total test effort expended by the evaluators was 118 days. During that test campaign, 98% of the
total time was spent on side-channel testing and 2% on Perturbation attacks.
2.6.3 Test configuration
The penetration testing has not been performed on a final product (as the TOE is not a final product),
but on a FPGA that implements the TOE in the environment (i.e. representative of a final product) or
using simulations. Configuration of the sample used for independent evaluator testing and penetration
testing was the same as described in the [ST].
2.6.4 Test results
The testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected results and observed
results are summarised in the [ETR], with references to the documents containing the full details.
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests produced the expected results, giving
assurance that the TOE behaves as specified in its [ST] and functional specification.
No exploitable vulnerabilities were found with the independent penetration tests.
The algorithmic security level of cryptographic functionality has not been rated in this certification
process, but the current consensus on the algorithmic security level in the open domain, i.e., from the
current best cryptanalytic attacks published, has been taken into account.
Not all key sizes specified in the [ST] have sufficient cryptographic strength for satisfying the
AVA_VAN.5 “high attack potential”. The TOE supports a wider range of key sizes (see [ST]), including
those with sufficient algorithmic security level to exceed 100 bits as required for high attack potential
(AVA_VAN.5).
The strength of the implementation of the cryptographic functionality has been assessed in the
evaluation, as part of the AVA_VAN activities.
For re-use evaluations, please consult the [ETRfR] for details.
2.7 Reused Evaluation Results
There has been extensive reuse of the ALC aspects for the site involved in the development and
production of the TOE, by use of Site Technical Audit Reports.
No sites have been visited as part of this evaluation.
2.8 Evaluated Configuration
The TOE is defined uniquely by its name and version number PKE4 Core version 4.1.
2.9 Evaluation Results
The evaluation lab documented their evaluation results in the [ETR], which references an ASE
Intermediate Report and other evaluator documents. To support re-use evaluations based on [COMP]
a derived document [ETRfR] was provided and approved. This document provides details of the TOE
evaluation that must be considered when this TOE is used as platform in a re-use evaluation.
The verdict of each claimed assurance requirement is “Pass”.
Based on the above evaluation results the evaluation lab concluded the PKE4 Core version 4.1, to be
CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant and to meet the requirements of EAL 4 augmented
with ATE_DPT.2, AVA_VAN.5 and ALC_DVS.2 . This implies that the product satisfies the security
requirements specified in Security Target [ST].
The Security Target is based on [PP_0084] but does not claim conformance to the Protection Profile
[PP_0084]. Nevertheless, re-use evaluations based on this TOE can claim [PP_0084] conformance.
2.10 Comments/Recommendations
The user guidance as outlined in section 2.5 “Documentation” contains necessary information about
the usage of the TOE. This TOE is critically dependent on the operational environment to provide
Page: 10/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
countermeasures against specific attacks as described in guidance documentation. Therefore, it is
vital to maintain meticulous adherence to the user guidance of the TOE.
In addition, all aspects of assumptions, threats and policies as outlined in the Security Target not
covered by the TOE itself must 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. For the evolution of attack methods and techniques to be covered, the
customer should define the period of time until a re-assessment for the TOE is required and thus
requested from the sponsor of the certificate.
The strength of the cryptographic algorithms and protocols was not rated in the course of this
evaluation. This specifically applies to the following proprietary or non-standard algorithms, protocols
and implementations: none.
The re-use evaluator should note the following regarding the rating of required knowledge of this TOE
(i.e., the PKE4 core design). The TOE comprises the implementation representation which is available
under a licensing agreement with the developer. Hence, any required knowledge of the
implementation representation of the TOE shall not be rated higher than Sensitive in an attack
potential calculation.
Page: 11/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
3 Security Target
The Rambus PKE4 Core version 4.1 Security Target, Revision 0.1o, 04 December 2023 [ST] is
included here by reference.
Please note that, to satisfy the need for publication, a public version [ST-lite] has been created and
verified according to [ST-SAN].
4 Definitions
This list of acronyms and definitions contains elements that are not already defined by the CC or CEM:
DFA Differential Fault Analysis
ECB Electronic Code Book
ECC Elliptic Curve Cryptography
ECDH Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman algorithm
ECDSA Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm
EMA Electromagnetic Analysis
FIA Fault Injection Attack
IC Integrated Circuit
IT Information Technology
ITSEF IT Security Evaluation Facility
JIL Joint Interpretation Library
NSCIB Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the area of IT Security
PP Protection Profile
RNG Random Number Generator
RSA Rivest-Shamir-Adleman Algorithm
RTL Register Transfer Level
SPA/DPA Simple/Differential Power Analysis
TOE Target of Evaluation
TRNG True Random Number Generator
Page: 12/12 of report number: NSCIB-CC-0503107-CR, dated 11 December 2023
®
TÜV,
TUEV
and
TUV
are
registered
trademarks.
Any
use
or
application
requires
prior
approval.
5 Bibliography
This section lists all referenced documentation used as source material in the compilation of this
report.
[CC] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Parts I, II and
III, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017
[CEM] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017
[COMP] Joint Interpretation Library, Composite product evaluation for Smart Cards and
similar devices, Version 1.5.1, May 2018
[ETR] Evaluation Technical Report “PKE4 Core version 4.1” – EAL4+, 22-RPT-508,
version 4.0, 08 December 2023.
[ETRfR] Evaluation Technical Report for Reuse “PKE4 Core version 4.1” – EAL4+, 23-
RPT-816, version 4.0, 08 December 2023.
[JIL-AAPS] JIL Application of Attack Potential to Smartcards, Version 3.2, November 2022
[JIL-AM] Attack Methods for Smartcards and Similar Devices, Version 2.4, January 2020
(sensitive with controlled distribution)
[NSCIB] Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the Area of IT Security, Version 2.5,
28 March 2019
[PP_0084] Security IC Platform Protection Profile with Augmentation Packages, registered
under the reference BSI-CC-PP-0084-2014, Version 1.0, 13 January 2014
[ST] Rambus PKE4 Core version 4.1 Security Target, Revision 0.1o, 04 December
2023
[ST-lite] Rambus PKE4 Core version 4.1 Security Target Lite, Revision D, 08 December
2023
[ST-SAN] ST sanitising for publication, CC Supporting Document CCDB-2006-04-004,
April 2006
(This is the end of this report.)