National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Axway Validation Authority Suite 5.0
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-10959-2019
Dated: 08/02/2019
Version: 0.2
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Security Agency
Information Technology Laboratory Information Assurance Directorate
100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road STE 6940
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6940
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Paul Bicknell (Senior Validator)
Linda Morrison (Lead Validator)
Michelle Carlson
Randy Heimann
Lisa Mitchell
Clare Olin
The MITRE Corporation
Bedford, MA
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Tammy Compton
Raymond Smoley
Gossamer Security Solutions,Inc.
Catonsville, MD
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
iii
Table of Contents
Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 2
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 3
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 4
3.1 TOE Evaluated Configuration ............................................................................ 4
3.2 TOE Architecture................................................................................................ 5
3.3 Physical Boundaries............................................................................................ 6
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 7
4.1 Cryptographic support......................................................................................... 7
4.2 User data protection............................................................................................ 7
4.3 Identification and authentication......................................................................... 7
4.4 Security management.......................................................................................... 7
4.5 Privacy ................................................................................................................ 8
4.6 Protection of the TSF .......................................................................................... 8
4.7 Trusted path/channels ......................................................................................... 8
5 Assumptions & Clarification of Scope ....................................................................... 9
6 Documentation.......................................................................................................... 10
7 IT Product Testing .................................................................................................... 11
7.1 Developer Testing............................................................................................. 11
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ............................................................. 11
8 Evaluated Configuration........................................................................................... 12
9 Results of the Evaluation .......................................................................................... 13
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE) .......................................................... 13
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV) ............................................................ 13
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD) ............................................... 13
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) ................................... 13
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ............... 14
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)....................................................... 14
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results........................................................................ 14
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations .............................................................. 16
11 Annexes................................................................................................................. 17
12 Security Target...................................................................................................... 18
13 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 19
14 Bibliography.......................................................................................................... 20
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
2
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of Axway Validation Authority Suite solution
provided by Axway, Inc. It presents the evaluation results, their justifications, and the
conformance results. This Validation Report is not an endorsement of the Target of
Evaluation by any agency of the U.S. government, and no warranty is either expressed or
implied.
The evaluation was performed by the Gossamer Security Solutions (Gossamer) Common
Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL) in Catonsville, MD, United States of America, and was
completed in August 2019. The information in this report is largely derived from the
Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test reports, all written by Gossamer
Security Solutions. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria
Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant, and meets the assurance requirements of the
Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Axway Validation Authority Suite Version 5.0.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) identified in this Validation Report has been evaluated at a
NIAP approved Common Criteria Testing Laboratory using the Common Methodology for
IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 5) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 5). This Validation Report applies only to the specific
version of the TOE as evaluated. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the
provisions of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme and the
conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation technical report are consistent with the
evidence provided.
The validation team monitored the activities of the evaluation team, provided guidance on
technical issues and evaluation processes, and reviewed the individual work units and
successive versions of the ETR. The validation team found that the evaluation showed that
the product satisfies all of the functional requirements and assurance requirements stated in
the Security Target (ST). Therefore, the validation team concludes that the testing
laboratory’s findings are accurate, the conclusions justified, and the conformance results are
correct. The conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation technical report are
consistent with the evidence produced.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Axway Validation
Authority Suite (ASPP12) Security Target, Version 1.0, 08/01/2019 and analysis performed
by the Validation Team.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
3
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 Target of Evaluation (TOE): the fully qualified identifier of the product as evaluated.
 The Security Target (ST), describing the security features, claims, and assurances of the
product.
 The conformance result of the evaluation.
 The Protection Profile to which the product is conformant.
 The organizations and individuals participating in the evaluation.
Table 1: Evaluation Identifiers
Item Identifier
Evaluation Scheme United States NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
TOE Axway Validation Authority Suite Version 5.0
Protection Profile
(Specific models identified in Section 8)
Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016
ST Axway Validation Authority Suite Security Target, Version 1.0, 08/01/2019
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for Axway Validation Authority Suite, Version 0.4,
08/02/2019
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 5
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor Axway, Inc.
Developer Axway, Inc.
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
4
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The Axway Validation Authority (VA) Suite provides a comprehensive, scalable, and
reliable framework for real-time validation of digital certifications for the Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI). The Axway VA Suite provides a variety of PKI and certificate
management functionality to prevent revoked credentials from being used for secure email,
smart card login, network access (including wireless), or other sensitive electronic
transactions. The Axway VA Suite provides the following functionality:
 Maintains and processes a store of digital certificate revocation data by obtaining the
digital Certificate Revocation List (CRL) from multiple CA or VA sources and
performing end-to-end certificate validation if one or more intermediate CAs are used
and the validation policy requires a complete certificate chain validation.
 Generates and signs OCSP/SCVP responses.1 Maintains a cache loaded with OCSP
responses that are pre-computed or dynamically built up by proxy client requests to
a responder.
 Allows caching of CRLs and delta CRLs to support non-OCSP clients or clients that
want to maintain their own revocation data caches for backup and in low-bandwidth
and non real-time environments.
 Supports SSL-based communications with clients, digitally signed client
requests/responses, and digitally signed XML logs and CRL archives, as well as SSL-
based server administration.
 Supports software PKCS #11 or CAPI token based hardware signing and encryption
products, including hardware security modules from leading vendors that comply
with FIPS 140-2 Level 2 or above.2
For purposes of this evaluation, the Axway VA Suite is a software application that offers
CAVP certified cryptographic functions (key generation, hashing, signing, random bit
generation), secure remote administration, secure storage of credentials, X.509 certificate
validation and authentication, trusted update, anti-exploitation capabilities and restricted
network communications.
3.1 TOE Evaluated Configuration
Details regarding the evaluated configuration are provided in Section 8.
1 The generation and signing of OCSP/SCVP has not been tested in the evaluated configuration.
2 The use of a Hardware Security Module (HSM) is not included in the evaluated configuration.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
5
3.2 TOE Architecture
The Axway Validation Authority Suite consists of three software components, the Validation
Authority Server, the Desktop Validator (Standard and Enterprise Editions) and the Server
Validator, which run on one of the following platforms:
 Microsoft Windows 2012 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
 RHEL 7 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
The Windows and RHEL platforms are part of the operating environment of the TOE. The
Axway VA Suite applications and the particular platforms they each run on are described
below:
1. Validation Authority Server (VA Server) – the VA Server is comprised of the VA
validation server acting as either a Repeater or Responder operating on a Windows or
Linux platform, and the Web based administration (Admin UI). The VA Server
maintains a store of digital certificate revocation data and ensures the integrity and
validity of online transactions by delivering realtime validation of digital certificates.
2. Desktop Validator (DV) - (Standard and Enterprise Editions) - the Desktop Validator is
a Microsoft CAPI compliant revocation trust provider that communicates with the
Validation Authority Server (VA server) in responder mode to check status of digita l
certs in real time. DV runs as a service on a 64bit Microsoft Windows platforms and can
be invoked to validate standard X.509v3 digital certificates issued by any Certificate
Authority (CA). The DV Standard edition provides certificate validation support for
client applications, while the DV Enterprise edition provides certificate validation
support for both client and server applications.
3. Server Validator (SV) – the Server Validator provides revocation status checking of
client certificates for web servers. SV serves as an interface between a secure web server
and a VA Server. The SV runs on Windows and Linux. Web servers requiring SSL and
client authentication can use the Server Validator to add revocation checking for
certificates to authenticate to web servers or web-enabled applications.
The cryptographic capabilities of Axway VA Suite are provided by the Axway Security
Kernel and are maintained across all three TOE software applications. The Axway
Security Kernel (version 3.0.2) is a software cryptographic module that is implemented as
two dynamic link libraries (DLLs) on Windows or two Shared Objects (SOs) on Linux. It
is a user space shared library built upon a custom version of OpenSSL 1.0.2k. The
implementation of TLS/HTTPS to secure communication channels is supported using
Apache.
The TOE components of the Axway VA Suite all share the same underlying cryptographic
library and can be deployed together to provide a robust and flexible certificate validation
solution that covers both desktop and web enabled applications.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
6
3.3 Physical Boundaries
The TOE is composed of three software-only applications which execute on a Microsoft
Windows or RHEL operating system platform. The underlying platform is considered part
of the operating environment but provides some of the security functionality required by
the ASPP12.
Specifically, the evaluated configuration includes the following:
 Axway Validation Authority Server v5.0 - a software server application running on
the following two platforms:
o Microsoft Windows 2012 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
o RHEL 7 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
 Axway Desktop Validator (Standard & Enterprise Editions)3 v5.0 – a software
client application running on the following platform:
o Microsoft Windows 2012 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
 Axway Server Validator v5.0 – a software client application running on the
following two platforms:
o Microsoft Windows 2012 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
o RHEL 7 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
Server Validator provides revocation checking for the following web servers in the
operational environment: Apache 2.4.39 or higher and Oracle HTTP Server (OHS) 12c.
3 The Enterprise Edition of the Desktop Validator was tested in the evaluated configuration.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
7
4 Security Policy
This section summaries the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Cryptographic support
2. User data protection
3. Identification and authentication
4. Security management
5. Privacy
6. Protection of the TSF
7. Trusted path/channels
4.1 Cryptographic support
The TOE uses CAVP-validated cryptographic algorithm implementations, provided by the
Axway Security Kernel, a cryptographic module built upon a custom version of OpenSSL
1.0.2k, to support asymmetric key generation, encryption/decryption, signature generation
and verification and establishment of trusted channels to protect data in transit. The TOE
provides a web server for TLS/HTTPS to facilitate trusted remote communications and
implements functionality to securely store key data related to secure communications. The
TOE also relies on the underlying platform to generate entropy that is used as input data for
the TOE’s deterministic random bit generator (DRBG).
4.2 User data protection
The TOE does not access any hardware resources or sensitive information repositories and
no sensitive data is stored in non-volatile memory. Inbound and outbound network
communications are restricted to those that are user-initiated.
4.3 Identification and authentication
The TOE implements X509 certificate validation to validate the revocation status of
certificates using CRL. The TOE uses X509 certificates to support HTTPS/TLS
authentication.
4.4 Security management
The TOE provides a Web-based Graphical User Interface (Web GUI) to access and manage
the TOE security functions. When configured with default credentials or no credentials, the
TOE restricts its functionality and only allows the ability to set new credentials. By default,
the TOE is configured with file permissions to protect itself and its data from unauthorized
access.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
8
4.5 Privacy
The TOE does not transmit personally identifiable information (PII) over any network
interfaces.
4.6 Protectionof the TSF
The TOE protects itself against exploitation by implementing address space layout
randomization (ASLR) and by not allocating any memory region for both write and execute
permission. The TOE is compiled for both Windows and Linux with stack-based buffer
overflow protection and does not allow user-modifiable files to be written to directories that
contain executable files. The TOE uses standard platform APIs and includes a number of
third party libraries used to perform its functions.
The TOE includes mechanisms to check for updates and to query the current version of the
application software. TOE software is digitally signed and distributed using the platform-
supported package manager (Windows or Linux). The TOE does not update its own binary
code in any way and when removed, all traces of the TOE application software are deleted.
4.7 Trusted path/channels
The TOE protects communications between itself and remote administrators using
HTTPS/TLS.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
9
5 Assumptions & Clarification of Scope
Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
documents:
 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016
That information has not been reproduced here and the ASPP12 should be consulted if there
is interest in that material.
The scope of this evaluation was limited to the functionality and assurances covered in the
ASPP12 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.
Clarification of scope
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that
need clarification. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications
of this evaluation. Note that:
 As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration
meets the security claims made with a certain level of assurance (the assurance
activities specified in the ASPP12 and performed by the evaluation team).
 This evaluation covers only the specific device models and software as 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 ASPP12 and applicable Technical Decisions. Any
additional security related functional capabilities of the TOE were not covered by this
evaluation.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
10
6 Documentation
The following documents were available with the TOE for evaluation:
 Axway Validation Authority Version 5.0 Common Criteria Guide, 31 July 2019
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
11
7 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the Evaluation Team. It is
derived from information contained in the Assurance Activity Report (ASPP12) for Axway
Validation Authority Suite, Version 0.4, 08/02/2019 (AAR).
7.1 DeveloperTesting
No evidence of developer testing is required in the assurance activities for this product.
7.2 Evaluation TeamIndependent Testing
The evaluation team verified the product according a Common Criteria Certification
document and ran the tests specified in the ASPP12 including the tests associated with
optional requirements.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
12
8 Evaluated Configuration
The TOE is composed of three software-only applications which execute on a Microsoft
Windows or RHEL operating system platform. The underlying platform is considered part
of the operating environment but provides some of the security functionality required by
the ASPP12.
 Axway Validation Authority Server v5.0 - a software server application running on
the following two platforms:
o Microsoft Windows 2012 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
o RHEL 7 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
 Axway Desktop Validator (Standard & Enterprise Editions)4 v5.0 – a software
client application running on the following platform:
o Microsoft Windows 2012 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
 Axway Server Validator v5.0 – a software client application running on the
following two platforms:
o Microsoft Windows 2012 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
o RHEL 7 (64 bit) on a 64 bit Intel Xeon processor
Server Validator provides revocation checking for the following web servers in the
operational environment: Apache 2.4.39 or higher and Oracle HTTP Server (OHS) 12c.
4 The Enterprise Edition of the Desktop Validator was tested in the evaluated configuration.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
13
9 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are
presented in detail in the proprietary ETR. The reader of this document can assume that all
assurance activities and work units received a passing verdict.
A verdict for an assurance component is determined by the resulting verdicts assigned to the
corresponding evaluator action elements. The evaluation was conducted based upon CC
version 3.1 rev 5 and CEM version 3.1 rev 5. The evaluation determined the Validation
Authority Suite TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the SARs contained in the ASPP12.
The Validators reviewed all the work of the evaluation team and agreed with their practices
and findings.
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target(ASE)
The evaluation team applied each ASE CEM work unit. The ST evaluation ensured the ST
contains a description of the environment in terms of policies and assumptions, a statement
of security requirements claimed to be met by the Axway Validation Authority Suite 5.0
products that are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function
descriptions that support the requirements.
9.2 Evaluation of the Development(ADV)
The evaluation team applied each ADV CEM work unit. The evaluation team assessed the
design documentation and found it adequate to aid in understanding how the TSF provides
the security functions. The design documentation consists of a functional specification
contained in the Security target and Guidance documents. Additionally, the evaluator
performed the assurance activities specified in the ASPP12 related to the examination of the
information contained in the TSS.
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The evaluation team applied each AGD CEM work unit. The evaluation team ensured the
adequacy of the user guidance in describing how to use the operational TOE. Additionally,
the evaluation team ensured the adequacy of the administrator guidance in describing how
to securely administer the TOE. All of the guides were assessed during the design and testing
phases of the evaluation to ensure they were complete.
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The evaluation team applied each ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found that the
TOE was identified.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
14
9.5 Evaluation of the TestDocumentationand the TestActivity (ATE)
The evaluation team applied each ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set of
tests specified by the assurance activities in the ASPP12 and recorded the results in a Test
Report, summarized in the AAR.
9.6 Vulnerability AssessmentActivity (VAN)
The evaluation team applied each AVA CEM work unit. The vulnerability analysis is in the
Detailed Test Report (DTR) prepared by the evaluator. The vulnerability analysis includes
a public search for vulnerabilities. The public search for vulnerabilities did not uncover
any residual vulnerability.
The evaluation team performed a public search for vulnerabilities in order to ensure there
are no publicly known and exploitable vulnerabilities in the TOE from the following
sources:
 National Vulnerability Database (https://web.nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search)
 Vulnerability Notes Database (http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/)
The search was performed on 08/02/2019 with the following search terms:
 Axway Validation Authority Suite
 Axway
 Validation Authority
 Server Validator
 Desktop Validator
 Curl
 Openldap
 Apache
 Zlib
 Xerces
 sqlite 3
 Sqlite
 net snmp
 openssl
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results
The evaluation team’s assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims in
the ST are met. Additionally, the evaluation team’s testing also demonstrated the accuracy
of the claims in the ST.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
15
The validation team’s assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it
demonstrates that the evaluation team followed the procedures defined in the CEM, and
correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
16
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations
The validation team notes that the evaluated configuration is dependent upon the TOE being
configured per the evaluated configuration instructions in the Axway Validator Authority
Common Criteria Guide version 5.0, dated July 31, 2019.
Please note that the functionality evaluated is scoped exclusively to the security functional
requirements specified in the Security Target.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
17
11 Annexes
Not applicable
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
18
12 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: Axway Validation Authority Suite (ASPP12) Security
Target, Version 1.0, 08/01/2019.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
19
13 Glossary
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
 Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL). An IT security evaluation facility
accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and
approved by the CCEVS Validation Body to conduct Common Criteria-based
evaluations.
 Conformance. The ability to demonstrate in an unambiguous way that a given
implementation is correct with respect to the formal model.
 Evaluation. The assessment of an IT product against the Common Criteria using the
Common Criteria Evaluation Methodology to determine whether or not the claims made
are justified; or the assessment of a protection profile against the Common Criteria using
the Common Evaluation Methodology to determine if the Profile is complete, consistent,
technically sound and hence suitable for use as a statement of requirements for one or
more TOEs that may be evaluated.
 Evaluation Evidence. Any tangible resource (information) required from the sponsor or
developer by the evaluator to perform one or more evaluation activities.
 Feature. Part of a product that is either included with the product or can be ordered
separately.
 Target of Evaluation (TOE). A group of IT products configured as an IT system, or an
IT product, and associated documentation that is the subject of a security evaluation
under the CC.
 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.
Axway Validation Authority Suite Validation Report Version 0.2, 07/19/2019
20
14 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation: Part 1:
Introduction and General Model, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017.
[4] Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.2, 22 April 2016.
[5] Axway Validation Authority Suite (ASPP12) Security Target, Version 1.0,
08/01/2019 (ST).
[6] Assurance Activity Report (ASPP12) for Axway Validation Authority Suite, Version
0.4, 08/02/2019 (AAR).
[7] Detailed Test Report (ASPP12) for Axway Validation Authority Suite, Version 0.3,
08/02/2019 (DTR).
[8] Evaluation Technical Report for Axway Validation Authority Suite, Version 0.4,
08/02/2019 (ETR)