National Information Assurance Partnership
®
TM
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-05-0125
Version 1.0
10 October 2005
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Security Agency
Information Technology Laboratory Information Assurance Directorate
100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road STE 6740
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6740
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Maureen Cheheyl
The MITRE Corporation
Bedford, Massachusetts
Jandria Alexander
The Aerospace Corporation
Columbia, Maryland
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Booz Allen Hamilton Common Criteria Test Laboratory
Linthicum, Maryland
ii
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 EVALUATION DETAILS...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 INTERPRETATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 THREATS TO SECURITY..................................................................................................................... 3
2 IDENTIFICATION............................................................................................................................... 3
3 SECURITY POLICY ............................................................................................................................ 3
4 ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 PERSONNEL ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 3
4.2 PHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................................. 4
4.3 LOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 4
5 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 5
5.1 LOGICAL BOUNDARY........................................................................................................................ 5
5.1.1 Security Audit........................................................................................................................... 5
5.1.2 Identification and Authentication............................................................................................. 5
5.1.3 Security Management............................................................................................................... 6
5.1.4 Protection................................................................................................................................. 6
5.2 TOE EXCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 6
6 DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................................................................ 6
7 IT PRODUCT TESTING...................................................................................................................... 7
7.1 TEST APPROACH............................................................................................................................... 7
7.2 TEST METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7
7.2.1 IXIA Machine Testing............................................................................................................... 8
7.2.2 Manual Testing......................................................................................................................... 8
7.2.3 Nessus Intelligent Scanning ..................................................................................................... 8
7.3 DEVELOPER TESTING........................................................................................................................ 8
7.4 EVALUATION TEAM INDEPENDENT TESTING .................................................................................... 9
7.5 EVALUATION TEAM PENETRATION TESTING .................................................................................... 9
8 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION..................................................................................................... 9
9 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 10
10 VALIDATOR COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 10
11 ANNEXES.......................................................................................................................................... 11
12 SECURITY TARGET....................................................................................................................... 11
13 LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... 12
14 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... 12
15 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................. 12
iii
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
1 Executive Summary
The evaluation of the Mazu
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 was performed by the
Booz Allen Hamilton Common Criteria Test Laboratory in the United States and was
completed on 10 October 2005. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Common Criteria, Version 2.2 and the Common Methodology for IT
Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 2.2.
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 2.2, for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT
Security Evaluation, Version 2.2. 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 adduced. This Validation Report is not an endorsement of the Profiler Blade
System product by any agency of the US Government and no warranty of the product is
either expressed or implied.
The Booz Allen Hamilton Common Criteria Test Laboratory evaluation team concluded
that the Common Criteria requirements for Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL2) have
been met.
The validation team monitored the activities of the evaluation team, examined evaluation
testing procedures, 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 validation team notes that the claims made and successfully evaluated for the product
represent a more limited set of requirements than what might be used for a normal
product deployment. Specifically, no claims are made for the command line interface,
importing audit data from NetFlow-enabled Routers and NETScout Probes,
authenticating users via a RADIUS Server, or receiving lease information from a DHCP
Server to track hosts whose IP address has changed.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Evaluation
Technical Report for Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 produced by Booz Allen
Hamilton Common Criteria Test Laboratory.
1.1 Evaluation Details
Evaluated Product Mazu
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
Sponsor & Developer Mazu Networks, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
CCTL Booz Allen Hamilton, Linthicum, Maryland
1
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
Completion Date 10 October 2005
CC Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Version 2.2, Revision 256, January 2004
Interpretations None.
CEM Common Methodology for Information Technology
Security Evaluation, Version 2.2, Revision 256, January
2004
Evaluation Class EAL 2
Description The Mazu
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 Target of
Evaluation (TOE) is a distributed behavior-based network
security solution that is designed to protect the critical,
core applications and services inside the enterprise
network. The Profiler Blade System analyzes the behavior
of hosts in the network rather than threat signatures to
detect threats.
Disclaimer The information contained in this Validation Report is not
an endorsement of the Profiler Blade System product by
any agency of the U.S. Government, and no warranty of
the Profiler Blade System product is either expressed or
implied.
PP None
Evaluation Personnel Ken Bailey
Wilhelm Burger
Mark Landon
Tiffani Parsons
Bruce Potter
Brian Rickle
Eric Winterton
Validation Team Maureen Cheheyl
The MITRE Corporation
Bedford, Massachusetts
Jandria Alexander
The Aerospace Corporation
Columbia, Maryland
1.2 Interpretations
As of the kickoff meeting held on 15 July 2004, there were no CCIMB interpretations
that apply to Version 2.2 of the Common Criteria; NIAP interpretations were not used in
this evaluation.
2
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
The Validation Team concluded that the Evaluation Team correctly addressed the
interpretations issue.
1.3 Threats to Security
The following are the threats that the evaluated product addresses:
Table 1 – Threats
Threats Addressed by the TOE
T.ACCESS A user could attempt to establish an unauthorised session with the TOE.
T.COLLECT An unauthorised user could remove or modify statistical data collected
by the TOE that is used for analysing the behaviour of normal network
activity.
T.COMINT An unauthorized person may attempt to compromise the integrity of the
data analyzed and produced by the TOE by bypassing a security
mechanism.
T.FALACT The TOE may fail to react to identified or suspected vulnerabilities or
inappropriate activity.
T.NOHALT An unauthorized person may attempt to compromise the continuity of the
TOE’s analysis functionality by halting execution of the TOE.
Threats Addressed by the Environment
T.E.SENSOR A user on an internal or external network could perform hostile actions
on the internal network without having such actions captured for analysis
and review.
T.E.TIME A user may attempt to spoof timestamp values provided by an NTP
server thereby causing the TOE and/or IT components with which the
TOE communicates to maintain deferring time values.
2 Identification
The product being evaluated is the Mazu
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0. Note that
the actual target of evaluation defined includes only certain parts of the whole product.
3 Security Policy
There are no security policies for the product.
4 Assumptions
4.1 Personnel Assumptions
The following personnel assumptions are identified in the Security Target:
A.CONFIG The TOE will be installed, configured, and managed in accordance with
its evaluated configuration as defined by its guidance documentation.
3
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
A.NOEVIL The authorized users are not careless, willfully negligent, or hostile, and
will follow and abide by the instructions provided by the TOE
documentation.
A.NOTRST The TOE can be accessed only by authorized users.
A.PASSWD The authorized users of the TOE will use best commercial practices
when establishing passwords.
4.2 Physical Assumptions
The following physical assumptions are identified in the Security Target:
A.LOCATE The TOE will be installed on an internal network segment and will be
located within controlled access facilities that will prevent unauthorised
physical access.
4.3 Logical Assumptions
The following logical assumptions are identified in the Security Target:
A.PEER IT Components with which the TOE communicates are assumed to be
under the same management control and operate under the same security
policy.
4
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
5 Architectural Information
5.1 Logical Boundary
Manager
Blade
Database
Blade
mBlade1
Event
Manager
Web Server
SNMP
Dispatcher
Analyzer
Click
Sensor
Mazu Mazu Mazu
Chassis
Management
Switch
TOE Boundary
Network
Figure 1 TOE Logical Boundary
The software structures of the TOE are discussed in the following sub-sections.
5.1.1 Security Audit
The TOE receives audit data that has been collected and generated by a Mazu Sensor via
the MPCP. In addition, the communication link between the Mazu Sensor and the TOE is
established through the use of a shared secret. Once the TOE has received audit data, it
stores the information in a profile. Complex heuristics are then applied to the profile to
identify anomalous behaviour on the network that deviates from normal activity. The
TOE then generates alerts based upon triggered events that have surpassed a configured
threshold rating.
5.1.2 Identification and Authentication
The TOE provides an HTTPS interface that is used to access its security functions.
During initial configuration, a user establishes a connection to the TOE using their local
web browser running on the Admin Terminal. Next, the user is prompted to provide the
identification and authentication credentials required to log onto the TOE under the
Administrator role. Once the user has successfully assumed the Administrator role, that
5
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
user can then create additional roles that the TOE will recognize when other users attempt
to identify and authenticate themselves over the HTTPS interface from the Admin
Terminal.
5.1.3 Security Management
The TOE provides for the management of its security functions via the HTTPS interface
from the Admin Terminal. Once a user has been successfully identified and
authenticated, they will then be granted access to the TOE that is limited based upon the
role that the user has been assigned. The roles supported by the TOE have varying levels
of access rights with respect to viewing or modifying the way in which the security
functions of the TOE behave. These roles include the Administrator, Operator, Monitor,
and Event Viewer.
5.1.4 Protection
Since the TOE is an appliance-based system, most of the protection features are
implemented in its hardware and software structures. These structures provide for process
execution as well as process separation. In addition, management of the TOE is enforced
by limiting user access by requiring each user to identify and authenticate prior to being
granted access over the HTTPS interface. Additional aspects related to protection of the
TOE are addressed via assumption statements identified in the Security Target, Section 4.
5.2 TOE Exclusions
The evaluated configuration does not include user access to the Profiler command-line
interface. Therefore, the following features described in the user manual are outside the
evaluated configuration:
• Using an external script to write DHCP information to the Profiler
• Manually modifying the etc/hosts file that is internal to the Profiler
• Importing a specification file for a rule-based event
• Performing backup and restore operations
The following additional TOE functionality is also beyond the scope of this evaluation:
• Importing audit data collected and generated by NetFlow-enabled Routers and
NETScout Probes
• Authenticating users via a RADIUS Server
• Receiving lease information from a DHCP Server to track the behaviour of hosts
when they have been assigned a new IP address
6 Documentation
The following documents are delivered to customers and are pertinent to the installation,
configuration, and operation of the TOE.
1. Mazu Networks Configuration Guide for Profiler 5.0
2. Mazu Networks Mazu Profiler 5.0 Release Notes
6
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
3. Mazu Networks Profiler Blade System Installation Process Description version 1.0
4. Mazu Networks Profiler Version 5.0 User Manual version 5.0-2
5. IBM eServer BladeCenter HS20, Type 8832 Installation and User's Guide
6. IBM eServer HS20, SCSI Storage Expansion Unit
7. IBM eServer BladeCenter, Type 8677 Installation and User's Guide
8. IBM BladeCenter 4-Port Gb Ethernet Switch Module Installation Guide
9. IBM Distributed Power Interconnect Front-end Power Distribution Unit Installation &
Maintenance Guide
10. Mazu Networks Support Services Handbook
7 IT Product Testing
7.1 Test Approach
The test team's test approach was to test the security mechanisms of the Mazu Profiler
Blade System V5.0 by exercising the external interfaces to the TOE and viewing the TOE
behavior on the platform. Each TOE external interface is described in Mazu's design
documentation in terms of the relevant claims on the TOE that can be tested through the
external interface. The ST, High-Level Design (HLD), Functional Specification (FSP),
and the vendor's test plans were used to demonstrate test coverage of all EAL2
requirements for all security-relevant TOE external interfaces. TOE external interfaces
that were determined to be security relevant are interfaces that
• change the security state of the product,
• permit an object access or information flow that is regulated by the security
policy,
• are restricted to subjects with privilege or behave differently when executed by
subjects with privilege, or
• invoke or configure a security mechanism.
Security functional requirements were determined to be appropriate to a particular
interface if the behavior of the TOE that supported the requirement could be invoked or
observed through that interface.
The evaluation team created a test plan that contained a sample of the vendor functional
test suite, and supplemental functional testing of the vendors’ tests. Booz Allen also
performed vulnerability assessment and penetration testing.
7.2 Test Methodology
The evaluation team used three types of tests. They were:
• Ixia Machine Testing
• Manual testing
• Nessus Intelligent Scanning
7
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
7.2.1 IXIA Machine Testing
The functional tests were conducted on a test network with an IXIA machine attached to
generate specific traffic patterns.
This included interactive scripts executed via the IXIA machine. Each script consisted of
specific traffic-generation parameters to simulate activity normally associated with
destructive events such as worm or virus infestation and denial-of-service activities. Each
script was in a separate file which was executed using the IXIA GUI as the controller.
These scripts generated traffic as if the TOE were on an active network.
The IXIA appliance is a machine that generates specific traffic at specific rates for
specific network segments. The intent was to use the IXIA appliance to simulate the
activity that is typical of worms, denial-of-service schemes, and viruses. The IXIA
process allows execution of traffic generation either interactively or through execution of
a script. When executed interactively the IXIA GUI is used to change traffic patterns or
behavior. Execution of a script is done by setting up a profile of the traffic requirements
necessary and saving these parameters as a profile.
The results of execution appear in the IXIA window. The results can then be copied to an
OS file and compared to the results contained in the script documentation.
7.2.2 Manual Testing
The test team created manual testing procedures to test various functional claims of the
Mazu Profiler Blade System v5.0. These tests included rebooting the Mazu sensor,
causing the sensor to go down or to not respond, adding a new host to the network,
removing a host from the network, starting a new service on the network. All of these
events were designed to trigger alerts generated by Mazu Profiler Blade System v5.0.
7.2.3 Nessus Intelligent Scanning
Nessus allows remote audit of a given network to determine whether intruders can break
into it or misuse it in some way. Unlike many other security scanners, Nessus does not
assume that a given service is running on a fixed port; that is, if a web server runs on port
1234, Nessus will detect it and test its security. It will also not determine that a security
vulnerability is present by simply checking the version number of the remote service, but
will actually attempt to exploit the vulnerability.
7.3 Developer Testing
The vendor provided a complete set of test results for analysis. The evaluation team
analyzed the vendor test procedures to determine if there was adequate coverage of the
SFRs and to determine if the interfaces between subsystems behaved as expected. The
Evaluation Team determined that the developer’s actual test results matched the expected
results.
8
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
7.4 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
The Evaluation Team chose to run a subset of the tests that the developer performed. The
subset was chosen to ensure adequate coverage for all security functional requirements.
This ensured that the Evaluation Team adequately addressed the security functions.
7.5 Evaluation Team Penetration Testing
For its penetration tests, the Evaluation Team used a combination of vulnerability test
tools, open-source vulnerability documentation, and a set of test procedures proposed by
the penetration test team to identify penetration test cases based on the developer’s
vulnerability assessment documentation. The Evaluation Team used the developer’s test
configuration to successfully perform its penetration tests.
8 Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration of the TOE includes the Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
appliance that is comprised of the following:
• Hardware:
o One IBM eServer BladeCenter Type 8677 7U chassis hardware platform
o One or more Analyser mBlades (IBM eServer BladeCenter HS 20, Type
8832 blade server plug-in module): each Analyzer mBlade provides
support to monitor between 20,000-40,000 hosts on the network.
o One Database mBlade (IBM eServer BladeCenter HS20, Type 8832 blade
server plug-in module)
o One Manager mBlade (IBM eServer BladeCenter HS 20, Type 8832 blade
server plug-in module)
o One IBM eServer BladeCenter HS20, SCSI Storage Expansion Unit
o One IBM eServer BladeCenter 4-Port Gb Ethernet Switch Module
o Two IBM Distributed Power Interconnect Front-end Power Distribution
Units
• Software:
o Mazu Profiler Version 5.0 that includes:
Linux version 2.4.25 – with Mazu patches
openssh-3.7.1 – Secure Shell
openssl-0.9.7d – Secure Socket Layer
ntp-4.1.2 – Network Time
ucd-snmp-4.2.3 – SNMP
apache-2.0.49 – Web Server
php-4.3.8 – Scripting Language.
9
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
The evaluated configuration does not include the following features described in the user
manual:
• User access to the Profiler command-line interface
• Using an external script to write DHCP information to the Profiler
• Manually modifying the etc/hosts file that is internal to the Profiler
• Importing a specification file for a rule-based event
• Performing backup and restore operations
• Importing audit data collected and generated by NetFlow-enabled Routers and
NETScout Probes
• Authenticating users via a RADIUS Server
• Receiving lease information from a DHCP Server to track the behaviour of hosts
when they have been assigned a new IP address
9 Results of the Evaluation
The evaluation was carried out in accordance with the Common Criteria Evaluation and
Validation Scheme (CCEVS) process and scheme. The evaluation demonstrated that the
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 TOE meets the security requirements contained in the
Security Target.
The criteria against which the Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 TOE was judged are
described in the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 2.2, January 2004. The evaluation methodology used by the evaluation team to
conduct the evaluation is the Common Methodology for Information Technology
Security Evaluation, Version 2.2, Revision 256, January 2004. The Booz Allen Hamilton
Common Criteria Test Laboratory determined that the evaluation assurance level (EAL)
for the Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 TOE is EAL 2. The TOE, configured as
specified in the installation guide, satisfies all of the security functional requirements
stated in the Security Target.
A Validator on behalf of the CCEVS Validation Body monitored the evaluation carried
out by Booz Allen Hamilton. The evaluation was completed in October 2005. Results of
the evaluation and associated validation can be found in the Common Criteria Evaluation
and Validation Scheme Validation Report.
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations
The Mazu
Profiler Blade System is a distributed behavior-based network security
solution that is designed to protect the critical, core applications and services inside the
enterprise network. The Profiler Blade System analyzes the behavior of hosts in the
network rather than threat signatures to detect threats.
10
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
Note that the TOE is not the complete product. Specific functions have not been
evaluated, even though those might be useful in operational use. Unevaluated functions
include:
• User access to the Profiler command-line interface
• Using an external script to write DHCP information to the Profiler
• Manually modifying the etc/hosts file that is internal to the Profiler
• Importing a specification file for a rule-based event
• Performing backup and restore operations
• Importing audit data collected and generated by NetFlow-enabled Routers and
NETScout Probes
• Authenticating users via a RADIUS Server
• Receiving lease information from a DHCP Server to track the behaviour of hosts
when they have been assigned a new IP address
Furthermore, the correct operation of the Profiler depends heavily on the correct
operation of the Mazu Sensor that collects the audit data but is not included in the TOE.
11 Annexes
Not applicable.
12 Security Target
The security target for this product’s evaluation is Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
Security Target, Version 1.0, August 16, 2005.
11
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
13 List of Acronyms
The following acronyms are used in this report:
CC Common Criteria
CCIMB Common Criteria Interpretations Management Board
CEM
CM Configuration Management
DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
DNS Domain Name Service
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
HTTPS HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure
IT Information Technology
MPCP Mazu Profiler Communication Protocol
NTP Network Time Protocol
PP Protection Profile
RADIUS Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SF Security Function
SFR Security Functional Requirement
SOF Strength of Function
ST Security Target
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSC TSF Scope of Control
TSF TOE Security Functions
TSP TOE Security Policy
UDP User Datagram Protocol
14 Glossary
The following definitions may be used in this document:
• Administrator: A role recognized by the TOE that can change settings but not
manage user accounts.
• Event Viewer: A role recognized by the TOE that can only view event reports.
• Monitor: A role recognized by the TOE that can view all pages, but can change
only the display settings.
• Superuser: A role recognized by the TOE that can change settings and manage
user accounts.
15 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
12
VALIDATION REPORT
Mazu Profiler Blade System Version 5.0
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 2.2,
Revision 256, January 2004, Parts 1, 2, and 3.
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme for Information Technology
Security, Guidance to Validators of IT Security Evaluations, Scheme Publication
#3, Version 2.2, January 2002.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version
2.2, Revision 256, January 2004
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 Security Target, Version 1.0, August 16, 2005
Profiler Blade System Version 5.0 Evaluation Technical Report (ETR), Version
1.0, August 17, 2005
Evaluation Team Test Plan for the Mazu Profiler Blade System, V5.0,
Version 1.0, July 2005