KECS-CR-23-04
PrivacyDB V2.1
Certification Report
Certification No.: KECS-CISS-1210-2023
2023. 1. 10.
IT Security Certification Center
Certification Report Page 2
History of Creation and Revision
No. Date
Revised
Pages
Description
00 2023.01.10. -
Certification report for PrivacyDB V2.1
- First documentation
Certification Report Page 3
This document is the certification report for PrivacyDB V2.1 of OWL
Systems Inc.
The Certification Body
IT Security Certification Center
The Evaluation Facility
Korea System Assurance (KOSYAS)
Certification Report Page 4
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................5
2. Identification.........................................................................................................9
3. Security Policy ...................................................................................................10
4. Assumptions and Clarification of Scope.......................................................... 11
5. Architectural Information .................................................................................. 11
6. Documentation...................................................................................................12
7. TOE Testing........................................................................................................12
8. Evaluated Configuration....................................................................................13
9. Results of the Evaluation ..................................................................................13
9.1 Security Target Evaluation (ASE)............................................................13
9.2 Life Cycle Support Evaluation (ALC) ......................................................14
9.3 Guidance Documents Evaluation (AGD).................................................14
9.4 Development Evaluation (ADV)..............................................................14
9.5 Test Evaluation (ATE).............................................................................15
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment (AVA)..............................................................15
9.7 Evaluation Result Summary ...................................................................15
10. Recommendations.............................................................................................16
11. Security Target ...................................................................................................17
12. Acronyms and Glossary....................................................................................17
13. Bibliography.......................................................................................................18
Certification Report Page 5
1. Executive Summary
This report describes the certification result drawn by the certification body on the
results of the evaluation of PrivacyDB V2.1 of OWL Systems Inc. with reference to the
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation (“CC” hereinafter) [1].
It describes the evaluation result and its soundness and conformity.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is database encryption software to prevent the
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information by encrypting the database. The
TOE consists of four components that are PrivacyKMS, PrivacyEOC_API,
PrivacyEOC_Plug-in, and PrivacyConsole. PrivacyKMS and PrivacyConsole allow
authorized administrators to manage security functions and TSF data such as
cryptographic operation policies and keys. PrivacyEOC_API and PrivacyEOC_Plug-in
are agents that encrypt and decrypt the user data based on the policies. The TOE
includes cryptographic module (Key# Crypto v1.4) validated under the Korea
Cryptographic Module Validation Program (KCMVP).
There are four types of the TOE operational environments: plug-in (EOC and KMS
separated/integrated) and API(EOC and KMS separated/integrated) types. In the plug-
in type, PrivacyEOC_Plug-in is installed in a database server, while the component
PrivacyEOC_API is installed in an application server in the API type. Regardless of the
types, PrivacyKMS and PrivacyConsole are installed on the physically separated
systems. Note that PrivacyKMS is installed in the same server where PrivacyEOC is
installed in the ‘EOC and KMS integrated type’.
The evaluation of the TOE has been carried out by Korea System Assurance (KOSYAS)
and completed on 10 January 2023. This report grounds on the evaluation technical
report (ETR) KOSYAS had submitted [5] and the Security Target (ST) [6].
The ST claims strict conformance to Korean National Protection Profile for Database
Encryption V1.1 [7]. All Security Assurance Requirements (SARs) in the ST are based
only upon assurance component in CC Part 3, and the TOE satisfies the SARs of the
PP [7]. Therefore, the ST and the resulting TOE is CC Part 3 conformant. The Security
Functional Requirements (SFRs) are based upon both functional components in CC
Part 2 and newly defined components in the Extended Component Definition chapter of
the ST, and the TOE satisfies the SFRs in the ST. Therefore, the ST and the resulting
TOE is CC Part 2 extended.
[Figure 1] to [Figure 4] show the operational environment of the TOE.
Certification Report Page 6
[Figure 1] Plug-in type operational environment of the TOE (EOC and KMS separated type)
[Figure 2] Plug-in type operational environment of the TOE (EOC and KMS integrated type)
Certification Report Page 7
[Figure 3] API type operational environment of the TOE (EOC and KMS separated type)
[Figure 4] API type operational environment of the TOE (EOC and KMS integrated type)
Certification Report Page 8
[Table 1] shows minimum hardware and software requirements necessary for
installation and operation of the TOE.
Category Contents
PrivacyKMS CPU Intel Dual core 2.4 GHz or higher
Memory 8 GB or higher
HDD 30GB or higher space for installation of
PrivacyKMS
NIC 10/100/1000 Mbps * 1 Port or more
OS Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS 64 bit
(GNU/Linux 4.4.0-142-generic x86_64)
Required S/W PostgreSQL 12.13
PrivacyEOC_API CPU Intel Dual core 2.4 GHz or higher
Memory 8 GB or higher
HDD 30GB or higher space for installation of
PrivacyEOC_API
NIC 10/100/1000 Mbps * 1 Port or more
OS Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS 64 bit
(GNU/Linux 4.4.0-142-generic x86_64)
PrivacyEOC_Plug-
in
CPU Intel Dual core 2.4 GHz or higher
Memory 8 GB or higher
HDD 30GB or higher space for installation of
PrivacyEOC_Plug-in
NIC 10/100/1000 Mbps * 1 Port or more
OS Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS 64 bit
(GNU/Linux 4.4.0-142-generic x86_64)
Required S/W Oracle Database 11g Release 2 (11.2)
PrivacyConsole CPU Intel Dual core 2.4 GHz or higher
Memory 8 GB or higher
HDD 30GB or higher space for installation of
PrivacyConsole
NIC 10/100/1000 Mbps * 1 Port or more
OS Windows 10 Pro 64 bit
Required S/W Java JRE 8u351
[Table 1] Hardware and software requirements for the TOE
Certification Report Page 9
Certification Validity: The certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by the
government of Republic of Korea or by any other organization that recognizes or gives
effect to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by the government of
Republic of Korea or by any other organization recognizes or gives effect to the
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
2. Identification
The TOE is software consisting of the following software components and related
guidance documents.
TOE PrivacyDB V2.1
Version PrivacyDB V2.1.0.44
TOE
Components
PrivacyKMS PrivacyKMS V2.1.0.11
(PrivacyKMS_linux_64bit_V2.1.0.11.tar)
PrivacyConsole PrivacyConsole V2.1.1.11
(PrivacyConsole_x64_V2.1.1.11.zip)
PrivacyEOC_API PrivacyEOC_API V2.1.0.11
(PrivacyEOC_API_linux_64bit_V2.1.0.11.tar)
PrivacyEOC_Plug-in PrivacyEOC_Plug-in V2.1.0.11
(PrivacyEOC_Plug-in_linux_64bit_V2.1.0.11.tar)
Guidance
Document
PrivacyDB V2.1 Preparative Procedures V1.7
(PrivacyDB V2.1 Preparative Procedures V1.7.pdf)
PrivacyDB V2.1 User Operational Guidance V1.7
(PrivacyDB V2.1 User Operational Guidance V1.7.pdf)
[Table 2] TOE identification
Note that the TOE is delivered contained in a CD-ROM.
[Table 4] summarizes additional information for scheme, developer, sponsor, evaluation
facility, certification body, etc..
Scheme Korea Evaluation and Certification Guidelines for IT Security
(August 24, 2017)
Korea Evaluation and Certification Scheme for IT Security (May
17, 2021)
Certification Report Page 10
Common Criteria Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5, CCMB-2017-04-001 ~ CCMB-2017-04-
003, April 2017
Protection Profile Korean National Protection Profile for Database Encryption V1.1,
KECS-PP-0820a-2017, 11 December 2019
Developer OWL Systems Inc.
Sponsor OWL Systems Inc.
Evaluation
Facility
Korea System Assurance (KOSYAS)
Completion Date
of Evaluation
January 10, 2023
Certification Body IT Security Certification Center
[Table 3] Additional identification information
3. Security Policy
The ST [6] for the TOE claims strict conformance to Korean National Protection Profile
for Database Encryption V1.1 [7], and complies security policies defined in the PP [7]
by security requirements. Thus, the TOE provides security features defined in the PP [7]
as follows:
 Security audit: The TOE generates audit records of security relevant events
including the start-up/shutdown of the audit functions, integrity violation and
self-test failures, and stores them in the DBMS.
 Cryptographic support: The TOE performs cryptographic operations such as
encryption/decryption and hash, and cryptographic key managements such as
key generation/distribution/destruction using cryptographic module (Key#
Crypto v1.4) validated under the KCMVP.
 User data protection: The TOE provides encryption and decryption for the user
data in a column of a database.
 Identification and authentication: The TOE perform password-based
identification and authentication for PrivacyConsole. The TOE also mutually
authenticates TOE components when they communicate each other.
 Security management: Security management of the TOE is restricted to only
Certification Report Page 11
the authorized administrator who can access the management interface
provided by TOE.
 Protection of the TSF: The TOE provides secure communications between
TOE components to protect the transmitted data. The TOE encrypts the stored
TSF data to protect them from unauthorized exposure and modification. The
TOE performs self-tests on the TOE components, which includes the self-test
on the validated cryptographic module.
 TOE access: The TOE manages authorized administrators’ sessions based on
access IP addresses. The TOE terminates the sessions after predefined time
interval of inactivity.
4. Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
There is no explicit Security Problem Definition chapter, therefore no Assumptions
section in the low assurance ST. Some security aspects of the operational environment
are added to those of the PP [7] in which the TOE will be used or is intended to be
used (For the detailed and precise definition of the security objectives of the
operational environment, refer to the ST [6], chapter 3.):
5. Architectural Information
The TOE is software consisting of the following four components:
 PrivacyKMS provides security features of identification and authentication of
an administrator, cryptographic key generation for user data encryption.
 PrivacyConsole provides security features of identification and authentication
of administrators. PrivacyConsole also provides management interface to an
authorized administrator,
 PrivacyEOC_API and PrivacyEOC_Plug-in encrypt and decrypt the user data
in a column of a database.
Note that all the three components perform the functionalities of audit data generation,
cryptographic key management, cryptographic operations, protection of TSF data, and
mutual authentication between the components. For the detailed description on the
architectural information, refer to the ST [6], Chapter 1.4.2.
Certification Report Page 12
6. Documentation
The following documentations are evaluated and provided with the TOE by the
developer to the customer.
Identifier Release Date
PrivacyDB V2.1 Preparative Procedures V1.7 V1.7 December 4, 2022
PrivacyDB V2.1 User Operational Guidance V1.7 V1.7 December 4, 2022
[Table 4] Documentation
7. TOE Testing
The developer took a testing approach based on the SFRs defined in the ST [6]. Each
test case includes the following information:
 Test no: Identifier of each test case
 Test Purpose: Includes the security functions to be tested
 Test Configuration: Details about the test configuration
 Test Procedure detail: Detailed procedures for testing each security function
 Expected result: Result expected from testing
 Actual result: Result obtained by performing testing
The developer correctly performed and documented the tests according to the
assurance component ATE_FUN.1.
The evaluator installed and prepared the TOE in accordance to the preparative
procedures, performed all tests provided by developer, and conducted independent
testing based upon test cases devised by the evaluator. The TOE and test
configuration are identical to the developer’s tests.
Also, the evaluator conducted vulnerability analysis and penetration testing based upon
test cases devised by the evaluator resulting from the independent search for potential
vulnerabilities.
The evaluator’s testing effort, the testing approach, configuration, depth, and results
are summarized in the ETR [5].
Certification Report Page 13
8. Evaluated Configuration
The TOE is PrivacyDB V2.1 (version PrivacyDB V2.1.1.44). See table 3 for detailed
information on the TOE components.
The TOE is installed from the CD-ROM distributed by OWL Systems Inc. After installing
the TOE, the customer can check the TOE version using GUI interface to view each
TOE component version. And the guidance documents listed in this report chapter 6,
[Table 4] were evaluated with the TOE.
9. Results of the Evaluation
The evaluation facility provided the evaluation result in the ETR [5] which references
Single Evaluation Reports for each assurance requirement and Observation Reports.
The evaluation result was based on the CC [1] and CEM [2].
As a result of the evaluation, the verdict PASS is assigned to all assurance
components.
9.1 Security Target Evaluation (ASE)
The ST Introduction correctly identifies the ST and the TOE, and describes the TOE in
a narrative way at three levels of abstraction (TOE reference, TOE overview and TOE
description), and these three descriptions are consistent with each other. Therefore, the
verdict PASS is assigned to ASE_INT.1.
The Conformance Claim properly describes how the ST and the TOE conform to the
CC and how the ST conforms to packages. Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to
ASE_CCL.1.
The Security Objectives for the operational environment are clearly defined. Therefore,
the verdict PASS is assigned to ASE_OBJ.1.
The Extended Components Definition has been clearly and unambiguously defined,
and it is necessary. Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to ASE_ECD.1.
The Security Requirements is defined clearly and unambiguously, and it is internally
consistent. Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to ASE_REQ.1.
The TOE Summary Specification addresses all SFRs, and it is consistent with other
narrative descriptions of the TOE. Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to
Certification Report Page 14
ASE_TSS.1.
Thus, the ST is sound and internally consistent, and suitable to be used as the basis
for the TOE evaluation.
The verdict PASS is assigned to the assurance class ASE.
9.2 Life Cycle Support Evaluation (ALC)
The developer has uniquely identified the TOE. Therefore, the verdict PASS is
assigned to ALC_CMC.1.
The configuration list includes the TOE and the evaluation evidence required by the
SARs in the ST. Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to ALC_CMS.1.
The verdict PASS is assigned to the assurance class ALC.
9.3 Guidance Documents Evaluation (AGD)
The procedures and steps for the secure preparation of the TOE have been
documented and result in a secure configuration. Therefore, the verdict PASS is
assigned to AGD_PRE.1.
The operational user guidance describes for each user role the security functionality
and interfaces provided by the TSF, provides instructions and guidelines for the secure
use of the TOE, addresses secure procedures for all modes of operation, facilitates
prevention and detection of insecure TOE states, or it is misleading or unreasonable.
Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to AGD_OPE.1.
Thus, the guidance documents are adequately describing the user can handle the TOE
in a secure manner. The guidance documents take into account the various types of
users (e.g. those who accept, install, administrate or operate the TOE) whose incorrect
actions could adversely affect the security of the TOE or of their own data.
The verdict PASS is assigned to the assurance class AGD.
9.4 Development Evaluation (ADV)
The developer has provided a high-level description of at least the SFR-enforcing and
SFR-supporting TSFIs, in terms of descriptions of their parameters. Therefore, the
verdict PASS is assigned to ADV_FSP.1.
The verdict PASS is assigned to the assurance class ADV.
Certification Report Page 15
9.5 Test Evaluation (ATE)
The developer correctly performed and documented the tests in the test documentation.
Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to ATE_FUN.1.
By independently testing a subset of the TSF, the evaluator confirmed that the TOE
behaves as specified in the functional specification and guidance documentation.
Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to ATE_IND.1.
Thus, the TOE behaves as described in the ST and as specified in the evaluation
evidence (described in the ADV class).
The verdict PASS is assigned to the assurance class ATE.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment (AVA)
By penetration testing, the evaluator confirmed that there are no exploitable
vulnerabilities by attackers possessing basic attack potential in the operational
environment of the TOE. Therefore, the verdict PASS is assigned to AVA_VAN.1.
Thus, potential vulnerabilities identified, during the evaluation of the development and
anticipated operation of the TOE, don’t allow attackers possessing basic attack
potential to violate the SFRs.
The verdict PASS is assigned to the assurance class AVA.
9.7 Evaluation Result Summary
Assurance
Class
Assurance
Component
Evaluator
Action
Elements
Verdict
Evaluator Action
Elements
Assurance
Component
Assurance
Class
ASE ASE_INT.1 ASE_INT.1.1E PASS PASS PASS
ASE_INT.1.2E PASS
ASE_CCL.1 ASE_CCL.1.1E PASS PASS
ASE_OBJ.1 ASE_OBJ.1.1E PASS PASS
ASE_ECD.1 ASE_ECD.1.1E PASS PASS
ASE_ECD.1.2E PASS
ASE_REQ.1 ASE_REQ.1.1E PASS PASS
ASE_TSS.1 ASE_TSS.1.1E PASS PASS
Certification Report Page 16
Assurance
Class
Assurance
Component
Evaluator
Action
Elements
Verdict
Evaluator Action
Elements
Assurance
Component
Assurance
Class
ASE_TSS.1.2E PASS
ALC ALC_CMC.1 ALC_CMC.1.1E PASS PASS PASS
ALC_CMS.1 ALC_CMS.1.1E PASS PASS
AGD AGD_PRE.1 AGD_PRE.1.1E PASS PASS PASS
AGD_PRE.1.2E PASS PASS
AGD_OPE.1 AGD_OPE.1.1E PASS PASS
ADV ADV_FSP.1 ADV_FSP.1.1E PASS PASS PASS
ADV_FSP.1.2E PASS
ATE ATE_FUN.1 ATE_FUN.1.1E PASS PASS PASS
ATE_IND.1 ATE_IND.1.1E PASS PASS
ATE_IND.1.2E PASS
AVA AVA_VAN.1 AVA_VAN.1.1E PASS PASS PASS
AVA_VAN.1.2E PASS
AVA_VAN.1.3E PASS
[Table 5] Evaluation Result Summary
10. Recommendations
The TOE security functionality can be ensured only in the evaluated TOE operational
environment with the evaluated TOE configuration, thus the TOE shall be operated by
complying with the followings:
 The TOE must be installed and operated in a physically secure environment
accessible only by authorized administrators and should not allow remote
management from outside.
 The administrator shall maintain a safe state such as application of the latest
security patches, eliminating unnecessary service, change of the default
password, etc., of the operating system and DBMS in the TOE operation.
 The administrator should periodically check a spare space of audit data
storage in case of the audit data loss, and carries out the audit data backup to
Certification Report Page 17
prevent audit data loss.
 Developers who make the encryption/decryption functions of the TOE interact
with other applications or DBMSs should ensure that the functions are securely
applied according to the guidance document provided with the TOE.
11. Security Target
PrivacyDB V2.1 Security Target V1.7 [6] is included in this report for reference.
12. Acronyms and Glossary
CC Common Criteria
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
PP Protection Profile
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functionality
TSFI TSF Interface
Decryption The act that restoring the ciphertext into the plaintext
using the decryption key
Encryption The act that converting the plaintext into the ciphertext
using the cryptographic key
Self-test Pre-operational or conditional test executed by the
cryptographic module
Validated Cryptographic
Module
A cryptographic module that is validated and given a
validation number by validation authority
Certification Report Page 18
13. Bibliography
The certification body has used following documents to produce this report.
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 5, CCMB-2017-04-001 ~ CCMB-2017-04-003, April 2017
Part 1: Introduction and general model
Part 2: Security functional components
Part 3: Security assurance components
[2] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version
3.1 Revision 5, CCMB-2017-04-004, April 2017
[3] Korea Evaluation and Certification Guidelines for IT Security (24 August 2017)
[4] Korea Evaluation and Certification Scheme for IT Security (17 May 2021)
[5] KOSYAS-2021-14 PrivacyDB V2.1 Evaluation Technical Report V1.00, 10 January
2022
[6] PrivacyDB V2.1 Security Target V1.7, 12 December 2022
[7] Korean National Protection Profile for Database Encryption V1.1 (KECS-PP-
0820a-2017, 11 December 2019)