National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
416 Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-
do, 443-742 Korea
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung
Galaxy Devices VPN Client
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-VID10557-2014
Dated: May 31, 2014
Version: 1.0
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
®
TM
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Ken Elliott
Luke Florer
Meredith Hennan
Jerry Myers
Ken Stutterheim
Mario Tinto
The Aerospace Corporation
Columbia, MD
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
James Arnold
Tammy Compton
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 2
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 TOE Evaluated Configuration ............................................................................ 3
3.2 Physical Boundaries............................................................................................ 4
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Cryptographic support ........................................................................................ 5
4.2 User data protection............................................................................................ 5
4.3 Identification and authentication......................................................................... 5
4.4 Security management.......................................................................................... 5
4.5 Protection of the TSF.......................................................................................... 5
4.6 Trusted path/channels ......................................................................................... 5
5 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope..................................................................... 5
6 Documentation............................................................................................................ 5
7 IT Product Testing ...................................................................................................... 6
7.1 Developer Testing............................................................................................... 8
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ............................................................... 8
8 Evaluated Configuration............................................................................................. 8
9 Results of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 8
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)............................................................ 9
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV).............................................................. 9
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)................................................. 9
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)..................................... 9
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ............... 10
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)....................................................... 10
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results........................................................................ 10
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations .................................................................. 10
11 Annexes..................................................................................................................... 11
12 Security Target.......................................................................................................... 11
13 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 11
14 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 11
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client solution
provided by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 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 April 2014. 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 EAL 1.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) are the Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client including
the Galaxy S4, Galaxy Note 3, Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition, Galaxy NotePRO Tablet,
and Galaxy S5 products.
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 4) for conformance to the Common Criteria for
IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 4). 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 Gossamer Security Solutions evaluation team concluded that the Common Criteria
requirements for Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 1 were satisfied.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client (IVPNCPP14) Security Target
and analysis performed by the EvaluationTeam.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
2
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards
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: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client including
the Galaxy S4, Galaxy Note 3, Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition, Galaxy NotePRO
Tablet, and Galaxy S5
Protection Profile Protection Profile for IPsec Virtual Private Network (VPN) Clients, Version 1.4,
21 October 2013
ST: Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client (IVPNCPP14) Security Target, Version
1.0, May 23, 2014
Evaluation Technical
Report
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client (IVPNCPP14) , Version 1.1, May 23, 2014
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 4
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
3
Item Identifier
Developer Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators Ken Elliott, The Aerospace Corporation
Luke Florer, The Aerospace Corporation
Meredith Hennan, The Aerospace Corporation
Jerry Myers, The Aerospace Corporation
Ken Stutterheim, The Aerospace Corporation
Mario Tinto, The Aerospace Corporation
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The TOE combines with a Mobile Device Management solution that enables the enterprise
to watch, control and administer all deployed mobile devices, across multiple mobile
service providers as well as facilitate secure communications through a VPN. This
partnership provides a secure mobile environment that can be managed and controlled by
the environment and reduce the risks that can be introduced through a Bring-Your-Own-
Device (BYOD) model.
Data on the TOE is protected through the implementation of Samsung On-Device
Encryption (ODE) which utilizes a FIPS 140-2 certified cryptographic modules to encrypt
device and SD card storage. This functionality is combined with a number of on-device
policies including local wipe, remote wipe, password complexity, automatic lock and
privileged access to security configurations to prevent unauthorized access to the device
and stored data.
The Samsung Enterprise Software Development Kit (SDK) builds on top of the existing
Android security model by expanding the current set of security configuration of options to
more than 390 configurable policies and including additional security functionality such as
application whitelisting and blacklisting.
3.1 TOE Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration consists of five different models of the TOE, the Galaxy S4,
Galaxy Note 3, Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition, Galaxy NotePRO Tablet, and Galaxy S5.
The evaluated versions of the mobile devices are as follows.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
4
• Android version: 4.4.2
• Kernel version: 3.4.0
• Build number: KOT49H
• Security software version: MDF v1.0 Release 3, VPN v1.4 Release 2
The model numbers of the mobile devices are as follows.
Carrier
Galaxy
Note 3
Galaxy S4
Galaxy
NotePRO
Galaxy Note
10.1 2014 Ed
Galaxy S5
Verizon SM-N900V SCH-I545 SM-P905V SM-P605 SM-G900V
AT&T SM-N900A SGH-I337 SM-P905A N/A SM-G900A
Sprint SM-N900P SPH-L720 SM-P905P N/A SM-G900P
T-Mobile SM-N900T SGH-M919 SM-P905T N/A SM-G900T
US Cellular SM-N900R SCH-R970 N/A N/A SM-G900R4
International SM-N900 GT-I9505 SM-P905 N/A
SM-G900
F/H/I/M/K/L/S
.
3.2 Physical Boundaries
The TOE is a multi-user operating system based on Android (4.4) that incorporates the
Samsung Enterprise SDK. The TOE does not include the user applications that run on top
of the operating system, but does include controls that limit application behavior. The
method of use for the TOE is as a mobile messaging and VPN device for use within an
enterprise environment where the configuration of the device is managed through a
compliant device management solution.
The TOE communicates and interacts with 802.11-2012 Access Points to establish network
connectivity, and the through that connectivity interacts with MDM servers that allow
administrative control of the TOE.
4 Security Policy
This section summarizes the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Cryptographic support
2. User data protection
3. Identification and authentication
4. Security Management
5. Protection of the TSF
6. Trusted path/channels
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
5
4.1 Cryptographic support
The IPsec implementation is the primary function of the TOE. IPSec is used by the TOE to
protect communication between itself and a VPN Gateway over an unprotected network.
With the exception of the IPsec implementation, the TOE relies upon its underlying
evaluated platform for the cryptographic services specified in this Security Target.
4.2 User data protection
The TOE ensures that residual information is protected from potential reuse in accessible
objects such as network packets.
4.3 Identification and authentication
The TOE provides the ability to use, store, and protect X.509 certificates and pre-shared
keys that are used for IPsec Virtual Private Network (VPN) connections.
4.4 Security management
The TOE provides all the interfaces necessary to manage the security functions required by
the VPN client to meet the requirements. In particular, the IPsec VPN is fully configurable
by a combination of functions provided directly by the TOE and those available to the
associated VPN gateway.
4.5 Protection of the TSF
The TOE relies upon its underlying platform to perform self-tests that cover the TOE as
well as the functions necessary to securely update the TOE.
4.6 Trusted path/channels
The TOE acts as a VPN client using IPsec to establish secure channels to corresponding
VPN gateways.
5 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the
Protection Profile for IPsec Virtual Private Network (VPN) Clients, Version 1.4, 21
October 2013 (IVPNCPP14). That information has not been reproduced here and the
IVPNCPP14should be consulted if there is interest in that material.
6 Documentation
The following documentation was used as evidence for the evaluation of the Samsung
Galaxy Devices VPN Client:
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
6
• Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices Guidance documentation, Version 0.6,
May 13, 2014
• Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices VPN User Guidance Documentation,
Version 0.5, May 13, 2014
Any additional customer documentation delivered with the product or available through
download was not included in the scope of the evaluation and hence should not be relied
upon when using the products as evaluated.
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 Detailed Test Report for Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client (IVPNCPP14), Version 1.2, May 22, 2014.
The following diagrams depict the test environments used by the evaluators.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
7
Figure 1 Evaluator Test Setup 1
Ubuntu
Linux
Windows
Ubuntu
Linux
Ubuntu
Linux
Galaxy S4
Galaxy NotePRO
Galaxy Note 3
USB Connections
Network – Putty
Connections
Ubuntu
Linux
Ubuntu
Linux
Ubuntu
Linux
Galaxy S5 LTE
Galaxy Note 10.1
Galaxy S5 3G
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
8
7.1 Developer Testing
No evidence of developer testing is required in the assurance activities for this product.
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
The evaluation team verified the product according the Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy
Devices Guidance documentation, Version 0.6, May 13, 2014 document and ran the tests
specified in the IVPNCPP14.
8 Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration consists of the Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client devices.
To use the product in the evaluated configuration, the product must be configured as
specified in Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices Guidance documentation, Version
0.6, May 13, 2014.
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
EAL1 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
Figure 2 Evaluator Test Setup 2
TOE Devices
Linux
• RADIUS
• VPN Gateway
• Sniffer
• Web server
Backtrack
Wireshark
Access Point
Private
VPN-accessible
Network
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
9
CC version 3.1 rev 4 and CEM version 3.1 rev 4. The evaluation determined the Product
Name TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the Part 3 Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL
1).
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 Samsung Galaxy S5 & Galaxy Note 10.1
2014 Edition products that are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security
function descriptions that support the requirements.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 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 IVPNCPP related to the
examination of the information contained in the TSS.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 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.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found
that the TOE was identified.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
10
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran
the set of tests specified by the assurance activities in the IVPNCPP and recorded the
results in a Test Report, summarized in the Assurance Activities Report.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team
performed a public search for vulnerabilities and did not discover any public issues with
the TOE.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.7 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.
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.
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations
During this evaluation the CCTL requested clarification on a couple of aspects of the VPN
Protection Profile. The results of this evaluation were delayed while the NIAP Technical
Rapid Response Team (TRRT) and the CCTL iteratively refined the discussion and the
TRRT formulated its position. The areas of concern were with the implementation of a
default SPD at the VPN Client and the extent to which it could be locally administered. At
the time of publication of this report, a formal TRRT position regarding the required
aspects of the implementation of an SPD by the VPN Client has not been released. A
general statement of the finalized interpretations will be posted on the NIAP web site and
incorporated into a future revision of IVPNCPP14. It has been determined that the TOE
meets the requirements and assurance activities as currently specified.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
11
11 Annexes
Not applicable
12 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy
Devices VPN Client (IVPNCPP14) Security Target, Version 1.0, May 23, 2014.
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.
14 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.2
May 31, 2014
12
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation: Part 1:
Introduction and General Model, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2102.
[4] Protection Profile for IPsec Virtual Private Network (VPN) Clients, Version 1.4, 21
October 2013.