Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
Direzione generale per le tecnologie delle comunicazioni ela sicurezza informatica
Istituto Superiore delle Comunicazioni e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione
Schema nazionale per la valutazione e certificazione della sicurezza di sistemi e prodotti ICT
(DPCM del 30 ottobre 2003 - G.U. n. 93 del 27 aprile 2004)
Certificato n. 12/20
(Certification No.)
Prodotto: IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS on NXP JCOP 4 P71
(Product)
Sviluppato da: ID&Trust Ltd.
(Developed by)
Il prodotto indicato in questo certificato è risultato conforme ai requisiti dello standard
ISO/IEC 15408 (Common Criteria) v. 3.1 per il livello di garanzia:
The product identified in this certificate complies with the requirements of the standard
ISO/IEC 15408 (Common Criteria) v. 3.1 for the assurance level:
EAL4+
(ALC_DVS.2, ATE_DPT.2, AVA_VAN.5)
Il Direttore
(Dott.ssa Eva Spina)
Roma, 28 ottobre 2020
Fino a EAL2 (Up to EAL2) Fino a EAL4 (Up to EAL4)
[ORIGINAL DIGITALLY SIGNED]
Page 2 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
Direzione generale per le tecnologie delle comunicazioni e la sicurezza informatica
Istituto Superiore delle Comunicazioni e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione
Certification Report
IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS
on NXP JCOP 4 P71
OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC
Version 1.0
28 October 2020
Page 4 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
Courtesy translation
Disclaimer: this translation in English language is provided for informational purposes
only; it is not a substitute for the official document and has no legal value. The original
Italian language version of the document is the only approved and official version.
Page 5 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
1 Document revisions
Version Author Information Date
1.0 OCSI First issue 28/10/2020
Page 6 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
2 Table of contents
1 Document revisions........................................................................................................5
2 Table of contents............................................................................................................6
3 Acronyms........................................................................................................................8
4 References....................................................................................................................10
4.1 Criteria and regulations........................................................................................10
4.2 Technical documents ...........................................................................................11
5 Recognition of the certificate........................................................................................13
5.1 European Recognition of CC Certificates (SOGIS-MRA)...................................13
5.2 International Recognition of CC Certificates (CCRA) .........................................13
6 Statement of Certification.............................................................................................14
7 Summary of the evaluation ..........................................................................................16
7.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................16
7.2 Executive summary..............................................................................................16
7.3 Evaluated product ................................................................................................17
7.3.1 TOE Architecture.............................................................................................18
7.3.2 TOE security features......................................................................................19
7.4 Documentation .....................................................................................................23
7.5 Protection Profile conformance claims ................................................................23
7.6 Functional and assurance requirements .............................................................24
7.7 Evaluation conduct...............................................................................................25
7.8 General considerations about the certification validity........................................25
8 Evaluation outcome......................................................................................................26
8.1 Evaluation results.................................................................................................26
8.2 Additional assurance activities.............................................................................27
8.3 Recommendations ...............................................................................................28
9 Annex A – Guidelines for the secure usage of the product.........................................29
9.1 TOE Delivery ........................................................................................................29
9.2 Installation, initialization and secure usage of the TOE ......................................29
10 Annex B – Evaluated configuration..............................................................................31
11 Annex C – Test activity.................................................................................................32
Page 7 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
11.1 Test configuration.................................................................................................32
11.2 Functional tests performed by the Developer......................................................32
11.2.1 Testing approach.............................................................................................32
11.2.2 Test coverage..................................................................................................33
11.2.3 Test results ......................................................................................................33
11.3 Functional and independent tests performed by the Evaluators ........................33
11.4 Vulnerability analysis and penetration tests ........................................................34
Page 8 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
3 Acronyms
3DES Triple DES
AES Advanced Encryption Standard
API Application Programming Interface
BAC Basic Access Control
CAN Card Access Number
CC Common Criteria
CCRA Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement
CEM Common Evaluation Methodology
CGA Certificate Generation Application
DPCM Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri
DTBS/R Data To Be Signed / Representation
EAC Extended Access Control
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ECDSA Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm
eIDAS electronic IDentification Authentication and Signature
eMRTD Electronic Machine Readable Travel Document
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
GP Global Platform
HW Hardware
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IC Integrated Circuit
IT Information Technology
JCOP Java Card Open Platform
LDS Logical Data Structure
LGP Linea Guida Provvisoria
Page 9 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
LVS Laboratorio per la Valutazione della Sicurezza
MRZ Machine-Readable Zone
NIS Nota Informativa dello Schema
OCSI Organismo di Certificazione della Sicurezza Informatica
OS Operating System
PACE Password Authenticated Connection Establishment
PACE-CAM PACE with Chip Authentication Mapping
PACE-GM PACE with Generic Mapping
PIN Personal Identification Number
PP Protection Profile
QSCD Qualified Signature Creation Device
RSA Rivest, Shamir, Adleman
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SCD Signature Creation Data
SFR Security Functional Requirement
SOGIS Senior Officials Group Information Systems Security
ST Security Target
SVD Signature Verification Data
SW Software
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functionality
TSFI TSF Interface
Page 10 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
4 References
4.1 Criteria and regulations
[CC1] CCMB-2017-04-001, “Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Part 1 – Introduction and general model”, Version 3.1, Revision 5,
April 2017
[CC2] CCMB-2017-04-002, “Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Part 2 – Security functional components”, Version 3.1, Revision
5, April 2017
[CC3] CCMB-2017-04-003, “Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Part 3 – Security assurance components”, Version 3.1, Revision
5, April 2017
[CCRA] “Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates In the field
of Information Technology Security”, July 2014
[CEM] CCMB-2017-04-004, “Common Methodology for Information Technology
Security Evaluation – Evaluation methodology”, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April
2017
[eIDAS] Regulation (EU) No. 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic
transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC,
Official Journal of the European Union L 257, 28 August 2014
[LGP1] Schema nazionale per la valutazione e certificazione della sicurezza di
sistemi e prodotti nel settore della tecnologia dell’informazione - Descrizione
Generale dello Schema Nazionale - Linee Guida Provvisorie - parte 1 –
LGP1 versione 1.0, Dicembre 2004
[LGP2] Schema nazionale per la valutazione e certificazione della sicurezza di
sistemi e prodotti nel settore della tecnologia dell’informazione -
Accreditamento degli LVS e abilitazione degli Assistenti - Linee Guida
Provvisorie - parte 2 – LGP2 versione 1.0, Dicembre 2004
[LGP3] Schema nazionale per la valutazione e certificazione della sicurezza di
sistemi e prodotti nel settore della tecnologia dell’informazione - Procedure di
valutazione - Linee Guida Provvisorie - parte 3 – LGP3, versione 1.0,
Dicembre 2004
[NIS1] Organismo di certificazione della sicurezza informatica, Nota Informativa
dello Schema N. 1/13 – Modifiche alla LGP1, versione 1.0, Novembre 2013
[NIS2] Organismo di certificazione della sicurezza informatica, Nota Informativa
dello Schema N. 2/13 – Modifiche alla LGP2, versione 1.0, Novembre 2013
Page 11 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
[NIS3] Organismo di certificazione della sicurezza informatica, Nota Informativa
dello Schema N. 3/13 – Modifiche alla LGP3, versione 1.0, Novembre 2013
[SOGIS] “Mutual Recognition Agreement of Information Technology Security
Evaluation Certificates”, Version 3, January 2010
4.2 Technical documents
[ADM] ID&Trust Identity Applet Suite Administrator’s Guide, Version 3.4.1, 31 July
2020
[BSI-TR1] BSI Technical Guideline TR-03105 Part 3.2: Advanced Security
Mechanisms for Machine Readable Travel Documents - Extended Access
Control (EACv1) - Tests for Security Implementation, Version 1.4.1, 6 April
2014
[BSI-TR2] BSI Technical Guideline TR-03105 Part 3.3: Test Plan for eID-Cards with
Advanced Security Mechanisms - EAC 2, Version 1.03, 24 September 2010
[BSI-TR2A] Amendment to BSI TR-03105 Part 3.3, Release 3, 04 June 2012
[BSI-TR3] BSI Technical Guideline TR-03105 Part 3.4: Test plan for eID-Cards with
eSign-application acc. to BSI TR-03117, Version 1.0, 01 April 2010
[DEL] ID&Trust Documents, Common Criteria Evaluation, IDentity Applet V3.4
Delivery Documentation, V0.02, 10 February 2020
[ETR] “ID&Trust IDentity Applet v3.4 /eIDAS” Evaluation Technical Report, v4,
CCLab Software Laboratory, 14 October 2020
[ETR-COMP] Evaluation Technical Report for Composition NXP JCOP 4 P71 - EAL6+,
19-RPT-177, Version 7.0, 19 March 2020
[ICAO-9303] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Doc 9303, Machine
Readable Travel Documents, Seventh Edition, 2015
[ICAO-TR1] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Report,
Supplemental Access Control for Machine Readable Travel Documents,
Version 1.1, 15 April 2014
[ICAO-TR2] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Report, Radio
Frequency Protocol and Application Test Standard for eMRTD Part 3 –
Tests for Application Protocol and Logical Data Structure, Version 2.10, 7
July 2016
[JIL-COMP] Joint Interpretation Library, Composite product evaluation for Smart Cards
and similar devices, Version 1.5.1, May 2018
[NXP-CR1] Certification Report “NXP JCOP 4 P71”, NSCIB-CC-180212-CR2, TÜV
Rheinland Nederland B.V., 20 March 2020
Page 12 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
[NXP-CR2] Certification Report “NXP Secure Smart Card Controller N7121 with IC
Dedicated Software and Crypto Library”, BSI-DSZ-CC-1040-2019-MA-01,
BSI - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, 4 March 2020
[PP-056] BSI-CC-PP-0056-V2-2012, Protection Profile - Machine Readable Travel
Document with ICAO Application, Extended Access Control with PACE
(EAC PP), Version 1.3.2, 05 December 2012
[PP-068] BSI-CC-PP-0068-V2-2011-MA-01, Protection Profile - Machine Readable
Travel Document using Standard Inspection Procedure with PACE (PACE
PP), Version 1.01, 22 July 2014
[PP-086] BSI-CC-PP-0086, Protection Profile - Electronic document implementing
Extended Access Control Version 2 (EAC2) based on BSI TR-03110 (EAC2
PP), Version 1.01, 20 May 2015
[PP-087] BSI-CC-PP-0087, Protection Profile - Machine-Readable Electronic
Documents based on BSI TR-03110 for Official Use (MR.ED-PP), version
1.01, 20 May 2015
[PPSSCD] EN 419211-2:2013, Common Criteria Protection Profiles for Secure
Signature Creation Device - Part 2: Device with key generation (BSI-CC-
PP-0059-2009-MA-02)
[TR-03110-1] BSI TR-03110-1, Advanced Security Mechanisms forMachine Readable
Travel Documents and eIDAS Token - Part 1: eMRTDs with BAC/PACEv2
and EACv1, Version 2.20, 26 February 2015
[TR-03110-2] BSI TR-03110-2, Advanced Security Mechanisms for Machine Readable
Travel Documents and eIDAS Token - Part 2: Protocols for electronic
IDentification, Authentication and trust Services (eIDAS), Version 2.21, 21
December 2016
[TR-03110-3] BSI TR-03110-3, Advanced Security Mechanisms for Machine Readable
Travel Documents and eIDAS Token - Part 3: Common Specifications,
Version 2.21, 21 December 2016
[TR-03110-4] BSI TR-03110-4, Advanced Security Mechanisms for Machine Readable
Travel Documents and eIDAS Token - Part 4: Applications and Document
Profiles, Version 2.21, 21 December 2016
[ST] “Security Target ID&Trust IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS – Electronic Identity
Card with PACE-GM, PACE-CAM, Extended Access Control v1 and v2,
Restricted Identification and Active Authentication”, Version 1.02, ID&Trust
Ltd., 13 October 2020
[USR] ID&Trust Identity Applet Suite User’s Guide, Version 3.4.1, 4 August 2020
Page 13 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
5 Recognition of the certificate
5.1 European Recognition of CC Certificates (SOGIS-MRA)
The European SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA, version 3 [SOGIS])
became effective in April 2010 and provides mutual recognition of certificates based on the
Common Criteria (CC) Evaluation Assurance Level up to and including EAL4 for all IT-
Products. A higher recognition level for evaluations beyond EAL4 is provided for IT-
Products related to specific Technical Domains only.
The current list of signatory nations and of technical domains for which the higher
recognition applies and other details can be found on https://www.sogis.eu/.
The SOGIS-MRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognized under the
terms of this agreement by signatory nations.
This certificate is recognized under SOGIS-MRA up to EAL4.
5.2 International Recognition of CC Certificates (CCRA)
The current version of the international arrangement on the mutual recognition of
certificates based on the CC (Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement, [CCRA] has
been ratified on 08 September 2014. It covers CC certificates compliant with collaborative
Protection Profiles (cPP), up to and including EAL4, or certificates based on assurance
components up to and including EAL2, with the possible augmentation of Flaw
Remediation family (ALC_FLR).
The current list of signatory nations and of collaborative Protection Profiles (cPP) and
other details can be found on https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/.
The CCRA logo printed on the certificate indicates that it is recognised under the terms of
this agreement by signatory nations.
This certificate is recognised under CCRA up to EAL2.
Page 14 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
6 Statement of Certification
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the product “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS on NXP JCOP
4 P71”, short name “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS”, developed by ID&Trust Ltd.
The TOE is a contactless smart card with the IDentity Applet Suite v3.4 configured as
IDentity Applet/eIDAS. The TOE is applicable as an electronic document with three
applications (ePassport, eID and eSign), which comply to the relevant eIDAS standards
and provides all necessary security protocols (PACE, EAC1 and EAC2).
The TOE is a composite product and comprises:
• The underlying Platform of the TOE: “NXP JCOP 4 P71”, developed by NXP
Semiconductors Germany GmbH;
• the Application Part of the TOE: “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS”;
• the associated guidance documentation.
Therefore, the evaluation has been conducted using the results of the Platform CC
evaluation [NXP-CR1], and following the recommendations contained in the mandatory
supporting document “Composite product evaluation for Smart Cards and similar devices”
[JIL-COMP], as required by the international agreements CCRA and SOGIS.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the requirements established by
the Italian Scheme for the evaluation and certification of security systems and products in
the field of information technology and expressed in the Provisional Guidelines [LGP1,
LGP2, LGP3] and Scheme Information Notes [NIS1, NIS2, NIS3]. The Scheme is operated
by the Italian Certification Body “Organismo di Certificazione della Sicurezza Informatica
(OCSI)”, established by the Prime Minister Decree (DPCM) of 30 October 2003 (O.J. n.98
of 27 April 2004).
The evaluation actually started in 2016 on a TOE named “IDentity Applet v3.3/eIDAS on
NXP JCOP 3 SECID P60 OSB Smart Card”, based on the JCOP 3 platform. During the
evaluation, the Sponsor decided to update the TOE to use the JCOP 4 platform. The new
TOE “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS” has exactly the same functionality of v3.3 but on the
updated platform. Therefore, the LVS CCLab Software Laboratory used the results of the
v3.3 ongoing evaluation as a base.
The objective of the evaluation is to provide assurance that the product complies with the
security requirements specified in the associated Security Target [ST]; the potential
consumers of the product should review also the Security Target, in addition to the present
Certification Report, in order to gain a complete understanding of the security problem
addressed. The evaluation activities have been carried out in accordance with the
Common Criteria Part 3 [CC3] and the Common Evaluation Methodology [CEM].
The TOE resulted compliant with the requirements of Part 3 of the CC v 3.1 for the
assurance level EAL4, augmented with ALC_DVS.2, ATE_DPT.2 and AVA_VAN.5,
Page 15 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
according to the information provided in the Security Target [ST] and in the configuration
shown in Annex B – Evaluated configuration of this Certification Report.
The publication of the Certification Report is the confirmation that the evaluation process
has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of the evaluation criteria
Common Criteria - ISO/IEC 15408 ([CC1], [CC2], [CC3]) and the procedures indicated by
the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement [CCRA] and that no exploitable
vulnerability was found. However, the Certification Body with such a document does not
express any kind of support or promotion of the TOE.
Page 16 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
7 Summary of the evaluation
7.1 Introduction
This Certification Report states the outcome of the Common Criteria evaluation of the
product “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS” to provide assurance to the potential consumers that
TOE security features comply with its security requirements.
In addition to the present Certification Report, the potential consumers of the product
should review also the Security Target [ST], specifying the functional and assurance
requirements and the intended operational environment.
7.2 Executive summary
TOE name IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS on NXP JCOP 4 P71
Security Target “Security Target ID&Trust IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS –
Electronic Identity Card with PACE-GM, PACE-CAM,
Extended Access Control v1 and v2, Restricted
Identification and Active Authentication”, Version 1.02
[ST]
Evaluation Assurance Level EAL4 augmented with ALC_DVS.2, ATE_DPT.2 and
AVA_VAN.5
Developer ID&Trust Ltd.
Sponsor NXP Semiconductors Netherlands B.V.
LVS CCLab Software Laboratory
CC version 3.1 Rev. 5
PP conformance claim BSI-CC-PP-0087 [PP-087]
EN 419211-2:2013 [PPSSCD]
BSI-CC-PP-0056-V2-2012 [PP-056]
BSI-CC-PP-0086 [PP-086]
BSI-CC-PP-0068-V2-2011-MA-01 [PP-068]
Evaluation starting date 6 September 2016
Evaluation ending date 14 October 2020
The certification results apply only to the version of the product shown in this Certification
Report and only if the operational environment assumptions described in the Security
Target [ST] are fulfilled.
Page 17 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
7.3 Evaluated product
This section summarizes the main functional and security requirements of the TOE. For a
detailed description, please refer to the Security Target [ST].
The TOE “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS” is a contactless integrated circuit chip containing
components for a machine-readable travel document programmed according to the
Logical Data Structure (LDS) as defined in [ICAO-TR1] and providing a highly configurable
eID solution, that is able to satisfy multiple different application requirements even within a
single applet instance. The TOE is applicable as an electronic document with three
applications which complies to relevant eIDAS standards ([TR-03110-1], [TR-03110-2],
[TR-03110-2]):
1. an electronic passport (ePassport) application;
2. an electronic identity (eID) application;
3. a signature (eSign) application.
Taking into consideration the BSI Technical Guideline [TR-03110-4], the current TOE
makes distinct the following configurations:
• European Passport;
• Identity Card with Protected MRTD Application;
• Identity Card with EU-compliant MRTD Application.
For more information about the possible configurations, see sect. 1.4.5 of [ST].
The TOE also provides all necessary security protocols: PACE, EAC1 and EAC2. The
TOE may also functionally support BAC, but this protocol is outside of the security policy
defined by the Security Target [ST], and it’s not covered by the evaluated configuration of
the TOE.
The TOE is a composite product and comprises:
• The underlying Platform of the TOE: “NXP JCOP 4 P71”, developed by NXP
Semiconductors Germany GmbH, certified at EAL6 augmented with ASE_TSS.2
and ALC_FLR.1 [NXP-CR1]; it consists of:
a) Micro Controller (a secure smart card controller from NXP from the
SmartMX3 family);
b) IC Dedicated Software (Micro Controller Firmware and Crypto Library);
c) IC Embedded Software JCOP 4 (Java Card Virtual Machine, Runtime
Environment, Java Card API);
d) Global Platform (GP) Framework;
• the Application Part of the TOE: “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS”;
• the associated guidance documentation.
The intended user of the product is the Card Issuer, who is in charge of the issuance of the
product to the smart card holders.
Page 18 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
7.3.1 TOE Architecture
The TOE “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS” is a composite TOE, and is viewed as a unit of the
following elements:
• the physical part of the travel document in form of paper and/or plastic and chip. It
presents visual readable data including (but not limited to) personal data of the
travel document holder:
o the biographical data on the biographical data page of the travel document
surface;
o the printed data in the Machine-Readable Zone (MRZ);
o the printed portrait.
• the logical travel document as data of the travel document holder stored according
to the Logical Data Structure (LDS) as specified by ICAO in [ICAO-TR1] on the
contactless integrated circuit. It presents contactless readable data including (but
not limited to) personal data of the travel document holder:
o the digital Machine-Readable Zone Data (digital MRZ data);
o the digitized portraits;
o the biometric reference data of finger(s) and/or iris image(s);
o the other data according to LDS;
o the Document Security Object (SOD).
Figure 1 shows the logical scope of the TOE and TOE boundaries.
The TOE is a composite TOE and the dashed line denotes the whole TOE. The underlying
certified hardware platform and JCOP 4 OS are marked with purple and green. The blue
box marks the application layer. The ID&Trust IDentity Applet Suite v3.4 could be loaded
in the Flash. During the creation phase an instance is created in the Flash and after
several configuration steps it will be personalized as IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS.
For a detailed description of the TOE, consult the Security Target [ST], and in particular:
• the physical and logical parts of the TOE are described in sect. 1.4.2 of [ST];
• the TOE life cycle is described in terms of four life cycle phases: Development,
Manufacturing, Personalisation of the Electronic Document, and Operational Use,
described in sect. 1.4.3 of [ST], together with the operations allowed to users and
administrators for each of them;
• the features of the Applet are provided in sect. 1.4.5 of [ST].
Page 19 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
Figure 1 - TOE logical scope and boundaries
7.3.2 TOE security features
7.3.2.1 Platform compatibility
Some aspects related to security features of the TOE, including security objectives,
assumptions, threats and organizational security policies, defined in the Security Target,
are covered directly by the Platform. For details see sect. 2.5 of the Security Target [ST].
7.3.2.2 ePassport functionality (PACE)
PACE is a password authenticated Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol that provides
secure communication and password-based authentication of the eMRTD chip and the
inspection system. PACE establishes Secure Messaging between an eMRTD chip, and an
inspection system based on weak (short) passwords. The security context is established in
the Master File. The protocol enables the eMRTD chip to verify that the inspection system
is authorized to access stored data and has the following features:
• strong session keys are provided independent of the strength of the password;
• the entropy of the password(s) used to authenticate the inspection system can be
very low.
PACE uses keys derived from passwords with a key derivation function. The key can be
derived from the Machine-Readable Zone (MRZ) or from the Card Access Number (CAN).
PACE supports the following Mappings:
Page 20 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
• Generic Mapping;
• Integrated Mapping;
• Chip Authentication Mapping.
The PACE implementation of IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS uses the READ BINARY, MSE:
SET AT, GENERAL AUTHENTICATE commands.
Steps of Password Authenticated Connection Establishment:
• The inspection system sends a READ BINARY command to the TOE followed by
an MSE: SET AT command (MANAGE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT command with
SET Authentication Template function).
• As a result of a chain of GENERAL AUTHENTICATE commands the TOE randomly
and uniformly chooses a nonce, encrypts it with the previously defined shared
password and sends the ciphertext to the inspection system.
• The inspection system recovers the plaintext with the shared password.
• The TOE and the inspection system exchange additional data for the mapping of
the nonce. For example, for Generic Mapping they exchange ephemeral key public
keys, for Integrated Mapping the TOE sends an additional nonce to the inspection
system.
• Both the TOE and the inspection system compute the ephemeral domain
parameters and perform an anonymous Diffie-Hellman key agreement based on the
ephemeral domain parameters and generate the shared secret. During Diffie-
Hellman key agreement the TOE checks whether the two public keys differ. Then
the session keys are derived and the TOE and the inspection system exchange and
verify the authentication token.
For Diffie-Hellman and Elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman PACE uses 3DES or AES as cipher
with key length 112, 128, 192 or 256. IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS uses only prime curves
with uncompressed points.
7.3.2.3 eID functionality
The claimed Extended Access Control 2 includes the PACE protocol described above, and
also the following protocols according to [TR-03110-2]:
• Chip Authentication Version 2:
The Chip Authentication Protocol is an ephemeral-static Diffie-Hellman key
agreement protocol that provides secure communication and unilateral
authentication of the MRTD chip.
The protocol in Version 2 provides explicit authentication of the MRTD chip by
verifying the authentication token and implicit authentication of the stored data by
performing Secure Messaging using the new session key.
If Chip Authentication was successfully performed, Secure Messaging is restarted
using the derived session keys. Otherwise, Secure Messaging is continued using
the previously established session key (PACE).
Page 21 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
• Terminal Authentication Version 2:
The Terminal Authentication Protocol is a two-move challenge-response protocol
that provides explicit unilateral authentication of the terminal.
Terminal Authentication enables the MRTD chip to verify that the terminal is entitled
to access sensitive data. As the terminal may access sensitive data afterwards, all
further communication must be protected appropriately. Terminal Authentication
therefore also authenticates an ephemeral public key chosen by the terminal that
will be used to set up Secure Messaging with Chip Authentication Version 2. The
MRTD chip must bind the terminal’s access rights to Secure Messaging established
by the authenticated ephemeral public key of the terminal.
If Terminal Authentication was successfully performed, the MRTD chip shall grant
access to stored sensitive data according to the effective authorization of the
authenticated terminal. The MRTD chip shall however restrict the terminal’s access
rights to Secure Messaging established by the authenticated ephemeral public key,
i.e., the MRTD chip shall compare the compressed representation of the terminal’s
ephemeral public key received as part of Terminal Authentication with the
compressed representation of the ephemeral public key provided by the terminal as
part of Chip Authentication. The MRTD chip must not accept more than one
execution of Terminal Authentication within the same session.
• Restricted Identification:
The Restricted Identification Protocol is a static Diffie-Hellman key agreement
protocol that generates a sector-specific identifier of the MRTD chip with the
following properties:
o within each sector the sector-specific identifier of every MRTD chip is unique;
o across any two sectors, it is computationally infeasible to link the sector-
specific identifiers of any MRTD chip.
The sector-specific identifier is used to (re-)identify the MRTD chip within each
sector. Chip Authentication and Terminal Authentication must have been
successfully performed before Restricted Identification is used.
The MRTD chip’s security status is not affected by Restricted Identification.
7.3.2.4 QSCD functionality
The TOE as a qualified signature creation device (QSCD) is a combination of hardware
and software configured to securely create, use and manage Signature Creation Data
(SCD). The QSCD protects the SCD during its whole life cycle as to be used in a
signature-creation process solely by its signatory. It comprises all IT security functionality
necessary to ensure the secrecy of the SCD and the security of the electronic signature,
providing the following functions:
• generate SCD and the correspondent Signature Verification Data (SVD);
• export the SVD for certification through a trusted channel to the CGA;
• prove the identity as QSCD to external entities;
• optionally, receive and store certificate info;
• switch the TOE from a non-operational state to an operational state;
Page 22 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
• if in an operational state, create digital signatures for data in accordance with the
following cryptographic algorithms:
o RSA according to RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 or RSASSA-PSS with key sizes
2048-4096 bits;
o ECDSA with key sizes 160-521 bits.
Digital signatures are created using the following steps:
• select an SCD if multiple SCDs are present in the QSCD;
• authenticate the signatory and determine its intent to sign;
• receive the DTBS/R;
• apply an appropriate cryptographic signature-creation function using the selected
SCD to the DTBS/R.
The IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS performs Qualified Signature Creation using the
commands ‘PSO: Hash’ and ‘PSO: Compute Digital Signature’. The service is performed
in two steps. The first one performs the last round of the partial hash, and the second one
realizes the digital signature computation over the entire hash computed thanks to the last
round computation.
Steps of Qualified Signature Creation:
• The IFD (Interface Device) performs the partial hash calculation over the message
M. The computation outcomes are the following:
o PartialHash(M);
o Counter(M);
o RemainingMessage(M).
• The IFD sends partial hash data to the Integrated Circuit Card and require final
hash round calculation. Using the command ‘PSO: Hash’.
• The Integrated Circuit Card initializes the hashing context with incoming data
resulting from the partial hash calculation, then ends the hash over the last data
block. Hash(M) is available.
• The IFD requires the signature calculation. Using the command ‘PSO: Compute
Digital Signature’.
• The card calculates the signature with the selected private key and returns the
result.
7.3.2.5 Security functions
The TOE security functions are described in detail in sect. 7.1 of the Security Target [ST].
The most significant aspects are summarized below:
Page 23 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
• AccessControl: The TOE provides access control mechanisms that allow the
maintenance of different security roles (Manufacturer, Personalisation Agent,
Country Verifying Certification Authority, Document Verifier, Terminal, PACE
Terminal, EAC2 or EAC1 terminal depending on the configuration, Electronic
Document Holder) and the access control policies and functions.
• Authenticate: The TOE supports several authentication mechanisms in order to
authenticate the Users, Terminals and to prove the genuineness of the electronic
document. The supported mechanisms and protocols are based on ICAO and BSI
standards [ICAO-TR1], [ICAO-9303], [TR-03110-1], [TR-03110-2] and [TR-03110-
3].
• SecureManagement: the TOE enforces the secure management of the security
attributes, data and functions. Furthermore, the TOE restricts the available
commands in each TOE life-cycle phase.
• CryptoKey: the TOE uses several cryptographic services such as digital signature
creation and verification, asymmetric and symmetric cryptography, random number
generation and complete key management. Furthermore, the CryptoKey function
provides the secure messaging for the TOE.
• AppletParametersSign: the TOE enforces the integrity of itself in each life-cycle
phase.
• Platform: covers the security functionalities based on the security functionalities of
the certified cryptographic library and the certified IC Platform.
7.4 Documentation
The guidance documentation specified in Annex A – Guidelines for the secure usage of
the product is delivered to the customer together with the product.
The guidance documentation contains all the information for secure initialization,
configuration and secure usage the TOE in accordance with the requirements of the
Security Target [ST].
Customers should also follow the recommendations for the secure usage of the TOE
contained in sect. 8.3 of this report.
7.5 Protection Profile conformance claims
The Security Target [ST] claims strict conformance to the following Protection Profile:
• BSI-CC-PP-0087, Protection Profile - Machine-Readable Electronic Documents
based on BSI TR-03110 for Official Use (MR.ED-PP), version 1.01, 20 May 2015
[PP-087]
This PP describes the requirements for a smart card programmed according to [TR-03110-
1] and [TR-03110-2]. The smart card contains multiple applications (at least one). The
programmed smart card is called an electronic document as a whole.
The PP BSI-CC-PP-0087 claims strict conformance to the following PPs:
Page 24 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
• EN 419211-2:2013, Common Criteria Protection Profiles for Secure Signature
Creation Device - Part 2: Device with key generation (BSI-CC-PP-0059-2009-MA-
02) [PPSSCD]
• BSI-CC-PP-0056-V2-2012, Protection Profile - Machine Readable Travel Document
with ICAO Application, Extended Access Control with PACE (EAC PP), Version
1.3.2, 05 December 2012 [PP-056]
• BSI-CC-PP-0086, Protection Profile - Electronic document implementing Extended
Access Control Version 2 (EAC2) based on BSI TR-03110 (EAC2 PP), Version
1.01, 20 May 2015 [PP-086]
Since the last two above PPs claim strict conformance to [PP-068], the PP BSI-CC-PP-
0087 implicitly also claims strict conformance to:
• BSI-CC-PP-0068-V2-2011-MA-01, Protection Profile - Machine Readable Travel
Document using Standard Inspection Procedure with PACE (PACE PP), Version
1.01, 22 July 2014 [PP-068]
Since the PP BSI-CC-PP-0087 claims strict conformance to the above PPs, the Security
Target [ST] implicitly claims strict conformance to the same PPs.
The ST conformance claim covers the part of the security policy for the eSign application
of the TOE corresponding to the security policy defined in [PPSSCD], and hence is
applicable if the eSign application is operational.
7.6 Functional and assurance requirements
All Security Assurance Requirements (SAR) have been selected from CC Part 3 [CC3].
All the SFRs have been selected or derived by extension from CC Part 2 [CC2].
Considering that the Security Target claims strict conformance to the Protection Profile
BSI-CC-PP-0087 [PP-087], all extended functional requirements from this PP are also
included:
• FIA_API.1 from the family FIA_API: Authentication Proof of Identity
• FAU_SAS.1 from the family FAU_SAS: Audit data storage
• FCS_RND.1 from the family FCS_RND: Generation of random numbers
• FMT_LIM.1 and FMT_LIM.2 from the family FMT_LIM: Limited capabilities and
availability
• FPT_EMS.1 from the family FPT_EMS: TOE Emanation
Please refer to the Security Target [ST] for the complete description of all security
objectives, the threats that these objectives should address, the Security Functional
Requirements (SFR) and the security functions that realize the same objectives.
Page 25 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
7.7 Evaluation conduct
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the requirements established by
the Italian Scheme for the evaluation and certification of security systems and products in
the field of information technology and expressed in the Provisional Guideline [LGP3] and
the Scheme Information Note [NIS3] and in accordance with the requirements of the
Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement [CCRA].
Since the TOE is a composite product, the evaluation has been conducted following the
recommendations contained in the document “Composite product evaluation for Smart
Cards and similar devices” [JIL-COMP], as required by the international agreements
CCRA and SOGIS. In this regard, it should be noted that the penetration tests have been
completed on August 2020, within 18 months from the Platform vulnerability analysis (31
May 2019, the date of the oldest ETR for Composition indicated in the Platform
certifications [NXP-CR1] and [NXP-CR2]).
The purpose of the evaluation is to provide assurance on the effectiveness of the TOE to
meet the requirements stated in the relevant Security Target [ST]. Initially the Security
Target has been evaluated to ensure that constitutes a solid basis for an evaluation in
accordance with the requirements expressed by the standard CC. Then, the TOE has
been evaluated on the basis of the statements contained in such a Security Target. Both
phases of the evaluation have been conducted in accordance with the CC Part 3 [CC3]
and the Common Evaluation Methodology [CEM].
The Certification Body OCSI has supervised the conduct of the evaluation performed by
the evaluation facility (LVS) CCLab Software Laboratory.
The evaluation was completed on 14 October 2020 with the issuance by LVS of the
Evaluation Technical Report [ETR], which was approved by the Certification Body on 16
October 2020. Then, the Certification Body issued this Certification Report.
7.8 General considerations about the certification validity
The evaluation focused on the security features declared in the Security Target [ST], with
reference to the operational environment specified therein. The evaluation has been
performed on the TOE configured as described in Annex B – Evaluated configuration.
Potential customers are advised to check that this corresponds to their own requirements
and to pay attention to the recommendations contained in this Certification Report.
The certification is not a guarantee that no vulnerabilities exist; it remains a probability (the
smaller, the higher the assurance level) that exploitable vulnerabilities can be discovered
after the issuance of the certificate. This Certification Report reflects the conclusions of the
certification at the time of issuance. Potential customers are invited to check regularly the
arising of any new vulnerability after the issuance of this Certification Report, and if the
vulnerability can be exploited in the operational environment of the TOE, check with the
Developer if security updates have been developed and if those updates have been
evaluated and certified.
Page 26 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
8 Evaluation outcome
8.1 Evaluation results
Following the analysis of the Evaluation Technical Report [ETR] issued by the LVS CCLab
Software Laboratory and documents required for the certification, and considering the
evaluation activities carried out, the Certification Body OCSI concluded that TOE “IDentity
Applet v3.4/eIDAS” meets the requirements of Part 3 of the Common Criteria [CC3]
provided for the evaluation assurance level EAL4, augmented with ALC_DVS.2,
ATE_DPT.2 and AVA_VAN.5, with respect to the security features described in the
Security Target [ST] and the evaluated configuration, shown in Annex B – Evaluated
configuration.
Table 1 summarizes the final verdict of each activity carried out by the LVS in accordance
with the assurance requirements established in [CC3] for the evaluation assurance level
EAL4, augmented with ALC_DVS.2, ATE_DPT.2 and AVA_VAN.5.
Assurance classes and components Verdict
Security Target evaluation Class ASE Pass
Conformance claims ASE_CCL.1 Pass
Extended components definition ASE_ECD.1 Pass
ST introduction ASE_INT.1 Pass
Security objectives ASE_OBJ.2 Pass
Derived security requirements ASE_REQ.2 Pass
Security problem definition ASE_SPD.1 Pass
TOE summary specification ASE_TSS.1 Pass
Development Class ADV Pass
Security architecture description ADV_ARC.1 Pass
Complete functional specification ADV_FSP.4 Pass
Implementation representation of the TSF ADV_IMP.1 Pass
Basic modular design ADV_TDS.3 Pass
Guidance documents Class AGD Pass
Operational user guidance AGD_OPE.1 Pass
Preparative procedures AGD_PRE.1 Pass
Life cycle support Class ALC Pass
Production support, acceptance procedures and
automation
ALC_CMC.4 Pass
Problem tracking CM coverage ALC_CMS.4 Pass
Page 27 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
Assurance classes and components Verdict
Delivery procedures ALC_DEL.1 Pass
Sufficiency of security measures ALC_DVS.2 Pass
Developer defined life-cycle model ALC_LCD.1 Pass
Well-defined development tools ALC_TAT.1 Pass
Test Class ATE Pass
Analysis of coverage ATE_COV.2 Pass
Testing: security enforcing modules ATE_DPT.2 Pass
Functional testing ATE_FUN.1 Pass
Independent testing - sample ATE_IND.2 Pass
Vulnerability assessment Class AVA Pass
Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis AVA_VAN.5 Pass
Table 1 - Final verdicts for assurance requirements
8.2 Additional assurance activities
The mandatory supporting document “Composite product evaluation for Smart Cards and
similar devices” [JIL-COMP] includes additional assurance requirements that are specific
to the composite TOE type.
The document defines refinements to existing assurance requirements for a composite
product evaluation. The objective of these sub-activities is to precisely define the Evaluator
tasks for the different parts of the composite TOE evaluation.
Table 2 summarizes the final verdict of the composition-specific assurance activities
required by [JIL-COMP] carried out by the LVS.
Composition-specific assurance activities Verdict
ASE_COMP: Consistency of composite product
Security Target
ASE_COMP.1 Pass
ALC_COMP: Integration of composition parts and
consistency check of delivery procedures
ALC_COMP.1 Pass
ADV_COMP: Composite design compliance ADV_COMP.1 Pass
ATE_COMP: Composite functional testing ATE_COMP.1 Pass
AVA_COMP: Composite vulnerability assessment AVA_COMP.1 Pass
Table 2 - Final verdicts for composition-specific assurance activities
Page 28 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
8.3 Recommendations
The conclusions of the Certification Body (OCSI) are summarized in sect. 6 (Statement of
Certification).
Potential customers of the product “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS” are suggested to properly
understand the specific purpose of certification reading this Certification Report together
with the Security Target [ST].
The TOE must be used according to the Security Objectives for the operational
environment specified in sect. 4.2 of the Security Target [ST]. It is assumed that, in the
operational environment of the TOE, all the Organizational Security Policies and the
Assumptions described, respectively, in sect. 3.3 and 3.4 of the Security Target [ST] are
respected, particularly those compatible with the Platform (see [ST] sect. 2.5).
This Certification Report is valid for the TOE in its evaluated configuration; in particular,
Annex A – Guidelines for the secure usage of the product includes a number of
recommendations relating to delivery, initialization, configuration and secure usage of the
product, according to the guidance documentation provided together with the TOE ([ADM],
[USR]).
Page 29 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
9 Annex A – Guidelines for the secure usage of the product
This annex provides considerations particularly relevant to the potential customers of the
product.
9.1 TOE Delivery
Since the TOE is a composite product, the delivery procedures entail interactions between
the application Developer (ID&Trust Ltd.) and the Platform manufacturer (NXP).
The delivery procedures between ID&Trust and NXP is the following:
1. The Developer (ID&Trust) develops a new version of the IDentity Applet v3.4.
2. After the new version is tested by ID&Trust a new release is issued and stored in
configuration management system of ID&Trust.
3. The new version of the IDentity Applet v3.4 is sent to NXP.
4. NXP loads the applet into the Platform’s chip.
The underlying Platform itself provides several security functions to protect IDentity Applet
v3.4 during the transportation between several possible entities.
NXP offers two ways of delivery of the product:
1. The customer collects the product at the NXP site (“Collection”).
2. The product is sent by NXP to the customer (“Shipment”). To guarantee that the
product is not manipulated during the delivery, the product is delivered in parcels
sealed with special tape. The tape is printed with consecutive numbers and has
special adhesive features which make any manipulation visible. NXP encloses a
form in the parcel which the customer is asked to return. By this NXP is informed
that the customer has received the undamaged parcel.
Both methods guarantee that the customer gets authentic products. Additionally, the
customer can use a special Transport Key to authenticate the chip.
More details on such procedures are contained in ID&Trust’s IDentity Applet V3.4 Delivery
Documentation [DEL].
9.2 Installation, initialization and secure usage of the TOE
TOE installation, configuration and operation should be done following the instructions in
the appropriate sections of the guidance documentation provided with the product to the
customer.
In particular, the following documents contain detailed information for the secure
initialization of the TOE, the preparation of its operational environment and the secure
Page 30 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
operation of the TOE in accordance with the security objectives specified in the Security
Target [ST]:
• ID&Trust Identity Applet Suite User’s Guide [ADM];
• ID&Trust Identity Applet Suite Administrator’s Guide [USR].
Page 31 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
10 Annex B – Evaluated configuration
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the product “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS on NXP JCOP
4 P71”, short name “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS”, developed by ID&Trust Ltd.
The TOE is a composite product and comprises the following HW/SW components,
representing the evaluated configuration of the TOE, as reported in [ST], to which the
evaluation results apply:
• The Platform “NXP JCOP 4 P71”, developed by NXP Semiconductors Germany
GmbH, certified at EAL6 augmented with ASE_TSS.2 and ALC_FLR.1 [NXP-CR1];
it consists of:
a) Micro Controller (a secure smart card controller from NXP from the
SmartMX3 family);
b) IC Dedicated Software (Micro Controller Firmware and Crypto Library);
c) IC Embedded Software JCOP 4 (Java Card Virtual Machine, Runtime
Environment, Java Card API);
d) Global Platform (GP) Framework;
• the Application Part of the TOE: “IDentity Applet v3.4/eIDAS” configured as an
eMRTD application;
• the associated guidance documentation:
o ID&Trust Identity Applet Suite User’s Guide [ADM];
o ID&Trust Identity Applet Suite Administrator’s Guide [USR].
The Platform Micro Controller Firmware and IC Dedicated Software are covered by the
following certification: “NXP Secure Smart Card Controller N7121 with IC Dedicated
Software and Crypto Library” [NXP-CR2].
For more details, please refer to sect. 1.4 of the Security Target [ST].
Page 32 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
11 Annex C – Test activity
This annex describes the task of both the Evaluators and the Developer in testing
activities. For the assurance level EAL4, augmented with ALC_DVS.2, ATE_DPT.2 and
AVA_VAN.5, such activities include the following three steps:
• evaluation of the tests performed by the Developer in terms of coverage and level of
detail;
• execution of independent functional tests by the Evaluators;
• execution of penetration tests by the Evaluators.
11.1 Test configuration
For the execution of these activities a test environment was set up at the LVS site. The
Developer provided all the resources needed for testing except the test tool and the card
reader.
In particular, the Evaluators test configuration consisted of:
• the sample card identified as IDentity Applet v3.4.7470/eIDAS;
• the test card reader HID Omnikey 5x21 CL0;
• the test tool OpenSCDP with Eclipse 2018-12.
Before the tests, the software application has been initialized and configured in
accordance with the guidance documentation [ADM] and [USR], as indicated in sect. 9.2.
The Developer provided a personalization script for the installation of the TOE. The
Evaluators were able to install the TOE to the underlying Platform correctly. The
Evaluators successfully read eID applet data which is a proof that the card was installed
properly and in a known state.
11.2 Functional tests performed by the Developer
11.2.1 Testing approach
The test plan presented by the Developer was largely based on the following industry
standard technical documents:
• ICAO Technical Report, Radio Frequency Protocol and Application Test Standard
for eMRTD Part 3 - Tests for Application Protocol and Logical Data Structure,
Version 2.10 [ICAO-TR2];
• BSI Technical Guideline TR-03105 Part 3.2: Advanced Security Mechanisms for
Machine Readable Travel Documents - Extended Access Control (EACv1) - Tests
for Security Implementation, Version 1.4.1, 6 April 2014 [BSI-TR1];
Page 33 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
• BSI Technical Guideline TR-03105 Part 3.3: Test Plan for eID-Cards with Advanced
Security Mechanisms - EAC 2, Version 1.03, 24 September 2010 [BSI-TR2];
• Amendment to BSI TR-03105 Part 3.3, Release 3, 04 June 2012 [BSI-TR2A];
• BSI Technical Guideline TR-03105 Part 3.4: Test plan for eID-Cards with eSign-
application acc. to BSI TR-03117, Version 1.0, 01 April 2010 [BSI-TR3].
In addition, the Developer designed independently additional proprietary tests in order to
demonstrate the complete coverage of the functional requirements (SFRs) and of the
security functions.
11.2.2 Test coverage
The Evaluators have examined the test plan presented by the Developer and verified the
complete coverage of the functional requirements (SFRs) and the TSFIs described in the
functional specification.
11.2.3 Test results
The Evaluators executed a sample of tests from the developer test plan to analyze the
repeatability and reproducibility of the industry standard and proprietary tests. The
Evaluators compared the actual results of these tests with the expected results defined in
the test specification and found that all tests produced the same actual results as the
expected results.
11.3 Functional and independent tests performed by the Evaluators
Therefore, the Evaluators have designed independent testing to verify the correctness of
the TSFI.
The TSF includes a large number of interfaces, making it impractical to rigorously test all
of them. So, the Evaluators decided to focus on testing the immutability of essential data
on the TOE, using a sampling strategy to test the following interfaces:
• PUT DATA
• Comprehensive testing for all possible undocumented TSFIs
The Evaluators verified the actual test results and found that they were consistent with the
expected test results.
Moreover, considering that the TOE is a composite product, the Evaluators verified the
behavior of the TOE as a whole, carrying out the additional activities specified in the
ATE_COMP family, according to the document [JIL-COMP], also taking into
considerations the obligations and recommendations for the Applet evaluator in the
Platform’s ETR for Composition [ETR-COMP].
Page 34 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
11.4 Vulnerability analysis and penetration tests
For the execution of these activities, the Evaluators worked on the same TOE sample
already used for the functional test activities, verifying that the test configuration was
consistent with the version of the TOE under evaluation.
Since the TOE is a composite product, the Evaluators carried out the additional activities
specified in the AVA_COMP family, according to the document [JIL-COMP], and examined
the results of the vulnerability assessment in the Platform’s ETR for Composition [ETR-
COMP] to determine that they can be reused for the composite evaluation of the Applet.
The Evaluators used two approaches: a sampling strategy was employed to test the
functionality of a subset of the TSFIs instead of testing all of the interfaces, and a brute
force attack was implemented and executed to discover any undocumented APIs. The
Evaluators verified the behaviour of IDentity Applet v3.4/EIDAS as a whole, considering
that it is a composite product.
The early phase of the vulnerability assessment was the information gathering about the
TOE. As the initial step, multiple public searches were conducted with different keyword
combinations (e.g., “Electronic ID vulnerabilities”, “penetration testing electronic travel
documents”, “electronic passport security flaws”, “eID”) to identify the publicly available
bugs and vulnerabilities for the TOE. For this phase public vulnerability databases and
research papers were reviewed as well. Publicly known vulnerabilities are either outdated
or only relevant for the underlying platform, which is not in the scope of the evaluation. The
conclusion of this first phase was that the smart card technology is well documented and a
potential attacker can get deep understanding of how an electronic passport works based
on industry standards and publicly available information on smart cards. The
documentation of the TOE is not publicly available (i.e., not on the manufacturer’s
website). This is a relevant information for the attack potential calculations. According to
the publicly available information, no relevant public vulnerability was found for the TOE.
As a second step, the manufacturer documentation was reviewed to achieve familiarity
with the TOE, its electronic identification functionalities, and to identify the possible attack
surfaces. As mentioned before, there is no publicly available documentation on the
manufacturer’s website. The Evaluators reviewed the functionalities of the TOE based on
the documentation and by using tools provided by the manufacturer of the underlying
platform to interact with the interfaces of the TOE. During this step the Evaluators
identified possible attack vectors related to possible undocumented interfaces. Due to the
product type of the TOE and the strict standardization in the industry of smart cards, the
Evaluators focused on potential vulnerabilities and testing related to the implementation of
the authentication functionality. The Evaluators gained insight based on the information
gathering that authentication related potential vulnerabilities should be investigated.
With all the gathered intelligence about the TOE and the potential vulnerabilities, the
Evaluators created an attack plan with different attack scenarios to meet the requirements
of AVA_VAN.5. For the attack scenarios, exact attack potentials were calculated,
considering that publicly available information about smart cards are very detailed, rich,
and relatively easy to learn.
With the defined attack scenarios, the Evaluators conducted penetration tests against the
TOE to identify any existing vulnerabilities.
Page 35 of 35 OCSI/CERT/SYS/08/2016/RC Ver. 1.0
The Evaluators defined the following attack scenarios:
• The attacker attempts to conduct a PIN verification forced through an insecure
channel. Succeeding with such an attack would result in new attack surfaces as
sensitive and security related data could be sniffed using man-in-the-middle type
attacks.
• The attacker attempts to modify sensitive, non-modifiable data in the application. By
breaching the necessary security protocols, a successful attack would render the
target non-compliant with the relevant eIDAS standards as it would be a subject of
forgery.
• The attacker discovers undocumented interfaces, which can be used as attack
surface for further escalation.
Then the Evaluators tried to penetrate the protection of the TOE with the tests designed
according to the above attack scenarios.
The results of the tests were documented with enough details for their repeatability, and
the results were also gathered in a table for the sake of clarity.
The executed penetration tests could not identify existing vulnerabilities in the TOE
exploitable with a High attack potential.
During the site visits the Evaluators performed source code analysis with an enhanced
focus on the implementation of authentication functionalities and the applied
countermeasures against side channel and fault injection attacks.
Based on the available information, the Evaluators did not identify residual vulnerabilities,
i.e., vulnerabilities that could be exploited only by an attacker with attack potential beyond
High.