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 Note 4 Android 5
VPN Client
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-10630-2015
Dated: April 8, 2015
Version: 0.3
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 0.3
April 6, 2015
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Jerry Myers
Ken Stutterheim
Aerospace Corporation
Sheldon Durrant
MITRE Corporation
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
James Arnold
Tammy Compton
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 1
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 TOE Evaluated Configuration ............................................................................ 3
3.2 Physical Boundaries............................................................................................ 4
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Cryptographic support ........................................................................................ 4
4.2 User data protection ............................................................................................ 4
4.3 Identification and authentication......................................................................... 4
4.4 Security management.......................................................................................... 4
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............................................................................................... 7
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ............................................................... 7
8 Evaluated Configuration ............................................................................................. 7
9 Results of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 7
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)............................................................ 8
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV).............................................................. 8
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD) ................................................. 8
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) ..................................... 8
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ................. 9
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)......................................................... 9
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results.......................................................................... 9
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations .................................................................... 9
11 Annexes..................................................................................................................... 10
12 Security Target.......................................................................................................... 10
13 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 10
14 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 11
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 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 March 2015. 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) is the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client.
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.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client (IVPNCPP14)
Security Target and analysis performed by the evaluation team.
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) effort to establish commercial facilities to perform trusted product
evaluations. Under this program, security evaluations are conducted by commercial testing
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
2
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 Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client
Protection Profile Protection Profile for IPsec Virtual Private Network (VPN) Clients, Version 1.4,
21 October 2013
ST: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client
(IVPNCPP14) Security Target, Version 1.1, March 19, 2015
Evaluation Technical
Report
Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client (IVPNCPP14) , Version 1.1,
March 25, 2015
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.
Developer Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators Jerry Myers, The Aerospace Corporation
Ken Stutterheim, The Aerospace Corporation
Sheldon Durrant, The MITRE Corporation
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
3
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The TOE includes a Common Criteria mode (or “CC mode”) that an administrator can
invoke through the use of a MDM tool or through the installation and use of the
administrative application, CCMode.apk (see the Guidance for instructions to obtain the
application). The TOE must be configured as follows in order for an administrator to
transition the TOE to CC mode.
 Require a screen lock password (swipe, PIN, pattern, or facial recognition screen
locks are not allowed).
 The maximum password failure retry policy should be less than or equal to ten.
 Device encryption must be enabled.
 SDCard encryption must be enabled.
 Revocation checking must be enabled.
When CC mode has been enabled, the TOE behaves as follows.
 The TOE restricts the available VPN configurations to those evaluated as part of
this evaluation.
 The TOE restricts the use of IKEv2/IPsec cipher suites to only those conformant
with the requirements of the IVPNCPP14.
3.1 TOE Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration consists of the following device identification:
Device Name
Base Model
Number
Android
Version
Kernel
Version
Build
Number
Galaxy Note 4 (Qualcomm) SM-N910F 5.0.1 3.10.40 LRX22C
The following table shows the Security software versions for the device.
Device Name
MDF
Version
MDF
Release
VPN v1.4
Release
Galaxy Note 4 (Qualcomm) 2.0 1 2
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
4
3.2 Physical Boundaries
The TOE is a VPN Client solution for use with the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 based on
Android (5.0.1) that incorporates the Samsung Enterprise SDK. The method of use for the
TOE is as a VPN client within an enterprise environment.
The TOE communicates and interacts with IEEE 802.11-2012 Access Points and cellular
networks to establish network connectivity.
This evaluation does not include the underlying hardware and firmware or any device
management application that maybe implemented on the device.
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
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
platform (evaluated against the Protection Profile For Mobile Device Fundamentals) for the
cryptographic services.
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 the interfaces necessary to manage the security functions identified
throughout the Security Target. In particular, the IPsec VPN is configurable by a
combination of functions provided directly by the TOE and those available to the
associated VPN gateway.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
5
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 established 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.
The scope of this evaluation was limited to the functionality and assurances covered in the
IVPNCPP as described for this TOE in the Security Target. Other functionality included in
the product or the underlying platform was not assessed as part of this evaluation. All other
functionality needs to be assessed separately and no further conclusions can be drawn about
their effectiveness.
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that
need clarifying. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications
of this evaluation. Note that:
1. As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration
meets the security claims made, with a certain level of assurance (the assurance
activities specified in the Protection Profile for IPsec Virtual Private Network
(VPN) Clients and performed by the evaluation team).
2. This evaluation covers only the specific product version identified in this document,
and not any earlier or later versions released or in process.
3. This evaluation did not specifically search for, nor attempt to exploit, vulnerabilities
that were not “obvious” or vulnerabilities to objectives not claimed in the ST. The
CEM defines an “obvious” vulnerability as one that is easily exploited with a
minimum of understanding of the TOE, technical sophistication and resources.
6 Documentation
The following documentation was used as evidence for the evaluation of the Samsung
Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client:
 Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices Guidance documentation, Version 2.0,
February 13, 2015
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
6
 Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices VPN User Guidance Documentation,
Version 2.0, March 25, 2015
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 Galaxy Note
4 Android 5 VPN Client (IVPNCPP14), Version 0.2, March 23, 2015, which is not
publically available. The Assurance Activities Report for Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android
5 VPN Client (IVPNCPP14), Version 1.1, March 25, 2015 (AAR), provides a non-
proprietary overview of testing and the prescribed assurance activities.
The following diagrams depict the test environments used by the evaluators.
Figure 1 Developer Test Setup
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
7
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 2.0, February 13, 2015 document and ran the
tests specified in the IVPNCPP14.
8 Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration consists of the Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client devices
configured as specified in Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices Guidance
documentation, Version 2.0, February 13, 2015.
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 and Detailed Test Report (DTR). The evaluation
activities included performance of all EAL1 work units with 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
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
8
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 Note 4 Android 5 VPN
Client devices that are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function
descriptions that support the requirements.
The validation team 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 validation team 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 validation team 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 validation team reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient
evidence and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
9
evaluation was 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, and summarized in the AAR.
The validation team 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 validation team 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
One of the ST’s claims deviates from the requirement FCS_IPSEC_EXT.1.14 defined in
the VPN Protection Profile. This deviation was approved by the NIAP Technical Rapid
Response Team (TRRT), and makes the assurance that the relative key strength negotiated
by the product to protect the key strength of the tunnel reliant on the correct functioning
and correct configuration of the remote VPN Gateway, which is beyond the scope of this
evaluation.
When the device is configured in CC Mode Over The Air (OTA) updates are the only
method allowed for updating the TOE. Administrators should note that the VPN Client
configuration and secure operation as evaluated requires that the VPN Gateway is
configured to enforce organizational policies as specified in the administrative guidance.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
10
The validators suggest that the consumer pay particular attention to the evaluated
configuration. The functionality is scoped exclusively to the security functional
requirements as specified in the Security Target, and only the functionality implemented by
the SFR’s within the Security Target was evaluated. The evaluated configuration is the
Samsung Galaxy Note 4 mobile device based on Android 5. Any additional functionality
provided by the device, which includes software that was not part of the evaluated
configuration, must be assessed separately and no conclusions can be drawn about their
effectiveness.
11 Annexes
Not applicable
12 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy Note 4
Android 5 VPN Client (IVPNCPP14) Security Target, Version 1.1, March 19, 2015.
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.
Samsung Galaxy Devices VPN Client Validation Report, Version 0.3
April 6, 2015
11
 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:
[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.
[5] Assurance Activities Report for Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client
(IVPNCPP14), Version 1.1, March 25, 2015.
[6] Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices Guidance documentation, Version 2.0,
February 13, 2015
[7] Samsung VPN Client on Galaxy Devices VPN User Guidance Documentation,
Version 2.0, March 25, 2015.
[8] Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client
(IVPNCPP14) Security Target, Version 1.1, March 19, 2015
[9] Assurance Activities Report For Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Android 5 VPN Client
(IVPNCPP14), Version 1.1, March 25, 2015