UNCLASSIFIED
© Government of Canada. This document is the property of the Government of Canada. It shall not be altered,
distributed beyond its intended audience, produced, reproduced or published, in whole or in any substantial part
thereof, without the express permission of CSE.
COMMON CRITERIA
CERTIFICATION REPORT
CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2
10 October 2017
383-4-417
V 1.0
UNCLASSIFIED
FOREWORD
This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief,
Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Suggestions for amendments should be forwarded through
departmental communications security channels to your Client Services Representative at CSE.
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has
been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility – established under the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme –
using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5, for
conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5.
This certification report, and its associated certificate, applies only to the identified version and release of the
product in its evaluated configuration. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of
the Canadian CC Scheme, and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent
with the evidence adduced. This report, and its associated certificate, are not an endorsement of the IT product
by the Communications Security Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this
report, and its associated certificate, and no warranty for the IT product by the Communications Security
Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report, and its associated
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
If your department has identified a requirement for this certification report based on business needs and would
like more detailed information, please contact:
ITS Client Services
Telephone: (613) 991-7654
E-mail: itsclientservices@cse-cst.gc.ca
UNCLASSIFIED
OVERVIEW
The Canadian Common Criteria Scheme provides a third-party evaluation service for determining the
trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT) security products. Evaluations are performed by a commercial
Common Criteria Evaluation Facility (CCEF) under the oversight of the Certification Body, which is managed by
the Communications Security Establishment.
A CCEF is a commercial facility that has been approved by the Certification Body to perform Common Criteria
evaluations; a significant requirement for such approval is accreditation to the requirements of ISO/IEC
17025:2005, the General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, the Certification Body asserts that the product complies with the
security requirements specified in the associated security target. A security target is a requirements specification
document that defines the scope of the evaluation activities. The consumer of certified IT products should
review the security target, in addition to this certification report, in order to gain an understanding of any
assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT product's intended environment, the evaluated security
functionality, and the testing and analysis conducted by the CCEF.
The certification report, certificate of product evaluation and security target are posted to the Certified Products
list (CPL) for the Canadian CC Scheme and to the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................1
1 Identification of Target of Evaluation......................................................................................................2
1.1 Common Criteria Conformance..................................................................................................................2
1.2 TOE description ..........................................................................................................................................2
1.3 TOE architecture.........................................................................................................................................3
2 Security policy .......................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Cryptographic functionality........................................................................................................................5
3 Assumptions and Clarifications of Scope.................................................................................................6
3.1 Usage and Environmental assumptions .....................................................................................................6
4 Evaluated Configuration.........................................................................................................................7
4.1 Documentation...........................................................................................................................................7
5 Evaluation Analysis Activities .................................................................................................................8
5.1 Development..............................................................................................................................................8
5.2 Guidance Documents .................................................................................................................................8
5.3 Life-cycle Support.......................................................................................................................................8
6 Testing Activities....................................................................................................................................9
6.1 Assessment of Developer Tests..................................................................................................................9
6.2 Conduct of Testing......................................................................................................................................9
6.3 Independent Functional Testing.................................................................................................................9
6.4 Independent Penetration Testing ..............................................................................................................9
7 Results of the Evaluation......................................................................................................................10
7.1 Recommendations/Comments................................................................................................................ 10
8 Supporting Content..............................................................................................................................11
8.1 List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ 11
8.2 References............................................................................................................................................... 11
UNCLASSIFIED
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 TOE Architecture ....................................................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 TOE Identification.......................................................................................................................................2
Table 2 Cryptographic Module(s)............................................................................................................................5
Table 3 Cryptographic Algorithm(s) ........................................................................................................................5
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2 (hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE), from CA
Technologies, was the subject of this Common Criteria evaluation. A description of the TOE can be found in
Section 1.2. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that TOE meets the requirements of the conformance
claim listed in Table 1 for the evaluated security functionality.
EWA-Canada is the CCEF that conducted the evaluation. This evaluation was completed 10 October 2017 and
was carried out in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme.
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target, which identifies assumptions made during the
evaluation, the intended environment for TOE, and the security functional/assurance requirements. Consumers
are advised to verify that their operating environment is consistent with that specified in the security target, and
to give due consideration to the comments, observations and recommendations in this certification report.
Communications Security Establishment, as the Certification Body, declares that the TOE evaluation meets all
the conditions of the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will
be listed on the Canadian Certified Products list (CPL) and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 2
1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows:
Table 1 TOE Identification
TOE Name and Version CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2
Developer CA Technologies
Conformance Claim Exact conformance to:
 Standard Protection Profile for Enterprise Security Management Policy
Management, v2.1, 24 October 2013 (ESM Policy Manager PP); and
 Standard Protection Profile for Enterprise Security Management Access
Control, v2.1, 24 October 2013 (ESM Access Control PP) – Architectural
Variation: Web Based Access Control.
1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5.
1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION
The TOE is an enterprise API Management and security solution that provides centralized API management and
access control over SOAP web service APIs. The TOE controls how APIs are exposed to and accessed by external
client applications.
The TOE is comprised of two main components:
 Policy Manager. A GUI application that provides the user with the primary administrative interface to
the Gateway. The Policy Manager is used to construct policies and administer the TOE; and
 Gateway. One or more hardware or virtual appliances that enforce policy assertions to control web
services. Basic configuration is performed using the Gateway Configuration Utility – a menu based
Command Line Interface (CLI). The Gateway consumes policies defined by the Policy Manager which also
provides the primary administrative interface.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 3
1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE
A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows:
Figure 1 TOE Architecture
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 4
2 SECURITY POLICY
The TOE implements policies pertaining to the following security functional classes:
 Security Audit;
 Communication;
 Cryptographic Support;
 User Data Protection;
 Identification and Authentication;
 Security Management;
 Protection of the TSF;
 Resource Utilization;
 TOE Access; and
 Trusted Path/Channels.
Complete details of the security functional requirements (SFRs) can be found in the Security Target (ST)
referenced in section 8.2.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 5
2.1 CRYPTOGRAPHIC FUNCTIONALITY
The following cryptographic modules were evaluated by the CMVP and used by the TOE:
Table 2 Cryptographic Module(s)
Cryptographic Module Certificate Number
CryptoComply CCJ 1.0 2483
Thales nShield HSM 2638
The following Government of Canada approved cryptographic algorithms were evaluated by the CAVP and used
by the TOE:
Table 3 Cryptographic Algorithm(s)
Cryptographic Algorithm Standard Certificate Number
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) FIPS 197 4429
Rivest Shamir Adleman (RSA) FIPS 186-4 2570
Secure Hash Algorithm (SHS) FIPS 180-3 3647
Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) FIPS 198 2941
Deterministic Random Bit Generation (DRBG) SP 800-90A 1606
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 6
3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF SCOPE
Consumers of the TOE should consider assumptions about usage and environmental settings as requirements
for the product’s installation and its operating environment. This will ensure the proper and secure operation of
the TOE.
3.1 USAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made regarding the use and deployment of the TOE:
 The TOE will use cryptographic primitives provided by the Operational Environment to perform
cryptographic services;
 The TOE will be able to establish connectivity to other ESM products in order to share security data;
 The Operational Environment will provide mechanisms to the TOE that reduce the ability for an attacker
to impersonate a legitimate user during authentication;
 The TOE will receive a reliable time data from the Operational Environment;
 The TOE will receive identity data from the Operational Environment;
 There will be one or more competent individuals assigned to install, configure, and operate the TOE; and
 The TOE will receive policy data from the Operational Environment.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 7
4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION
The evaluated configuration for the TOE, CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2 Build: 6904, Patch
CA_API_nShieldUpdate_64bit_v12.30.00.L7P comprises the following components:
Policy Manager v9.2 Build 6904. The application software running on non-TOE operating system (Windows 7);
and
Gateway v9.2 Build 6904. The CA API Gateway in one of the following form factors:
 CA API Gateway Appliance . Gateway ships on hardware appliances configured to use the Thales
nShield HSM; and
 CA API Gateway Soft Appliance. Gateway ships as a virtual appliance using VMWare vSphere v5.5.0.
4.1 DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE:
a. CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2 Online Documentation (available at https://docops.ca.com/ca-api-
gateway/9-2/en); and
b. CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2 Secure Installation Guide.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 8
5 EVALUATION ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES
The evaluation analysis activities involved a structured evaluation of the TOE. Documentation and process
dealing with Development, Guidance Documents, and Life-Cycle Support were evaluated.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT
The evaluators analyzed the documentation provided by the vendor; they determined that the design
completely and accurately describes the TOE security functionality (TSF) interfaces and how the TSF implements
the security functional requirements (SFRs). The evaluators determined that the initialization process is secure,
that the security functions are protected against tamper and bypass, and that security domains are maintained.
5.2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The evaluators examined the TOE preparative user guidance and operational user guidance and determined that
it sufficiently and unambiguously describes how to securely transform the TOE into its evaluated configuration
and how to use and administer the product. The evaluators examined and tested the preparative and
operational guidance, and determined that they are complete and sufficiently detailed to result in a secure
configuration.
Section 4.1 provides details on the guidance documents.
5.3 LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT
An analysis of the TOE configuration management system and associated documentation was performed. The
evaluators found that the TOE configuration items were clearly marked.
The evaluators examined the delivery documentation and determined that it described all of the procedures
required to maintain the integrity of the TOE during distribution to the consumer.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 9
6 TESTING ACTIVITIES
Testing consists of the following three steps: assessing developer tests, performing independent functional tests,
and performing penetration tests.
6.1 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPER TESTS
The evaluators verified that the developer has met their testing responsibilities by examining their test evidence,
and reviewing their test results, as documented in the ETR. The correspondence between the tests identified in
the developer’s test documentation and the functional specification was complete.
6.2 CONDUCT OF TESTING
The TOE was subjected to a comprehensive suite of formally documented, independent functional and
penetration tests. The detailed testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected
results and observed results are documented in a separate Test Results document.
6.3 INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL TESTING
During this evaluation, the evaluator developed independent functional tests by examining design and guidance
documentation.
All testing was planned and documented to a sufficient level of detail to allow repeatability of the testing
procedures and results. The following testing activities were performed:
a. PP Assurance Activities: The evaluator performed the assurance activities listed in the claimed PP.
6.3.1 FUNCTIONAL TEST RESULTS
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests yielded the expected results, providing assurance
that the TOE behaves as specified in its ST and functional specification.
6.4 INDEPENDENT PENETRATION TESTING
Subsequent to the independent review of public domain vulnerability databases and all evaluation deliverables,
limited independent evaluator penetration testing was conducted. The penetration tests focused on:
a. Use of automated vulnerability scanning tools to discover potential network, platform and application
layer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, Shellshock, FREAK, POODLE, and GHOST; and
b. Fuzz Testing: The evaluator conducted fuzz testing using unexpected inputs and malformed packets on
the TOE interfaces.
6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
The independent penetration testing did not uncover any exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating
environment.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 10
7 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
This evaluation has provided the basis for the conformance claim documented in Table 1. The overall verdict for
this evaluation is PASS. These results are supported by evidence in the ETR.
The IT product identified in this report has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility established under
the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 5, for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5. These
evaluation results apply only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration and
in conjunction with the complete certification report.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme
and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
This is not an endorsement of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives effect
to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives
effect to this certificate, is expressed or implied.
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS
It is recommended that all guidance outlined in Section 4.1 be followed to configure the TOE in the evaluated
configuration.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 11
8 SUPPORTING CONTENT
8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
CCEF Common Criteria Evaluation Facility
CC Common Criteria
CLI Command Line Interface
CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program
CPL Certified Products List
CSE Communications Security Establishment
ESM Enterprise Security Management
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
GUI Graphical User Interface
IT Information Technology
ITS Information Technology Security
PP Protection Profile
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functionality
8.2 REFERENCES
Reference
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April
2017.
UNCLASSIFIED
V 1.0 12
Reference
CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2 Security Target, version 1.1, 21 September 2017
Evaluation Technical Report for CA Technologies CA API Gateway v9.2 Security Target, version 1.3, 10 October
2017
Assurance Activity Report for CA Technologies, CA API Gateway v9.2, (ESM Policy Management Protection
Profile) Version 1.4, 10 October 2017
Assurance Activity Report for CA Technologies, CA API Gateway v9.2 , (ESM Access Control Protection Profile)
Version 1.4, 10 October 2017