UNCLASSIFIED
COMMON CRITERIA CERTIFICATION REPORT
Symantec Privileged Access Manager
v3.3.0.1085
Broadcom
31 May 2020
383-4-476
V1.1
UNCLASSIFIED
2
FOREWORD
This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief, Communications Security
Establishment (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 Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS). 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 Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, 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 Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, 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:
Contact Centre and Information Services
Edward Drake Building
contact@cyber.gc.ca | 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788)
UNCLASSIFIED
3
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 Canadian Centre for Cyber Security.
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, 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 listed on the Certified Products list (CPL) for
the Canadian CC Scheme and posted on the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the International Common
Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 6
1 Identification of Target of Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Common Criteria Conformance.......................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 TOE Description................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3 TOE Architecture ............................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Security Policy......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Cryptographic Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 8
3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope ....................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Usage and Environmental Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Clarification of Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 9
4 Evaluated Configuration............................................................................................................................10
4.1 Documentation.................................................................................................................................................10
5 Evaluation Analysis Activities....................................................................................................................11
5.1 Development....................................................................................................................................................11
5.2 Guidance Documents........................................................................................................................................11
5.3 Life-Cycle Support ............................................................................................................................................11
6 Testing Activities ....................................................................................................................................12
6.1 Assessment of Developer tests.........................................................................................................................12
6.2 Conduct of Testing...........................................................................................................................................12
6.3 Independent Functional Testing ........................................................................................................................12
6.3.1 Functional Test Results.................................................................................................................................12
6.4 Independent Penetration Testing.......................................................................................................................13
6.4.1 Penetration Test results................................................................................................................................13
7 Results of the Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................14
7.1 Recommendations/Comments..........................................................................................................................14
8 Supporting Content..................................................................................................................................15
8.1 List of Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................................15
8.2 References.......................................................................................................................................................15
UNCLASSIFIED
5
LIST OF FIGURES
TOE Architecture..................................................................................................................................................7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: TOE Identification ................................................................................................................................................7
Table 2: Cryptographic Implementation(s).........................................................................................................................8
UNCLASSIFIED
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Symantec Privileged Access Manager v3.3.0.1085 (hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE), from
Broadcom , 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 the 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 on 31 May 2020 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.
The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, as the Certification Body, declares that this evaluation meets all the conditions of
the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product is listed on the Certified Products
list (CPL) for the Canadian CC Scheme and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the International Common
Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
7
1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows:
Table 1: TOE Identification
TOE Name and Version Symantec Privileged Access Manager v3.3.0.1085
Developer Broadcom
1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
The TOE claims the following conformance;
Protection Profile for Enterprise Security Management - Policy Management Version 2.1
1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION
The TOE is designed to secure IT resources and facilitate compliance. The PAM appliance prevents security breaches by
controlling user access to sensitive resources, enforcing security policies and monitoring and recording privileged user
activity across an organization's infrastructure. The TOE acts as the Policy Manager (PM) for the PAM product components,
enabling policies to be configured and distributed to access control components.
1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE
A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows:
TOE Architecture
UNCLASSIFIED
8
2 SECURITY POLICY
The TOE implements policies pertaining to the following security functional classes:
 Enterprise Security Management
 Security Audit
 Cryptographic Support
 Identification and Authentication
 Security Management
 Protection of the TSF
 TOE Access
Complete details of the security functional requirements (SFRs) can be found in the Security Target (ST) referenced in
section 8.2.
2.1 CRYPTOGRAPHIC FUNCTIONALITY
The following cryptographic implementations have been evaluated by the CAVP/CMVP and are used by the TOE:
Table 2: Cryptographic Implementation(s)
Cryptographic Module/Algorithm Certificate Number
CA Technologies C-Security Kernel 3.11.2 CMVP #3043
UNCLASSIFIED
9
3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATION 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 Enterprise Security Management (ESM) products in order to
share security data.
 There will be one or more competent individuals assigned to install, configure, and operate the TOE.
 The Operational Environment will provide mechanisms to the TOE that reduces the ability for an attacker to
impersonate a legitimate user during authentication.
 The TOE will receive validated identity data from the Operational Environment.
3.2 CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
Although the TOE is an ESM policy management product, it is also a compatible access control product. The access control
components on the PAM Server and the Socket Filter Agents (SFAs) are compatible access control products. A complete
Access Policy is distributed to the access control components on the PAM Server, while just the Socket Filter portion of an
Access Policy is distributed to SFAs. The TOE makes no claim to the Protection Profile for Enterprise Security Management-
Access Control Version 2.1.
The following features are excluded from this evaluation:
 Access Control and Credential Management functionality
 The optional Application-to-Application (A2A) functionality
 Redundancy via clustered servers with automatic synchronization
UNCLASSIFIED
10
4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION
The evaluated configuration for the TOE comprises:
 The TOE Software (Privileged Access Manager v3.3.0.1085) installed on a Lanner NCA 5210A (404L) appliance
running a 64-bit Debian 9.6 operating system
4.1 DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE:
a) Symantec Privileged Access Manager 3.3 Common Criteria Guidance Supplement, v1.3, 29 May 2020
b) CA Privileged Access manager 3.3 Web Guide, 15 September 2019
UNCLASSIFIED
11
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. 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
12
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 Evaluation Test Report (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; and
b. Cryptographic Implementation verification: The evaluator verified that the claimed CMVP implementation was
present and used in the TOE.
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
13
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) Information Leakage verification: The TOE was monitored for leakage during startup, shutdown, login, and other
scenarios to capture keys/CSPs.
6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
The independent penetration testing did not uncover any exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating environment.
UNCLASSIFIED
14
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 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 Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS). This
certification report, and its associated certificate, apply only to the specific version and release of the product in its
evaluated configuration.
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 CCCS or by any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this certificate, and no
warranty of the IT product by CCCS 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
15
8 SUPPORTING CONTENT
8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
CCCS Canadian Centre for Cyber Security
CCEF Common Criteria Evaluation Facility
CM Configuration Management
CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program
CSE Communications Security Establishment
CSP Critical Security Parameter
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
GC Government of Canada
IT Information Technology
ITS Information Technology Security
PP Protection Profile
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Function
8.2 REFERENCES
Reference
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2012.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September
2012.
Security Target for Symantec Privileged Access Manager v3.3, v1.8, 26 May 2020
Evaluation Technical Report for Symantec Privileged Access Manager v3.3, v1.4, 31 May 2020
Assurance Activity Report for Symantec Privileged Access Manager v3.3, v1.2, 31 May 2020