National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-VID10478-2012
Dated: October 30, 2012
Version: 1.0
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Security Agency
Information Technology Laboratory Information Assurance Directorate
100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road STE 6940
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6940
®
TM
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Mario Tinto
The Aerospace Corporation
Columbia, MD
Jean Petty
MITRE Corporation
McLean, VA
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Columbia, MD
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary........................................................................................1
1.1 Evaluation Details.....................................................................................2
2 Identification...................................................................................................3
3 Security Policy................................................................................................4
3.1 Security audit ............................................................................................4
3.2 Cryptographic support ..............................................................................4
3.3 User data protection ..................................................................................5
3.4 Identification and authentication...............................................................5
3.5 Security management................................................................................6
3.6 Protection of the TSF................................................................................6
3.7 Trusted path/channels ...............................................................................6
4 Assumptions....................................................................................................6
5 Architectural Information ...............................................................................7
6 Documentation................................................................................................8
7 Product Testing.............................................................................................10
7.1 Developer Testing...................................................................................10
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ...................................................10
7.3 Penetration Testing .................................................................................10
8 Results of the Evaluation ..............................................................................11
9 Validator Comments/Recommendations ......................................................11
10 Annexes.........................................................................................................12
11 Security Target..............................................................................................12
12 Bibliography .................................................................................................13
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
1
1 Executive Summary
The evaluation of Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems was performed by Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), in the United States and was completed in
October 2012. The evaluation was carried out in accordance with the Common Criteria
Evaluation and Validation Scheme (CCEVS) process and scheme. The criteria against which the
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems TOE was judged are described in the Common
Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009. The
evaluation methodology used by the evaluation team to conduct the evaluation was available in
the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Evaluation
Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009.
SAIC determined that the product satisfies evaluation assurance level “EAL 2 augmented with
ALC_FLR.2” as defined within the Common Criteria (CC). The product, when configured as
specified in the installation guides and user guides, satisfies all of the security functional
requirements stated in the Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems Security Target,
Version 1.0, 10/09/2012.
This Validation Report applies only to the specific version of the TOE as evaluated. In this case
the TOE is:
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR InServ Storage Systems (specific models identified below)
running InForm OS (version 3.1.1 .MU1+P16)
HP 3PAR InServ T-Class Storage System models T400 and T800
HP 3PAR InServ F-Class Storage System models F200 and F400
HP 3PAR InServ P10000 (also known as V-Class) Storage System models V400
and V800
3PAR CLI client (version 3.1.1)
InForm Management Console (version 4.2.1)
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the NIAP Common
Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme (CCEVS) and the conclusions of the testing
laboratory in the evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence adduced. This
Validation Report is not an endorsement of Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems by
any agency of the US Government and no warranty of the product is either expressed or implied.
The validation team monitored the activities of the evaluation team, examined evaluation
evidence, provided guidance on technical issues and evaluation processes, and reviewed the
individual work units and versions of the ETR. Also, at some discrete points during the
evaluation, validators formed a Validation Oversight Review panel in order to review the Security
Target and other evaluation evidence materials along with the corresponding evaluation findings
in detail. The validation team found that the evaluation showed that the product satisfies all of the
security functional 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 technical information included in this report was obtained from the Evaluation Technical
Report for Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems Parts 1 and 2 and the Evaluation
Team Test Report for Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems produced by SAIC.
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
2
1.1 Evaluation Details
Evaluated Product: Hewlett-Packard 3PAR InServ Storage Systems (specific models identified
below) running InForm OS (version 3.1.1 .MU1+P16)
HP 3PAR InServ T-Class Storage System models T400 and T800
HP 3PAR InServ F-Class Storage System models F200 and F400
HP 3PAR InServ P10000 (also known as V-Class) Storage System models
V400 and V800
3PAR CLI client (version 3.1.1)
InForm Management Console (version 4.2.1)
Sponsor: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
4209 Technology Drive
Fremont, CA 84538
Developer: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
4209 Technology Drive
Fremont, CA 84538
Evaluation Facility: Science Applications International Corporation
6841 Benjamin Franklin Drive
Columbia, MD 21046
Kickoff Date: 13 October 2011
Completion Date: October 2012
CC: Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 1:
Introduction, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2:
Security functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3:
Security assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 3, July 2009
Interpretations: None
CEM: Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009
Evaluation Class: EAL 2 augmented with ALC_FLR.2
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
3
Description: The Target of Evaluation (TOE) consists of three classes of Hewlett-Packard
3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems along with the 3PAR command line interface
(CLI) client and InForm Management Console (IMC) applications. 3PAR InServ
Storage Systems are physical appliances that primarily serve to host disk drives
and provide secure channels to configure an access policy. The TOE enforces an
access policy between content on the disks and attached storage area network
(SAN) hosts. Hosts access the TOE via attached Fiber Channel (FC) or Internet
SCSI (iSCSI) storage area networks. The TOE provides network-accessible
administrative interfaces through CLI client, IMC, and Secure Shell (SSH).
This evaluation includes the T-Class, F-Class and P10000 (also known as V-
Class) models. TOE software is common across the various TOE classes and
models. The classes share a common architecture and hence implement the same
security functions and policies. However, the classes and models differ in CPUs,
memory, disk drive capacity, access ports, and overall performance
characteristics.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this Validation Report is not an endorsement of the
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems by any agency of the U.S.
Government and no warranty of Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage
Systems is either expressed or implied.
PP: None
Validation Body: National Information Assurance Partnership CCEVS
2 Identification
The evaluated product is as follows:
Security Target:
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR® InServ® Storage Systems Security Target, Version 1.0,
10/09/2012
TOE Identification:
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR InServ Storage Systems (specific models identified below)
running InForm OS (version 3.1.1 .MU1+P16)
HP 3PAR InServ T-Class Storage System models T400 and T800
HP 3PAR InServ F-Class Storage System models F200 and F400
HP 3PAR InServ P10000 (also known as V-Class) Storage System models V400
and V800
3PAR CLI client (version 3.1.1)
InForm Management Console (version 4.2.1)
Evaluated Configuration:
There are a number of software components that can be individually licensed for use with
an InServ Storage System: 3PAR Virtual Domains, 3PAR Thin Provisioning, 3PAR Thin
Conversion, 3PAR Thin Persistence, 3PAR Thin Copy Reclamation, 3PAR Virtual Copy,
3PAR Remote Copy, 3PAR Dynamic Optimization, 3PAR Adaptive Optimization, and
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
4
3PAR Virtual Lock. Any of these can be freely used in the evaluated configuration with
the exception of 3PAR Remote Copy and 3PAR Virtual Domains.
Note that the evaluated configuration specifically excludes the use of 3PAR Virtual
Domains because configurations including the use of the 3PAR Virtual Domains are
addressed in an alternate evaluation; see Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage
Systems with Virtual Domains Security Target.
Note also that there are a number of 3PAR host-based applications available for use with
an InServ Storage System. While these can be freely used, they do not have security
ramifications and are excluded from the scope of evaluation since they run on client hosts
rather that in the context of the InServ Storage System.
As explained in the Security Target, the following product features were not subject to
evaluation:
 3PAR Remote Copy,
 SNMP management of InServ Storage System,
 Common Information Model (CIM) management of the InServ Storage System,
 Export of audit records to an external Syslog server, and
 Use of the Maintenance Terminal and Service Processor.
The operational environment of the TOE does include a management workstation and
may include time and authentication servers (Network Time Protocol and Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol servers, respectively).
3 Security Policy
The TOE enforces the following security policies as described in the ST.
 Security audit
 Cryptographic support
 User data protection
 Identification and authentication
 Security management
 Protection of the TSF
 Trusted path/channels
Note: The ST should be consulted for more description of these and other security
functions of the TOE.
3.1 Security audit
The TOE generates audit records that include date and time of the event, responsible subject
identity, and outcome for security events. The TOE provides an interface for authorized users to
view locally stored event logs and provides the ability to search the auditable events based on
user ID.
3.2 Cryptographic support
The TOE includes implementations of OpenSSH and OpenSSL to facilitate encrypted
communication with remote administrators. An administrator may connect securely to the TOE
using the CLI or IMC clients distributed as part of the TOE or an SSHv2 client.
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
5
3.3 User data protection
The TOE enforces a policy which controls access to the available storage resources, which the
TOE presents as Virtual Volumes. Access to VVs can be limited to:
 Fiber Channel client hosts based on specific FC ports,
 Internet SCSI client hosts based on specific iSCSI ports,
 Specific FC hosts identified by World Wide Names (WWN),
 Specific iSCSI hosts identified by iSCSI name,
 A defined set of hosts, or
 Specific hosts on specified ports.
The association between VVs, hosts, and ports is configurable by an administrator subject to role
restrictions. Attached hosts cannot access or even perceive any VVs until access is explicitly
granted by one of the methods identified above.
Note that the TOE enforces separation between its control functions and the data path (that is,
control plane and data plane). Users logging in to manage the TOE have no access to the
protected storage resources while client hosts connected to FC or iSCSI ports have no access to
any TOE management functions.
The TOE supports thinly-provisioned VVs. When a VV is thinly provisioned, the TOE allocates
physical storage resources to the VV as the storage is needed (for example, as a result of write
operations). Administrators may configure warning and limit levels for a VV and its underlying
physical storage resources. The TOE will notify an administrator when storage allocated to a VV
reaches the configured allocation warning level. When storage allocated to VV reaches the
configured limit level, the TOE will both notify administrators and prevent any further allocation
of physical storage to the VV. These limits serve to bound the resources a given VV can
consume, thereby protecting resources needed for other purposes.
3.4 Identification and authentication
The TOE requires administrative users to provide unique identification and authentication data
before any access to the system is granted, to include access to administrative functions. The TOE
maintains the following security attributes belonging to locally-defined, individual administrative
users: user identity, class (permissions), password, and optionally a public key. An
administrative user can be assigned to the browse, edit, service, or super class. The TOE uses
these attributes to determine access to available functions. The TOE protects the locally stored
user authentication attributes using MD5 hashes. The TOE also provides obscured feedback when
the password is entered.
In addition, the TOE can be configured to use an external LDAP server (for example, Active
Directory) for authentication. If an administrative user is not defined locally, the provided user
identity and password are forwarded to the configured LDAP server. If the LDAP authentication
is successful, the TOE will determine an administrative user’s class association using information
retrieved from the LDAP server. Note that the TOE does not provide functions to manage users
defined in an LDAP server.
In addition to administrative users, the TOE identifies client host users using iSCSI names and
Fiber Channel WWNs. Client host users are only identified and are not authenticated, except
when an administrator configures iSCSI Challenge-Handshake Authentication protocol.
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
6
3.5 Security management
As identified above, the TOE supports four user classes (browse, edit, service, and super) that can
be assigned to individual users. Users in the super class can perform any functions (that is, all
security functions of the TOE including managing audit events, local user accounts, and access
control) while other users have more limited access, although still security relevant, to security
management functions.
The security functions of the TOE are managed by authorized users using either command line or
graphical user interfaces. The command line interface is accessible via SSHv2 sessions or the CLI
client HP provides with the TOE. The graphical user interface is accessible using the IMC client.
3.6 Protection of the TSF
The TOE implements a number of features design to protect itself to ensure the reliability and
integrity of its security features. First and foremost, the TOE is a stand-alone physical device,
with the exception of some optional client software. The TOE does not host or execute untrusted
applications. The TOE appliance is designed with separate physical connections so that
administrative and supporting service network communications are physically isolated from client
host communications. Each of the physical interfaces is associated with a well-defined set of
standards-based services that have been carefully design to comply with the applicable standards
and to implement and enforce the security and other access policies of the TOE without offering
any functions that might serve to bypass or allow any of those policies to be subverted in some
way. The TOE clients are applications designed to provide administrative interfaces. They are
carefully designed to provide functions to administrators correctly, but necessarily must be used
in conjunction with hosts that will protect them from potential tampering.
Internally, the TOE protects particularly sensitive data such as stored passwords and
cryptographic keys so that they are not accessible even by an administrator. It also provides an
internal real-time clock in each node to ensure that reliable time information is available (for
example, for log accountability). The TOE can be configured to synchronize time with an
external NTP server.
3.7 Trusted path/channels
The TOE protects interactive communication with remote administrators using SSHv2 (for user-
provided SSH clients) or SSL/TLS (for HP-provided CLI and IMC clients). In each case, both
integrity and disclosure protection is ensured. Note that communication with a configured LDAP
server can also be protected using TLS.
4 Assumptions
The ST identifies the following assumptions about the use of the product:
 It is assumed that there are no general-purpose computing capabilities (e.g., compilers or
user applications) available on the TOE, other than those services necessary for the
operation, administration and support of the TOE.
 Physical security, commensurate with the value of the TOE and the data it contains, is
assumed to be provided by the environment. This also extends to supporting servers
(e.g., NTP) and client hosts that are expected to be in close proximity to the TOE.
 Administrators are trusted to follow and apply all administrator guidance in a trusted
manner.
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
7
 It is assumed that iSCSI and Fiber Channel host identities properly reflect the adapters
and hence the hosts to which they are associated such that authentication is not necessary.
Implicit in this assumption is the SAN(s) connecting iSCSI and Fiber Channel must be
controlled to mitigate potentially malicious attacks on the SAN(s).
5 Architectural Information
The TOE is a stand-alone storage system appliance with two management clients that run on a
management workstation. Figure 1 below shows the TOE within its operational environment1
.
The TOE storage system is divided into a control plane and a data plane. The control plane
provides secure channels for administrator communication, enforces administrator roles, and
provides security management functions including access policy management. The data plane
provides client hosts with access to storage resources subject to the access policy. The control /
data plane separation prevents an administrator from accessing storage resources through a
management interface.
1
The ST excludes product features (for example, Remote Copy, SNMP server, CIM server) and
operational environment components (for example, maintenance terminal and syslog server). Figure 1 does
not show excluded features and components.
Ethernet
Restricted/Private
network segment
NTP
server
3PAR Storage Appliance
CLI or
IMC client
SSH
Client
LDAP
server
Ethernet
SSHv2
Ethernet
SSL/TLS
Ethernet
SSL/TLS
Fibre Channel
Close Proximity,
Restricted/Private
network segment
iSCSI
Close Proximity,
Restricted/Private
network segment
FC Hosts
iSCSI
Hosts
Control
Plane
Data
Plane
TOE
Key:
Figure 1 TOE Architecture
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
8
5.1 Physical Boundaries
The physical boundary of an HP 3PAR InServ Storage System is the physical boundary of the
hardware. Interfaces to this hardware include iSCSI and Fibre Channel ports for data connections,
Ethernet ports for server administration, and a serial port which provides limited administrative
access. The following components are included in the TOE:
 InServ Storage Server appliances,
 CLI client, and
 IMC client.
The following additional components are supported in the operational environment:
 Management workstation (supporting SSH, CLI, or IMC client),
 SSH client,
 Network Time Protocol server, and
 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol server.
Please refer to the Security Target for more technical details about the product and its associated
security claims and functions.
6 Documentation
The following documentation was used as evidence for the evaluation of the HP 3PAR InServ
Storage System.
6.1 Design Documentation
1. Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Common Criteria Evaluation Development
Documentation, Hewlett-Packard, Revision F, 20 August 2012
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
9
6.2 Guidance Documentation
1. HP 3PAR InForm OS Common Criteria Administrator’s Reference, Hewlett-Packard,
Part number QL226-96586, August 2012. (Delivered 24 August 2012)
2. HP 3PAR InForm OS 3.1.1 Concepts Guide, Hewlett-Packard, Part Number QL226-
96555, May 2012
3. HP 3PAR InForm OS 3.1.1 CLI Administrator's Manual, Hewlett-Packard, Part Number
QL226-96553, May 2012
4. HP 3PAR InForm OS 3.1.1 Command Line Interface Reference, Hewlett-Packard, Part
Number QL226-96554, June 2012
5. HP 3PAR InForm Management Console 4.2.1 Software: Users Guide, Hewlett-Packard,
Part Number QL226-96251, November 2011
6. HP 3PAR Host Explorer 1.1.0 MU1 Software User Guide, Hewlett-Packard, Part Number
QL226-96142, August 2011
7. HP 3PAR InForm OS 3.1.1 Messages and Operators Guide, Hewlett-Packard, Part
Number QL226-96245, March 2012
8. HP 3PAR E-Class/F-Class Storage System Physical Planning Manual, Hewlett-Packard,
Part Number QL226-96551, June 2012
9. HP 3PAR S-Class/T-Class Storage System Physical Planning Manual, Hewlett-Packard,
Part Number QL226-96559, June 2012
10. HP P10000 3PAR Storage System Physical Planning Manual, Hewlett-Packard, Part
Number QL226-96562, June 2012
11. HP 3PAR InForm OS 3.1.1 GA/MU1 Release Notes, Hewlett-Packard, Part Number
QL226-96556, June 2012
12. HP 3PAR InForm OS 3.1.1 GA/MU1 Service Notes, Hewlett-Packard, Part Number
QL226-96557, June 2012
6.3 Life-Cycle Documentation
1. Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Life-Cycle Management, Hewlett-Packard, Revision E,
30 August 2012
2. Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Flaw Remediation Process for Security Defects,
Hewlett-Packard, Revision B, 27 April 2012
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
10
6.4 Test Documentation
1. Hewlett-Packard 3PAR InServ Common Criteria Test Overview, Hewlett-Packard,
Version C, 22 June 2012
2. Test Plan HP 3PAR InServ Storage Systems Common Criteria InForm OS 3.1.1 MU1
CLI; F-Class, T-Class, and V-Class Storage Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Part Number
245-200045, Version v1.3, 9 August 2012
3. Raw Test Results HP 3PAR InServ Storage Systems Common Criteria InForm OS 3.1.1
MU1: CLI; F-Class, T-Class, and V-Class Storage Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Part
Number 2045-200047, Version v1.2, 5 August 2012
4. Test Plan HP 3PAR InServ Storage Systems Common Criteria IMC 4.2.1; InForm OS
3.1.1 MU1 IMC; F-Class, T-Class, and V-Class Storage Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Part
Number 245-200046, Version v3.0, 11 June 2012
7 Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the Evaluation Team. It is derived
from information contained in the Evaluation Technical Report for Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems Part 1, 1.1, 09/04/2012.
Evaluation team testing was conducted at the vendor’s development site in HP offices in
Fremont, CA during the week of 6 August 2012.
7.1 Developer Testing
The developer created test procedures specifically to fulfill the test requirements for an EAL 2
augmented with ALC_FLR.2 evaluation. The tests were developed to provide good coverage of
the security functions related to each of the security requirements in the Security Target. The
developer has documented their tests in a test plan where the results of the tests are presented as
prose conclusions, notes, screen shots, and summaries for each of the applicable test platforms.
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
The evaluators received the TOE in the form that normal customers would receive it. HP installed
TOE hardware and software. The evaluation team configured the TOE in accordance with the CC
Administrator’s Reference. The team exercised a representative subset of the developers test plan
on equipment configured in the testing laboratory. Note that the final subset of developer tests
exercised during independent testing consisted of manual tests (representing about 20% of the
developer tests).
Also, the evaluators devised independent tests. The independent tests were intended to confirm
that the TSF denies unsecured administrative connections and to exercise additional aspects of
access control policy.
7.3 Penetration Testing
In addition to the use of developer provided and independently devised security functional tests,
the evaluators also explored the possibility to penetrate or bypass the security mechanisms. Much
of this work was based on analysis of the design and actual configuration information derived
from the installed and configured products. However, the evaluators also performed scans of the
installed products for open ports. The team attempted to access the TOE from the Service
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
11
Processor, which confirmed the Service Processor was disabled appropriately in the test
configuration. The team attempted to bypass TSF policy using TCL command in the CLI shell.
Given the complete set of test results from test procedures exercised by the developer and the
sample of tests directly exercised by the evaluators, the testing requirements for EAL 2
augmented with ALC_FLR.2 are fulfilled.
8 Results of the Evaluation
The evaluation was conducted based upon Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009. A verdict for an assurance component is
determined by the resulting verdicts assigned to the corresponding evaluator action elements. The
evaluation team assigned a Pass, Fail, or Inconclusive verdict to each work unit of each assurance
component. For Fail or Inconclusive work unit verdicts, the evaluation team advised the
developer of issues requiring resolution or clarification within the evaluation evidence. In this
way, the evaluation team assigned an overall Pass verdict to the assurance component only when
all of the work units for that component had been assigned a Pass verdict.
The validation team agreed with the conclusion of the evaluation team, and recommended to
CCEVS management that an “EAL 2 augmented with ALC_FLR.2” certificate rating be issued
for Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems.
The details of the evaluation are recorded in the Evaluation Technical Report for Hewlett-
Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems Parts 1 and 2 and the Evaluation Team Test Report for
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems, which are controlled by the SAIC CCTL. The
security assurance requirements are listed in the following table.
TOE Security Assurance Requirements
Requirement Class Requirement Component
ADV: Development ADV_ARC.1: Security architecture description
ADV_FSP.2: Security-enforcing functional specification
ADV_TDS.1: Basic design
AGD: Guidance documents AGD_OPE.1: Operational user guidance
AGD_PRE.1: Preparative procedures
ALC: Life-cycle support ALC_CMC.2: Use of a CM system
ALC_CMS.2: Parts of the TOE CM coverage
ALC_DEL.1: Delivery procedures
ALC_FLR.2: Flaw reporting procedures
ATE: Tests ATE_COV.1: Evidence of coverage
ATE_FUN.1: Functional testing
ATE_IND.2: Independent testing - sample
AVA: Vulnerability assessment AVA_VAN.2: Vulnerability analysis
9 Validator Comments/Recommendations
The TOE was successfully evaluated in the defined evaluated configuration and scope described
in the Security Target. The validation team recommends certification of the TOE at EAL 2
augmented with ALC_FLR.2.
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
12
The following information should be considered by potential consumers or buyers of this product:
 The product consumer or buyer must be aware that the product presumes that the client
hosts are non-malicious. The product does not authenticate the client hosts; the client
host identity is assumed to be correct. In essence, this is an assumption that the TOE
operates in a benign environment; that client hosts do not misrepresent their identities and
otherwise act maliciously. If the customer’s environment is not consistent with this
assumption, then additional protections would need to be implemented to mitigate the
risks presented by a potentially malicious client host.
 In the current product, administrators are not warned prior to audit records being
overwritten. Based on feedback provided during the evaluation, HP added guidance to
administrator documentation that the audit log should be archived on a daily basis.
Although the vendor’s solution is considered acceptable relative to satisfying the stated
requirement, the Validators consider it to be a minimally acceptable solution.
10 Annexes
Not applicable.
11 Security Target
The ST for this product’s evaluation is Hewlett-Packard 3PAR® InServ® Storage Systems with
Security Target, Version 1.0, 10/09/2012.
VALIDATION REPORT
Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage Systems
13
12 Bibliography
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 1:
Introduction, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2:
Security Functional Requirements, Version 3.1 Revision 3, July 2009.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3:
Security assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 3, July 2009.
[4] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Evaluation Methodology, Version 3.1, Revision 3, July 2009.
[5] Hewlett-Packard 3PAR® InServ® Storage Systems Security Target, Version
1.0, 10/09/2012.
[6] Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Guidance to CCEVS
Approved Common Criteria Testing Laboratories, Version 2.0, 8 Sep 2008.
[7] Evaluation Technical Report for Hewlett-Packard 3PAR® InServ® Storage
Systems Part 1, version 1.1, 09/04/2012.
[8] Evaluation Technical Report for Hewlett-Packard 3PAR® InServ® Storage
Systems Part 2, version 1.1, 09/04/2012.
[9] Evaluation Team Test Report for Hewlett-Packard 3PAR®
InServ®
Storage
Systems, version 1.0, 09/04/2012.