Version 2018-1 @ TÜV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. A TUVRheinland® Precisely Right. Certification Report NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element Sponsor and developer: Evaluation facility: Report number: Report version: Project number: Author(s): Date: Number of pages: Number of appendices: NXP Semiconductors Germany Troplowitzstrasse 20 22529 Hamburg Germany Brightsight Brassersplein 2 2612 CT Delft The Netherlands NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2 1 221699 Wouter Slegers 25 November 2019 14 0 Reproduction of this report is authorized provided the report is reproduced in its entirety. Headoffice: Westervoortsedijk 73 NL-6827 AV Arnhem Location Leek: Eiberkamp 10 P.O. Box 2220 NL-6802 CE Arnhem The Netherlands P.O. Box 37 NL-9351 VT Leek NL-9350 AA Leek The Netherlands. TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. is a registered company at the Dutch Chamber of Commerce under number 27288788 VAT number: NL815820380B01 IBAN: NL61DEUT0265155096 info@nl.tuv.com www.tuv.com/nt Tel. +31 (0)88 888 7 888 Fax +31 (0)88 888 7 879 ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval. Certificate Standard Certificate number Certificate holder and developer Product and assurance level Project number Evaluation facility ® ‘Common Criteria Recognition ‘Arrangement for components, up to EAL2 SOGIS Mutual Recognition ‘Agreement for components up to EAL7 Validity a PRODUCTS RuACOT Accredited by the Dutch Council for Accreditation www.tuv.com/nl Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CC), Version 3.1 Revision 5 (ISO/IEC 15408) CC-19-221699-2 TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. certifies: NXP Semiconductors Germany Troplowitzstrasse 20, 22529 Hamburg, Germany NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element Assurance Package: * _EAL5 augmented with AVA_VAN.5, ALC_DVS.2, ASE_TSS.2 and ALC_FLR.1 Protection Profile Conformance: = Java Card Protection Profile - Open Configuration, Version 3.0.5, Certified by BSI, the German Certification Body, as BSI-CC-PP- 0099-2017) 221699 Brightsight BV located in Delft, the Netherlands Applying the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM), Version 3.1 Revision 5 (ISO/IEC 18045) The IT product identified in this certificate has been evaluated at an accredited and licensed/approved evaluation facility 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. This certificate applies 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 Netherlands scheme for certification in the area of IT security [NSCIB] and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation technical report are consistent with the evidence adduced. This certificate is not an endorsement of the IT product by TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. or by other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V. or by any other organisation that recognises or gives effect to this certificate, is either expressed or implied. Date of 1% issue : 30-04-2019 Date of 2% issue : 29-11-2019 Certificate expiry : 30-04-2024 Westervoortsedijk 73, 6827 AV Amhem P.O. Box 2220, NL-6802 CE Amhem The Netherlands A TÜVRheinland® Precisely Right. ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval Page: 3/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 CONTENTS: Foreword Recognition of the certificate International recognition European recognition 1 Executive Summary 2 Certification Results 2.1 Identification of Target of Evaluation 2.2 Security Policy 2.3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 2.4 Architectural Information 2.5 Documentation 2.6 IT Product Testing 2.7 Re-used evaluation results 2.8 Evaluated Configuration 2.9 Results of the Evaluation 2.10 | Comments/Recommendations 3 Security Target 4 Definitions 5 Bibliography A TUVRheinland® Precisely Right. 13 14 ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 4/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. Foreword The Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the Area of IT Security (NSCIB) provides a third-party evaluation and certification service for determining the trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT) security products. Under this NSCIB, TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. has the task of issuing certificates for IT security products, as well as for protection profiles and sites. Part of the procedure is the technical examination (evaluation) of the product, protection profile or site according to the Common Criteria assessment guidelines published by the NSCIB. Evaluations are performed by an IT Security Evaluation Facility (ITSEF) under the oversight of the NSCIB Certification Body, which is operated by TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. in cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. An ITSEF in the Netherlands is a commercial facility that has been licensed by TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. to perform Common Criteria evaluations; a significant requirement for such a license is accreditation to the requirements of ISO Standard 17025 “General requirements for the accreditation of calibration and testing laboratories”. By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, TUV Rheinland Nederland B.V. asserts that the product or site complies with the security requirements specified in the associated (site) security target, or that the protection profile (PP) complies with the requirements for PP evaluation specified in the Common Criteria for Information Security Evaluation. A (site) security target is a requirements specification document that defines the scope of the evaluation activities. The consumer should review the (site) security target or protection profile, 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, its security requirements, and the level of confidence (i.e., the evaluation assurance level) that the product or site satisfies the security requirements stated in the (site) security target. Reproduction of this report is authorized provided the report is reproduced in its entirety. ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 5/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. Recognition of the certificate Presence of the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement and SOG-IS logos on the certificate indicates that this certificate is issued in accordance with the provisions of the CCRA and the SOG-IS agreement and will be recognised by the participating nations. International recognition The CCRA has been signed by the Netherlands in May 2000 and provides mutual recognition of certificates based on the CC. Starting September 2014 the CCRA has been updated to provide mutual recognition of certificates based on cPPs (exact use) or STs with evaluation assurance components up to and including EAL2+ALC_FLR. The current list of signatory nations and approved certification schemes can be found on: http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org. European recognition The European SOGIS-Mutual Recognition Agreement (SOGIS-MRA) version 3 effective from April 2010 provides mutual recognition of Common Criteria and ITSEC certificates at a basic evaluation level for all products. A higher recognition level for evaluation levels beyond EAL4 (resp. E3-basic) is provided for products related to specific technical domains. This agreement was initially signed by Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Italy joined the SOGIS-MRA in December 2010. The current list of signatory nations, approved certification schemes and the list of technical domains for which the higher recognition applies can be found on: http://www.sogisportal.eu. ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 6/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. 1 Executive Summary This Certification Report states the outcome of the Common Criteria security evaluation of the NXP JCOPS.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element. The developer of the NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element is NXP Semiconductors Germany located in Hamburg, Germany and they also act as the sponsor of the evaluation and certification. A Certification Report is intended to assist prospective consumers when judging the suitability of the IT security properties of the product for their particular requirements. The TOE is a composite TOE, consisting of a Java Card smart card operating system and an underlying platform, which is a secure micro controller. The TOE provides Java Card 3.0.5 functionality with post-issuance applet loading, card content management and secure channel features as specified in Global Platform 2.3. It includes also NXP Proprietary Functionality: Secure Box, Config Applet, OS Update Component, Restricted Mode and Error Detection Code (EDC) API. Cryptographic functionality includes 3DES, AES, RSA and RSA CRT; SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 hash algorithms, HMAC, ECC over GF(p). Furthermore, the TOE provides random number generation according to class DRG.3 of AIS 20. Note that proprietary applications such as FeliCa and Mifare API have been included in the TOE, but as there are no security claims on these applications in this certificate, these applications have not been assessed, only the self-protection of the TSF. The TOE has been originally evaluated by Brightsight B.V. located in Delft, The Netherlands and was certified on 30-04-2019. The re-evaluation also took place by Brightsight B.V. and was completed on 25-11-2019 with the approval of the ETR. The re-certification procedure has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the Area of IT Security [NSCIB]. This second issue of the Certification Report is a result of a “recertification with major changes”. The major changes are related to change of the commercial name, reduced claims in the ST due to reduced claims in the underlying ST without change of the software, a minor change in the guidance not impacting the security functionality of the certified product. The identification of the maintained product is modified to NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element. Users of the previous certificate are reminded that the following SFRs have been removed due to the changes in the underlying ST: FCS_CKM.2 and FCS_CKM.3. The SFR FCS_RNG has changed from DRG.4 to DRG.3. The security evaluation re-used the evaluation results of previously performed evaluations. A full, up to date vulnerability analysis has been made. No renewed testing was necessary. The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target [ST], which identifies assumptions made during the evaluation, the intended environment for the NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element, the security requirements, and the level of confidence (evaluation assurance level) at which the product is intended to satisfy the security requirements. Consumers of the NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element are advised to verify that their own environment is consistent with the security target, and to give due consideration to the comments, observations and recommendations in this certification report. The results documented in the evaluation technical report [ETRY' for this product provide sufficient evidence that the TOE meets the EALS5 augmented (EAL5(+)) assurance requirements for the evaluated security functionality. This assurance level is augmented with ALC_DVS.2 (Sufficiency of security measures), AVA_VAN.5 (Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis), ASE_TSS.2 (TOE summary specification with architectural design summary) and ALC_FLR.1(Basic flaw remediation). ' The Evaluation Technical Report contains information proprietary to the developer and/or the evaluator, and is not releasable for public review. ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 7/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5 [CEM], for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, version 3.1 Revision 5 [CC]. TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V., as the NSCIB Certification Body, declares that the evaluation meets all the conditions for international recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will be listed on the NSCIB Certified Products list. It should be noted that the certification results only apply to the specific version of the product as evaluated. ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval Page: 8/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland” Precisely Right. 2 Certification Results 2.1 Identification of Target of Evaluation The Target of Evaluation (TOE) for this evaluation is the NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element from NXP Semiconductors Germany located in Hamburg, Germany. The TOE is comprised of the following main components: Delivery Identifier Version item type Hardware SN100x IC Package (as part of SN100 certificate) B2.1 Factory OS (as part of SN100 certificate) 4.2.0 Boot OS (as part of SN100 certificate) 4.2.0 Flash Driver Software (part of SN100 certificate) 4.0.8 Software Service Software (part of SN100 certificate, specific to C48) 4.13.7.1 Crypto Library (part of SN100 certificate) 1.0.0 JCOP5.1 OS, native applications and OS Update Component R1.00.1 To ensure secure usage a set of guidance documents is provided together with the NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element. Details can be found in section Documentation” of this report. For a detailed and precise description of the TOE lifecycle refer to the [ST], chapter 1.3.2. 2.2 Security Policy This TOE is a composite TOE, consisting of a Java Card smart card operating system, an OS updater, a restricted mode and an underlying platform, which is composed of a library which provides cryptographic functions and a secure micro-controller. The TOE provides Java Card 3.0.5 functionality with post-issuance applet loading, card content management and secure channel features as specified in Global Platform 2.3 including SCPO3. It includes also NXP proprietary functionalities: + Secure Box: Enables the TOE to run third party native code (Secure Box Native Lib) on the micro- controller. + Config Applet: JCOP5.1 OS includes a Config Applet that can be used for configuration of the TOE. + OS Update Component: Proprietary functionality that can update JCOPS.1 OS or UpdaterOS. + Restricted Mode: In Restricted Mode only very limited functionality of the TOE is available such as, e.g.: reading logging information or resetting the Attack Counter. + Error Detection Code (EDC) API. Cryptographic functionality includes 3DES, AES, RSA and RSA CRT ; SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 hash algorithms, HMAC, ECC over GF(p). Furthermore, the TOE provides random number generation according to class DRG.3 of AIS 20. 2.3 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope 2.3.1. Assumptions The assumptions defined in the Security Target are not covered by the TOE itself. These aspects lead to specific Security Objectives to be fulfilled by the TOE-Environment. Detailed information on these © TÜV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval. Page: 9/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. security objectives that must be fulfilled by the TOE environment can be found in section 5.2 of the [ST]. 2.3.2. Clarification of scope The evaluation did not reveal any threats to the TOE that are not countered by the evaluated security functions of the product. Note that proprietary applications such as FeliCa and Mifare API have been included in the TOE, but as there are no security claims on these applications in this certificate, these applications have not been assessed, only the self-protection of the TSF. 2.4 Architectural Information The logical architecture, originating from the Security Target [ST], of the TOE can be depicted as follows: ROM Applet & packages TOE Boundary | [ecor o/s GlobalPlatform Per CU = | me com pe oo Applet | Native OS Updater OS | | Certified Hardware MicroController Firmware (MC FW) including Security Software & Crypto Lib [EE Components of this Certification Not in Scope of certification 2.5 Documentation The following documentation is provided with the product by the developer to the customer: Identifier Version [UGM] JCOP 5.1 R1.00.1, User Guidance Manual Rev. 1.9, 2019-06-17 [UGM-ADD-SEMS] JCOP 5.1 R1.00.1, User Guidance Manual Addendum SEMS Application API. Rev. 1.0, 2018-11-06 ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 10/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. 2.6 IT Product Testing Testing (depth, coverage, functional tests, independent testing): The evaluators examined the developer's testing activities documentation and verified that the developer has met their testing responsibilities. 2.6.1 Testing approach and depth The tests cover all security functions and aspects of the TSF. Testing is performed during development as well as for acceptance/release. The developer used a set of test suites (industry standard and proprietary ones) and tools to test the TOE as well as an emulator, PC Platform and FPGA tool as some tests could only be performed in such environment. The identification was checked based on the SVN number. The developer uses a distributed test environment to allow usage of a vast amount of simultaneously driven testing equipment. The developer has performed extensive testing on TSFI, subsystem, module and module interface level. The tests are performed by NXP through execution of the test scripts using an automated and distributed system. Test tools and scripts are extensively used to verify that the tests return expected values. Code coverage analysis is used by NXP to verify overall test completeness. Test benches for the various TOE parts are executed using code coverage measurement and analysis tools to determine the code coverage (i.e. lines, branches and/or instructions, depending on tool) of each test bench. Cases with incomplete coverage are analysed. For each tool, the developer has investigated and documented inherent limitations that can lead to coverage being reported as less than 100%. In such cases the developer provided a “gap” analysis with rationales (e.g. attack counter not hit due to redundancy checks). The underlying hardware and crypto-library test results are extendable to composite evaluations, as the underlying platform is operated according to its guidance and the composite evaluation requirements are met. 2.6.2 Independent Penetration Testing The methodical analysis performed was conducted along the following steps: + When evaluating the evidence in the classes ADV and AGD potential vulnerabilities were identified from generating questions to the type of TOE and the specified behaviour. From the ASE class, no potential vulnerabilities were identified. + For ADV_IMP a thorough implementation representation review was performed on the TOE. During this attack oriented analysis the protection against the attack scenarios was analysed using the knowledge gained from all previous evaluation classes. This resulted in the identification of additional potential vulnerabilities. This analysis was performed according to the attack list in [JIL- AP]. An important source for assurance against attacks in this step is the [HW-ETRfC] of the underlying platform; no additional potential vulnerabilities were concluded from this. + All potential vulnerabilities were analysed using the knowledge gained from all evaluation classes and the public domain. A judgment was made on how to assure that these potential vulnerabilities are not exploitable. For most of the potential vulnerabilities a penetration test was defined. Several potential vulnerabilities were found to be not exploitable due to an impractical attack path. 2.6.3 Test Configuration The TOE was tested in the following configuration: NXP JCOP5.1 R1.00.1 (J5U2M001F 3560600). A subset of the test campaign was performed on a previously certified product JCOP5.0 R1.11.0 (J5T2M001B39100, NSCIB-CC-195714) as the potential vulnerabilities tested are shared between both products. For details see [ETRfC]. 2.6.4 Testing Results The testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected results and observed results are summarised in the [ETR], with references to the documents containing the full details. ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 11/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests produced the expected results, giving assurance that the TOE behaves as specified in its [ST] and functional specification. No exploitable vulnerabilities were found with the independent penetration tests. The algorithmic security level of cryptographic functionality has not been rated in this certification process, but the current consensus on the algorithmic security level in the open domain, i.e. from the current best cryptanalytic attacks published, has been taken into account. Not all key sizes specified in the [ST] have sufficient cryptographic strength for satisfying the AVA_VAN.S5 “high attack potential”. The TOE supports a wider range of key sizes (see [ST]), including those with sufficient algorithmic security level to exceed 100 bits as required for high attack potential (AVA_VAN.5). The strength of the implementation of the cryptographic functionality has been assessed in the evaluation, as part of the AVA_VAN activities. These activities revealed that for some cryptographic functionality the security level could be reduced from an algorithmic security level above 100 bits to a practical remaining security level lower than 100 bits. As the remaining security level still exceeds 80 bits, this is considered sufficient. So no exploitable vulnerabilities were found with the independent penetration tests. For composite evaluations, please consult the /ETRfC] for details. 2.7 Re-used evaluation results This is a re-certification. Documentary evaluation results of the earlier version of the TOE have been re-used, but vulnerability analysis has been renewed. As the TOE has not changed since the last certification and the test results are still valid, no retesting of the penetration tests was needed. Sites involved in the development and production of the hardware platform were re-used by composition. There has been extensive re-use of the ALC aspects for the sites involved in the development and production of the TOE, by use of 5 site certificates. « Hamburg - Germany, « Gratkorn - Austria, + Bangalore - India, + San Diego and San Jose - USA. No sites have been visited as part of this evaluation. 2.8 Evaluated Configuration The TOE is defined uniquely by its name and version number NXP JCOPS5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element. The TOE can only be in a single evaluated configuration. Changes that can be made using the Config Applet are within this configuration. 2.9 Results of the Evaluation The evaluation lab documented their evaluation results in the [ETRE which references a ASE Intermediate Report and other evaluator documents. To support composite evaluations according to [CCDB-2007-09-01] a derived document [ETRfC] was provided and approved. This document provides details of the TOE evaluation that have to be considered when this TOE is used as platform in a composite evaluation. The verdict of each claimed assurance requirement is “Pass”. ? The Evaluation Technical Report contains information proprietary to the developer and/or the evaluator, and is not releasable for public review. ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 12/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. Based on the above evaluation results the evaluation lab concluded the NXP JCOPS5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element, to be CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant, and to meet the requirements of EAL 5 augmented with AVA_VAN.5, ALC_DVS.2, ASE_TSS.2 and ALC_FLR.1. This implies that the product satisfies the security requirements specified in Security Target [ST]. The Security Target claims ’strict’ conformance to the Protection Profile [PP]. 2.10 Comments/Recommendations The user guidance as outlined in section 2.5 contains necessary information about the usage of the TOE. Certain aspects of the TOE’s security functionality, in particular the countermeasures against attacks, depend on accurate conformance to the user guidance of both the software and the hardware part of the TOE. There are no particular obligations or recommendations for the user apart from following the user guidance. Please note that the documents contain relevant details with respect to the resistance against certain attacks. In addition all aspects of assumptions, threats and policies as outlined in the Security Target not covered by the TOE itself need to be fulfilled by the operational environment of the TOE. The customer or user of the product shall consider the results of the certification within his system risk management process. In order for the evolution of attack methods and techniques to be covered, he should define the period of time until a re-assessment for the TOE is required and thus requested from the sponsor of the certificate. Users of the previous certificate are reminded that the following SFRs have been removed due to the changes in the underlying ST: FCS_CKM.2 and FCS_CKM.3. The SFR FCS_RNG has changed from DRG.4 to DRG.3. The strength of the cryptographic algorithms and protocols was not rated in the course of this evaluation. This specifically applies to the following proprietary or non-standard algorithms, protocols and implementations: MIFARE and FeliCa. Not all key sizes specified in the [ST] have sufficient cryptographic strength for satisfying the AVA_VAN.5 “high attack potential’. In order to be protected against attackers with a "high attack potential", sufficiently large cryptographic key sizes shall be used (references can be found in national and international documents and standards). ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 13/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. 3 Security Target The NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element Security Target, Revision 2.2, dated 2019-08- 30 [ST] is included here by reference. Please note that for the need of publication a public version [ST-lite] has been created and verified according to [ST-SANJ. 4 Definitions This list of Acronyms and the glossary of terms contains elements that are not already defined by the CC or CEM: AES Advanced Encryption Standard CBC Cipher Block Chaining (a block cipher mode of operation) CBC-MAC Cipher Block Chaining Message Authentication Code DES Data Encryption Standard DFA Differential Fault Analysis ECB Electronic Code Book (a block cipher mode of operation) ECC Elliptic Curve Cryptography ECDH Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman algorithm ECDSA Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm EMA Electromagnetic Analysis Ic Integrated Circuit IT Information Technology ITSEF IT Security Evaluation Facility JIL Joint Interpretation Library MAC Message Authentication Code NSCIB Netherlands scheme for certification in the area of IT security PP Protection Profile TOE Target of Evaluation RNG Random Number Generator RMI Remote Method Invocation RSA Rivest-Shamir-Adleman Algorithm SHA Secure Hash Algorithm SPA/DPA Simple/Differential Power Analysis TRNG True Random Number Generator ® TUV, TUEV and TUV are registered trademarks. Any use or application requires prior approval 1 i ® Page: 14/14 of report number: NSCIB-CC-221699-CR2, dated 25 November 2019 A TUVRheinland Precisely Right. 5 Bibliography This section lists all referenced documentation used as source material in the compilation of this report: cc] CEM] ETR] ETRIC] HW-CERT] HW-ETRIC] HW-ST] NSCIB] PP] ST] ST-Ite] ST-SAN] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Parts |, Il and Ill, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017. Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017. Evaluation Technical Report “NXP JCOP 5.1 on SN100.C48 Secure Element” — EAL5+, Version 4.0, 22 November 2019. Gap Analysis Report JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48, NSCIB-CC-174263, 19-RPT- 743, version 1.0 dated 10 September 2019 Evaluation Technical Report for Composition “NXP JCOP 5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element” — EAL5+, Version 4.0, 22 November 2019. Certification Report SN100 Series - Secure Element with Crypto Library SN100SE B2.1 C25/C48, version 1, 18 September 2019 Evaluation Technical Report for Composition SN100 Series - Secure Element with Crypto Library B2.1 C25 and C48 EAL6+, v9.0, 9 September 2019. SN100 Series - Secure Element with Crypto Library Security Target, rev 3.3, 16 August 2019. Netherlands Scheme for Certification in the Area of IT Security, Version 2.4, 27 September April 2017. Java Card Protection Profile - Open Configuration, Version 3.0.5, Certified by BSI, the German Certification Body, as BSI-CC-PP-0099-2017 NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element Security Target, Revision 2.2, dated 2019-08-30. NXP JCOP5.1 eSE on SN100.C48 Secure Element Security Target, Lite Revision 2.2, dated 2019-08-30. ST sanitising for publication, CC Supporting Document CCDB-2006-04-004, April 2006. (This is the end of this report).