National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
for
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-VID11416-2024
Dated: April 25, 2024
Version: 1.0
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Information Technology Laboratory
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Department of Defense
ATTN: NIAP, Suite 6982
9800 Savage Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-6982
®
TM
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page i of ii
Acknowledgements
Validation Team
Seada Mohammed
Jerome Myers
Marybeth Panock
The Aerospace Corporation
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Leidos Inc.
Columbia, MD
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page ii of ii
Contents
1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification......................................................................................................................................... 2
3 TOE Architecture................................................................................................................................... 4
4 Security Policy....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Cryptographic Support..................................................................................................................7
4.2 User Data Protection.....................................................................................................................7
4.3 Security Management...................................................................................................................7
4.4 Protection of the TSF ....................................................................................................................7
5 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope................................................................................................ 8
5.1 Assumptions..................................................................................................................................8
5.2 Clarification of Scope ....................................................................................................................9
6 Documentation ................................................................................................................................... 10
7 IT Product Testing ............................................................................................................................... 11
8 TOE Evaluated Configuration.............................................................................................................. 13
9 Results of the Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 14
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ST) (ASE) ...............................................................................14
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)........................................................................................14
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)...........................................................................14
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)..................................................................14
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)............................................15
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (AVA).....................................................................................15
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results ..................................................................................................15
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations ........................................................................................... 16
11 Security Target.................................................................................................................................... 17
12 Abbreviations and Acronyms.............................................................................................................. 18
13 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 19
List of Tables
Table 1: Evaluation Identifiers 2
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 1 of 19
1 Executive Summary
This Validation Report (VR) documents the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) assessment
of the evaluation of Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives (the Target of Evaluation, or TOE). It
presents the evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance results. This VR is not an
endorsement of the TOE by any agency of the U.S. Government and no warranty of the TOE is either
expressed or implied.
This VR is intended to assist the end-user of this product and any security certification agent for that end-
user in determining the suitability of this Information Technology (IT) product in their environment. End-
users should review the Security Target (ST), which is where specific security claims are made, in
conjunction with this VR, which describes how those security claims were evaluated and tested and any
restrictions on the evaluated configuration. This VR applies only to the specific version and configuration
of the product as evaluated and as documented in the ST. Prospective users should carefully read the
Assumptions and Clarification of Scope in Section 5 and the Validator Comments in Section 10, where any
restrictions on the evaluated configuration are highlighted.
The evaluation was performed by Leidos Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL) in Columbia,
Maryland, USA, and was completed on April 25, 2024. The information in this report is largely derived
from the Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test report written by Leidos. The evaluation
determined that the TOE is Common Criteria Part 2 Extended and Common Criteria Part 3 Conformant
and meets the assurance requirements of the following document:
• collaborative Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine, Version 2.0+Errata
20190201, 1 February 2019 ([5]).
The TOE is Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives.
The TOE identified in this VR has been evaluated at a NIAP approved CCTL using the Common
Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 5) for conformance to the Common Criteria for
IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 5). 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 ETR are consistent with the evidence provided.
The validation team monitored the activities of the evaluation team, provided guidance on technical
issues and evaluation processes, and reviewed the individual work units documented in the ETR and the
Assurance Activities Report (AAR). The validation team found the evaluation demonstrated the product
satisfies all of the Security Functional Requirements (SFRs) and Security Assurance Requirements (SARs)
specified in the ST. The conclusions of the testing laboratory in the ETR are consistent with the evidence
produced. Therefore, the validation team concludes that the testing laboratory's findings are accurate,
the conclusions justified, and the conformance results are correct.
The Leidos evaluation team determined that the TOE is conformant to the claimed Protection Profile, and
when installed, configured, and operated as described in the evaluated guidance documentation, satisfies
all the SFRs specified in the ST ([6]).
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 2 of 19
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) effort to establish commercial facilities to perform trusted product evaluations. Under this
program, commercial testing laboratories called Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs) use the
Common Criteria (CC) and Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (CEM) to conduct security
evaluations, in accordance with National Voluntary Laboratory Assessment Program (NVLAP)
accreditation.
The NIAP Validation Body assigns Validators to monitor the CCTLs to ensure quality and consistency across
evaluations. Developers of IT products desiring a security evaluation contract with a CCTL and pay a fee
for their product’s evaluation. Upon successful completion of the evaluation, the product is added to
NIAP’s Product Compliant List (PCL).
Table 1 provides information needed to completely identify the product, including:
• The TOE—the fully qualified identifier of the product as evaluated
• The ST—the unique identification of the document describing the security features, claims, and
assurances of the product
• The conformance result of the evaluation
• The PP/PP-Modules to which the product is conformant
• The organizations and individuals participating in the evaluation.
Table 1: Evaluation Identifiers
Item Identifier
Evaluation Scheme United States NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
TOE Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives
Security Target Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Security Target, Version
0.24, 07 March 7, 2024.
Sponsor Seagate Technology, LLC
47488 Kato Road
Fremont, CA 94538
Developer Phison Electronics Corporation
No.1, Qun-Yi Road, Jhunan, Miaoli County,
Taiwan 350, R.O.C.
Completion Date April 25, 2024
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1, Release 5, April 2017
CEM Version Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation:
Version 3.1, Release 5, April 2017
PP collaborative Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption
Engine, Version 2.0+Errata 20190201, 1 February 2019
Conformance Result PP Compliant, CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 3 of 19
Item Identifier
CCTL Leidos
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
6841 Benjamin Franklin Drive
Columbia, MD 21046
Evaluation Personnel Anthony Apted
Pascal Patin
Validation Personnel Seada Mohammed
Jerome Myers
Marybeth Panock
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 4 of 19
3 TOE Architecture
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the ST.
The TOE comprises the following Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives (SEDs) provided by
Seagate Technology, LLC and developed by Phison Electronics Corporation:
Product Name Model # Firmware
Nytro 5550H 15mm U.2/U.3 Mixed Use XP800LE70025
XP1600LE70025
XP3200LE70025
XP6400LE70025
XP12800LE70025
SE4SA530
SGEBHG02
Nytro 5350H 15mm U.2/U.3 Read Intensive XP1920SE70025
XP3840SE70025
XP7680SE70025
XP15360SE70025
SE4SA530
SGEBHG02
Nytro 5550M 15mm U.2/U.3 Mixed Use XP800LE70055
XP1600LE70055
XP3200LE70055
XP6400LE70055
XP12800LE70055
SE4SA530
SGEBHG02
Nytro 5350M 15mm U.2/U.3 Read Intensive XP1920SE70055
XP3840SE70055
XP7680SE70055
XP15360SE70055
SE4SA530
SGEBHG02
Nytro 5550M 7mm U.2/U.3 Mixed Use XP800LE10025
XP1600LE10025
XP3200LE10025
XP6400LE10025
SE4SA530
SGEBHG02
Nytro 5350M 7mm U.2/U.3 Read Intensive XP1920SE10025
XP3840SE10025
XP7680SE10025
SE4SA530
SGEBHG02
The SEDs communicate with a host system using a standard protocol defined by the Trusted Computing
Group (TCG), an organization sponsored and operated by companies in the computer, storage, and digital
communications industry. The Storage Work Group of the TCG defines Opal storage Security Subsystem
Classes (SSC).
The Opal SSC supports NVMe (PCIe). While the physical form factor and firmware of the drives differ, all
models included in the TOE support the requirements specified in collaborative Protection Profile for Full
Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine.
The SEDs are passive devices that respond to commands but do not initiate actions. A SED does not
support remote or out-of-band management (although a host platform may have such capabilities that
invoke SED commands).
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 5 of 19
Each SED encrypts stored data in the out-of-the-box (default) configuration. Access to data is not
restricted until a user takes ownership via a TCG controller. After a user takes ownership, an
authentication key is needed to unlock the drive.
The SEDs use logical block addressing (LBA) to manage the user-addressable non-volatile memory space.
The SEDs accept NVMe commands to read or write user data in this memory space. All user data in the
user-addressable non-volatile memory space is encrypted.
Each SED also supports a non-volatile memory space termed the system area, which is available only to
the SED. There is no logical or physical access to the system area from outside of the SED. The SED stores
keys and key material in the system area and accepts TCG commands to indirectly access or modify values
in the system area.
Additionally, the SED supports a non-volatile memory space known as the TCG Data Store Tables. This
area is not available to the user but can be accessed by an administrator using access-controlled TCG
commands. The SED does not encrypt data stored in the TCG Data Store Tables and does not place any
restrictions on what data is stored. Guidance documentation instructs administrators not to store
protected data in the tables.
The SEDs support subdividing user storage into areas called locking ranges. Each locking range is secured
with its own key chain. A key chain commences with a password-based key and concludes with the Data
Encryption Key. The SED derives the 256-bit password-based key from a 32-byte (256-bit) authentication
PIN received from the host Authorization Acquisition component, using the Password Based Key
Derivation Function v2 as specified in NIST SP 800-132.
The SED uses its approved HMAC_DRBG function to generate the following keys in the key chain: Transfer
Encryption Key (TEK); Key Encryption Key (KEK); and Data Encryption Key (DEK). The SED uses the
password-based key to wrap and unwrap the 256-bit TEK using AES key wrapping (AES-KW). The SED then
uses the TEK to wrap and unwrap the 256-bit KEK using AES-KW. Finally, the SED uses the KEK to wrap and
unwrap the 256-bit DEK using AES-KW. The SED uses the DEK in AES-XTS mode to encrypt data as it is
written to non-volatile memory and to decrypt data as it is read from non-volatile memory. The SED only
ever stores wrapped keys in non-volatile memory, unwrapping keys and storing them in volatile memory
as needed, and erasing unwrapped keys in volatile memory when no longer required.
The SEDs ship with a set of default PIN values that allow for open access to the SED until an administrator
takes ownership and establishes new PINs and locking settings. In accordance with the TCG Opal
specification, the SEDs support the following authentication PIN types that control access to the SED’s
operational resources: User's Security Identifier (SID); Physical Security Identifier (PSID); Admin SP
Admins; Locking SP Admins; and Users.
Each SED has two security providers (SPs), termed the “Admin SP” and the “Locking SP”. These act as
gatekeepers to the SED’s security services. Security-related commands will not be accepted without the
correct credentials to prove the requester is authorized to perform the command.
The following authentication PINs provide access to encrypted user data: Locking SP Admin (the SEDs
support from 1 to 4 Locking SP Admins); and User (the SEDs support from 1 to 9 Users). The following
authentication PINs provide access to SED management functions: SID; PSID; and Admin SP Admin (the
SEDs support from 1 to 4 Admin SP Admins).
The SEDs never directly store PINs, either in volatile or non-volatile memory. Instead, the SED verifies the
PIN by deriving the password-based key from the PIN value and attempting to unwrap the TEK. If the SED
successfully unwraps the TEK, then the entered PIN value is valid.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 6 of 19
All drives include the PS5020-E20 Module V1.00 cryptomodule. The cryptomodule is implemented on an
Arm Cortex-R5 processor, which is based upon the ARMv7-R architecture. Each SED includes either
firmware version SE4SA530 or SGEBHG02, depending on the intended market for the SED (retail or OEM).
The try limit value settings differ between the two versions, but the cryptographic algorithm designs are
the same.
The TOE requires a host system using the standard protocol defined by the TCG in its operational
environment.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 7 of 19
4 Security Policy
The TOE enforces the following security policies as described in the ST.
Note: Much of the description of the security policy has been derived from the ST and the Final ETR.
4.1 Cryptographic Support
The TOE implements NIST-validated cryptographic algorithms supporting cryptographic functions. The
TOE provides Key Wrapping, Key Derivation, and Border Encryption Value (BEV) Validation.
4.2 User Data Protection
The TOE performs Full Drive Encryption such that the drive contains no plaintext user data. The TOE
performs user data encryption by default in the out-of-the-box configuration using AES in XTS mode with
256-bit encryption keys.
4.3 Security Management
The TOE supports management functions for changing and erasing the DEK, initiating TOE firmware
updates, and configuring a password for firmware updates.
4.4 Protection of the TSF
The TOE: provides trusted firmware update and update access control functions; protects Key and Key
Material; and supports power saving states. The TOE runs a suite of self-tests during initial start-up (on
power on).
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 8 of 19
5 Assumptions and Clarification of Scope
5.1 Assumptions
The ST references collaborative Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine for the
assumptions about the use of the TOE. Those assumptions, drawn from the claimed PP, are as follows1
:
• Communication among and between product components (e.g., AA and EE) is sufficiently
protected to prevent information disclosure. In cases in which a single product fulfils both cPPs,
then the communication between the components does not extend beyond the boundary of the
TOE (e.g., communication path is within the TOE boundary). In cases in which independent
products satisfy the requirements of the AA and EE, the physically close proximity of the two
products during their operation means that the threat agent has very little opportunity to
interpose itself in the channel between the two without the user noticing and taking appropriate
actions.
• Users enable Full Drive Encryption on a newly provisioned storage device free of protected data
in areas not targeted for encryption. It is also assumed that data intended for protection should
not be on the targeted storage media until after provisioning. The cPP does not intend to include
requirements to find all the areas on storage devices that potentially contain protected data. In
some cases, it may not be possible – for example, data contained in “bad” sectors. While
inadvertent exposure to data contained in bad sectors or unpartitioned space is unlikely, one may
use forensics tools to recover data from such areas of the storage device. Consequently, the cPP
assumes bad sectors, un-partitioned space, and areas that must contain unencrypted code (e.g.,
MBR and AA/EE pre-authentication software) contain no protected data.
• Users follow the provided guidance for securing the TOE and authorization factors. This includes
conformance with authorization factor strength, using external token authentication factors for
no other purpose and ensuring external token authorization factors are securely stored separately
from the storage device and/or platform. The user should also be trained on how to power off
their system.
• The platform in which the storage device resides (or an external storage device is connected) is
free of malware that could interfere with the correct operation of the product.
• The user does not leave the platform and/or storage device unattended until the device is in a
Compliant power saving state or has fully powered off. Authorized users do not leave the platform
and/or storage device in a mode where sensitive information persists in non-volatile storage (e.g.,
lock screen or sleep state). Users power the platform and/or storage device down or place it into
a power managed state, such as a “hibernation mode”.
• The platform is assumed to be physically protected in its Operational Environment and not subject
to physical attacks that compromise the security and/or interfere with the platform’s correct
operation.
1
The TOE implements all cryptographic functionality and does not rely on any cryptographic functions in its
Operational Environment. As such, assumption A.STRONG_CRYPTO is not relevant to the TOE.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 9 of 19
5.2 Clarification of Scope
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that need clarifying.
This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications of this evaluation. Note that:
• As with any evaluation, this evaluation shows only that the evaluated configuration meets the
security claims made, with a certain level of assurance, achieved through performance by the
evaluation team of the evaluation activities specified in the following document: collaborative
Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine, Version 2.0+Errata 20190201, 1
February 2019 ([5])
• This evaluation covers only the specific product models and versions identified in this document,
and not any earlier or later versions released or in process.
• The evaluation of security functionality of the product was limited to the functionality specified
in Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Security Target, Version 1.0, 07 March 2024 . Any
additional security-related functional capabilities included in the product were not covered by
this evaluation.
• This evaluation did not specifically search for, nor attempt to exploit, vulnerabilities that were not
“obvious” or vulnerabilities to objectives not claimed in the ST. The CEM defines an “obvious”
vulnerability as one that is easily exploited with a minimum of understanding of the TOE, technical
sophistication and resources.
• The TOE must be installed, configured and managed as described in the documentation
referenced in Section 6 of this VR.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 10 of 19
6 Documentation
The vendor offers guidance documents describing the installation process for the TOE as well as guidance
for subsequent administration and use of the applicable security features. The guidance documentation
examined during the evaluation and delivered with the TOE is as follows:
• Seagate Secure® NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Common Criteria Configuration Guide, Version 1.2,
March 7, 2024
To use the product in the evaluated configuration, the product must be configured as specified in this
documentation.
Any additional customer documentation provided with the product, or that which may be available online,
was not included in the scope of the evaluation and therefore should not be relied upon to configure or
operate the TOE as evaluated. Consumers are encouraged to download the evaluated administrative
guidance documentation from the NIAP website.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 11 of 19
7 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the evaluation team. It is derived from information contained
in the following proprietary document:
• Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Common Criteria Test Report and Procedures,
Version 1.1, 25 April 2024 [9].
A non-proprietary description of the tests performed and their results is provided in the following
document:
• Assurance Activities Report for Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives, Version 1.0, 25 April
2024 ([8]).
The purpose of the testing activity was to confirm the TOE behaves in accordance with the TOE security
functional requirements as specified in the ST for a product that claims conformance to the following
specification:
• collaborative Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine, Version 2.0+Errata
20190201, 1 February 2019.
The evaluation team devised a test plan based on the test activities specified in the above specifications.
The test plan described how each test activity was to be instantiated within the TOE test environment.
The evaluation team executed the tests specified in the test plan and documented the results in the team
test report listed above.
The TOE was tested remotely with the TOE being located at Phison’s facility in Taiwan. The procedures
and results of this testing are available in the test report referenced above.
The following figure depicts the test configuration used by the evaluation team to test the TOE on each of
its supported platforms.
Both TOE instances were connected to computer running Ubuntu Linux running Phison’s proprietary test
tool. In order to maintain the integrity of the evaluation the test systems connected to the TOE were
airgapped and did not have any network connectivity. Testing was observed using a webcam on a
separate, internet-connected computer.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 12 of 19
Given the complete set of test results from the test procedures exercised by the evaluators, the testing
requirements for collaborative Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine were
fulfilled.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 13 of 19
8 TOE Evaluated Configuration
The TOE comprises the following Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives (SEDs) provided by
Seagate Technology, LLC and developed by Phison Electronics Corporation:
Product Name Model # Drive Writes per Day
Nytro 5550H 15mm U.2/U.3 Mixed Use XP800LE70025
XP1600LE70025
XP3200LE70025
XP6400LE70025
XP12800LE70025
3
Nytro 5350H 15mm U.2/U.3 Read Intensive XP1920SE70025
XP3840SE70025
XP7680SE70025
XP15360SE70025
1
Nytro 5550M 15mm U.2/U.3 Mixed Use XP800LE70055
XP1600LE70055
XP3200LE70055
XP6400LE70055
XP12800LE70055
3
Nytro 5350M 15mm U.2/U.3 Read Intensive XP1920SE70055
XP3840SE70055
XP7680SE70055
XP15360SE70055
1
Nytro 5550M 7mm U.2/U.3 Mixed Use XP800LE10025
XP1600LE10025
XP3200LE10025
XP6400LE10025
3
Nytro 5350M 7mm U.2/U.3 Read Intensive XP1920SE10025
XP3840SE10025
XP7680SE10025
1
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 14 of 19
9 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the evaluation of the TOE against its target assurance requirements are generally described
in this section and are presented in detail in the proprietary Evaluation Technical Report for Seagate®
Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives ([7]). The reader of this VR can assume that all assurance activities
and work units received passing verdicts.
A verdict for an assurance component is determined by the resulting verdicts assigned to the
corresponding evaluator action elements. The evaluation was conducted based upon CC version 3.1,
revision 5 ([1], [2], [3]) and CEM version 3.1, revision 5 ([4]), and the specific evaluation activities specified
in:
• collaborative Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine, Version 2.0+Errata
20190201, 1 February 2019 ([5])
The evaluation determined the TOE satisfies the conformance claims made in the Seagate® Secure NVMe
Self-Encrypting Drives Security Target, of Part 2 extended and Part 3 conformant. The TOE satisfies the
requirements specified in the PP listed above.
The Validators reviewed all the work of the evaluation team and agreed with their practices and findings.
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ST) (ASE)
The evaluation team performed each TSS evaluation activity and ASE CEM work unit. The ST evaluation
ensured the ST contains an ST introduction, TOE overview, TOE description, security problem definition in
terms of threats, policies and assumptions, description of security objectives for the operational
environment, a statement of security requirements claimed to be met by the product that are consistent
with the claimed PP, and security function descriptions that satisfy the requirements.
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)
The evaluation team performed each ADV evaluation activity and applied each ADV_FSP.1 CEM work unit.
The evaluation team assessed the evaluation evidence and found it adequate to meet the requirements
specified in the claimed PP for design evidence. The ADV evidence consists of the TSS descriptions
provided in the ST and product guidance documentation providing descriptions of the TOE external
interfaces.
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The evaluation team performed each guidance evaluation activity and applied each AGD work unit. The
evaluation team determined the adequacy of the operational user guidance in describing how to operate
the TOE in accordance with the descriptions in the ST. The evaluation team followed the guidance in the
TOE preparative procedures to test the installation and configuration procedures to ensure the
procedures result in the evaluated configuration. The guidance documentation was assessed during the
design and testing phases of the evaluation to ensure it was complete.
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The evaluation team performed each ALC evaluation activity and applied each ALC_CMC.1 and ALC_CMS.1
CEM work unit, to the extent possible given the evaluation evidence required by the claimed PP. The
evaluation team ensured the TOE is labeled with a unique identifier consistent with the TOE identification
in the evaluation evidence.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 15 of 19
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)
The evaluation team performed each test activity and applied each ATE_IND.1 CEM work unit. The
evaluation team ran the set of tests specified by the claimed PP and recorded the results in the Test
Report, summarized in the AAR.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (AVA)
The evaluation team performed each AVA evaluation activity and applied each AVA_VAN.1 CEM work
unit. The evaluation team performed a vulnerability analysis following the processes described in the
claimed PP. This comprised a search of public vulnerability databases.
The evaluation team performed a search of the National Vulnerability Database (https://nvd.nist.gov/).
The evaluation team performed NVD searches on the TOE using the following search terms:
• Vendor/developer/product names:
o “Seagate”
o “Phison”
o “Nytro”
• Underlying components as required by [SD] for EE SED products:
o “PS5020-E20”
o “Arm Cortex-R5”
o “ARMv7-R”
o “self encrypting drive”
o “opal”
• Search terms specified in [SD] for general FDE technology and for EE products specifically:
o “drive encryption”
o “disk encryption”
o “key destruction”
o “key sanitization”
The evaluation team also searched the vendor security advisories page
(https://www.seagate.com/support/security/). These searches were conducted most recently on April 4,
2024.
The results of these searches did not identify any vulnerabilities that are applicable to the TOE. The
conclusion drawn from the vulnerability analysis is that no residual vulnerabilities exist that are
exploitable by attackers with Basic Attack Potential as defined by the Certification Body in accordance
with the guidance in the CEM.
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results
The evaluation team’s assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims in the ST are
met, sufficient to satisfy the assurance activities specified in the claimed PP. In addition, the evaluation
team’s testing demonstrated the accuracy of the claims in the ST.
The validation team’s assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it demonstrates
that the evaluation team followed the procedures defined in the CEM, and correctly verified that the
product meets the claims in the ST.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 16 of 19
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations
The validators suggest that the consumer pay particular attention to the evaluated configuration of the
TOE. As stated in the Clarification of Scope, the evaluated functionality is scoped exclusively to the SFRs
specified in the Security Target, and the only evaluated functionality was that which was described by the
SFRs claimed in the Security Target. All other functionality provided by the TOE needs to be assessed
separately and no further conclusions can be drawn about its effectiveness.
Consumers employing the TOE must follow the configuration instructions provided in the Configuration
Guidance documentation listed in Section 6 to ensure the evaluated configuration is established and
maintained.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 17 of 19
11 Security Target
The ST for this product’s evaluation is Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Security Target,
Version 0.24, 07 March 7, 2024.
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 18 of 19
12 Abbreviations and Acronyms
This section identifies abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.
AES Advanced Encryption Standard
BEV Border Encryption Value
CC Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation
CCTL Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
CEM Common Evaluation Methodology
DEK Data Encryption Key
DRBG Deterministic Random Bit Generator
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
HMAC Hashed Message Authentication Code
IT Information Technology
KEK Key Encryption Key
NVMe Nonvolatile Memory express
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PBKDF2 Password-Based Key Derivation Function version 2
PCL Product Compliant List
PIN Personal Identification Number
PP Protection Profile
PSID Physical Security Identification
SAR Security Assurance Requirement
SED Self-Encrypting Drive
SFR Security Functional Requirement
SID Security Identification
SSC Security Subsystem Class
ST Security Target
TCG Trusted Computing Group
TEK Transfer Encryption Key
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Functions
TSS TOE Summary Specification
VR Validation Report
XEX XOR-encrypt-XOR (a tweakable encryption mode used for disk encryption)
XTS XEX-based tweaked-codebook mode with ciphertext stealing (a mode of AES used
for disk encryption)
Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Validation Report Version 1.0
Page 19 of 19
13 Bibliography
The validation team used the following documents to produce this VR:
[1] Common Criteria Project Sponsoring Organisations. Common Criteria for Information Technology
Security Evaluation: Part 1: Introduction and general model, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[2] Common Criteria Project Sponsoring Organisations. Common Criteria for Information Technology
Security Evaluation: Part 2: Security functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[3] Common Criteria Project Sponsoring Organisations. Common Criteria for Information Technology
Security Evaluation: Part 3: Security assurance requirements, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[4] Common Criteria Project Sponsoring Organisations. Common Evaluation Methodology for
Information Technology Security, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[5] collaborative Protection Profile for Full Drive Encryption – Encryption Engine, Version 2.0+Errata
20190201, 1 February 2019.
[6] Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Security Target, Version 0.24, 07 March 2024.
[7] Evaluation Technical Report for Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives, Version 1.0, 25
April 2024.
[8] Assurance Activities Report for Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives, Version 1.0, 25
April 2024.
[9] Seagate® Secure NVMe Self-Encrypting Drives Common Criteria Test Report and Procedures,
Version 1.1, 25 April 2024.