National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
CyberReliant Corp.
175 Admiral Cochrane Drive, Suite 404
Annapolis, MD 21401
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service
(Native)
Version 1.0.0 (Version Code 2)
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-10651-2015
Dated: October 29, 2015
Version: 0.3
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
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Ken Elliott
Herb Ellis
Kelly Hood
Jerome Myers
Aerospace Corporation
Columbia, MD
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Tammy Compton
Chris Keenan
Cornelius Haley
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Catonsville, MD
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1
2 Identification............................................................................................................... 2
3 Architectural Information ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms ................................................................................... 3
3.2 TOE Architecture................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Physical Boundaries............................................................................................ 4
4 Security Policy............................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Cryptographic support ........................................................................................ 5
4.2 User data protection ............................................................................................ 5
4.3 Identification and authentication......................................................................... 5
4.4 Security management.......................................................................................... 5
4.5 Protection of the TSF.......................................................................................... 5
4.6 Trusted path/channels ......................................................................................... 6
5 Assumptions................................................................................................................ 6
6 Documentation............................................................................................................ 6
7 IT Product Testing ...................................................................................................... 6
7.1 Developer Testing............................................................................................... 6
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing ............................................................... 6
8 Evaluated Configuration ............................................................................................. 7
9 Results of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 7
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)............................................................ 7
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV).............................................................. 7
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD) ................................................. 8
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) ..................................... 8
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) ................. 8
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)......................................................... 8
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results.......................................................................... 9
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations .................................................................... 9
11 Annexes....................................................................................................................... 9
12 Security Target............................................................................................................ 9
13 Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 9
14 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 10
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) validation team of the evaluation of CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native)
solution provided by CyberReliant Corp. It presents the evaluation results, their
justifications, and the conformance results. This Validation Report is not an endorsement
of the Target of Evaluation by any agency of the U.S. government, and no warranty is
either expressed or implied.
The evaluation was performed by the Gossamer Security Solutions (Gossamer) Common
Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL) in Catonsville, MD, United States of America, and
was completed in October 2015. The information in this report is largely derived from the
Evaluation Technical Report (ETR) and associated test reports, all written by Gossamer
Security Solutions. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria
Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Conformant.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Version
1.0.0 (Version Code 2). The TOE is an application package residing on an evaluated
mobile device running Android 4.4. The TOE is a software solution providing the
capability to handle file encryption on mobile devices.
CRC’s DaR Service (Native) provides file level encryption through an APK and a library
implementation. DaR Service (Native) contain Java interfaces in order to support majority
of android application storage requirements. The implementation and functionality for java
is provided by the TOE.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) identified in this Validation Report has been evaluated at a
NIAP approved Common Criteria Testing Laboratory using the Common Methodology for
IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 4) for conformance to the Common Criteria for
IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev 4). This Validation Report applies only to the
specific version of the TOE as evaluated. The evaluation has been conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation
Scheme and the conclusions of the testing laboratory in the evaluation technical report 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 and
successive versions of the ETR. The validation team found that the evaluation showed that
the product satisfies all of the functional requirements 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 CyberReliant Corp
Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) (ASPP11/FEEP10) Security Target, Version 0.6,
10/21/15 and analysis performed by the Validation Team.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
2
2 Identification
The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards
effort to establish commercial facilities to perform trusted product evaluations. Under this
program, security evaluations are conducted by commercial testing laboratories called
Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs) using the Common Evaluation
Methodology (CEM) for Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 1 through 4 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 information technology 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 Validated
Products List.
Table 1 provides information needed to completely identify the product, including:
 The Target of Evaluation (TOE): the fully qualified identifier of the product as
evaluated.
 The Security Target (ST), describing the security features, claims, and assurances of the
product.
 The conformance result of the evaluation.
 The Protection Profile 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: CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Version 1.0.0 (Version Code 2)
Protection Profile
(Specific models identified in Section 3.1)
Protection Profile for Application Software, Version: 1.1, 5 November 2014
(ASPP11) with the following extended package:
Extended Package: File Encryption. Version 1.0, 11/10/2014 (ASPP11/FEEP10)
ST: CyberReliant Corp Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) (ASPP11/FEEP10)
Security Target, Version 0.6, 10/21/15
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for CRC CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native)
Version 1.0.0 (Version Code 2), Version 0.3, October 29, 2015.
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 4
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor CyberReliant Corp.
Developer CyberReliant Corp.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
3
Item Identifier
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
CCEVS Validators Ken Elliott
Herb Ellis
Kelly Hood
Jerome Myers
Aerospace Corporation
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is CyberReliant Corporation’s (CRC) Data at Rest (DaR)
Service (Native) software application package residing on an evaluated mobile device
running Android 4.4. The TOE is a software solution providing the capability to handle
file encryption on mobile devices.
CRC’s DaR Service (Native) provides file level encryption through an APK and a library
implementation. DaR Service (Native) contain Java interfaces in order to support majority
of android application storage requirements. The implementation and functionality for java
is provided by the TOE.
The DaR’s Management Service implementation is a straight Java DaR Service (Native)
APK and a library to be included into one’s mobile application (and then one can use the
API). The Management Service (Native) runs in the background and uses both Android and
BouncyCastle keystores to provide the File Encryption Key Encryption Key (FEKEK) to
each of the applications. The DaR Service (Native) also uses the Android keystore to store
an RSA key pair used by the Management service, and a per application android keystore
to store each application’s RSA keypair to wrap the AES-wrapped file encryption key
encryption key. The Management Service handles necessary user authentication and key
management. The file level encryption suite is an API designed to support the use of
specialized file level encryption for Android applications. Encryption is provided by the
native Android cryptographic API.
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms
The evaluated configuration consists of the application package residing on an evaluated
mobile device running Android 4.4. During evaluation testing, Gossamer tested the CRC
DaR on the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 running Android 4.4.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
4
3.2 TOE Architecture
The TOE is software installed on an evaluated mobile device running Android 4.4. The
TOE software is installed as a Management Service as well as a TSF interface library that
is compiled into other applications. References to applications noted in this Security Target
are regarded as applications that are compiled with the TSF interface API library. The
Management Service is responsible for handling the File Encryption Key Encryption Keys
(FEKEKs) necessary to unwrap the FEK. The Management Service obtains the DaR
password from the user and double wraps the FEKEK by using RSA-2048 first and then
wrapping it again using AES-256.
The TOE’s interface library is compiled into another application’s package. The library
allows the other application to invoke the TOE’s services. This library allows the
application to call the TOE’s file encryption services. The application must register itself
with the DaR Management Service. Applications registered to the TOE have a unique RSA
public/private keypair, so applications pass their RSA public keys to the DaR Management
Service along with a certificate fingerprint (which is what the application uses as the
password to the application’s BouncyCastle key store). Android’s keystore protects keys by
storing them in a container with limited access to the keys through Android’s keystore API.
The TOE allows only a single user at a time.
The TOE stores the double wrapped FEKEKs in the Management Service’s BouncyCastle
keystore and the single wrapped FEKEKs in the Application’s specific BouncyCastle
keystore. The keys are protected by requiring a password to load both the Management
Service and Application’s BouncyCastle keystore. In order for other applications to access
its FEK, the application must use the TOE’s interface library API in order to request the
Management Service’s functions. The management service uses the application’s public
key to wrap the FEKEK (via RSA-OAEP) so that it can be passed to the Application by
placing the single wrapped FEKEK into the Application’s BouncyCastle keystore. The
wrapped FEKEKs in each application’s BouncyCastle keystore are ephemeral . The
Management Service has a configurable timer in which all BouncyCastle keystores will be
wiped once the timer expires.
The TOE relies on the evaluated platform’s Android API for generating keys as well as
performing cryptographic operations. The TOE invokes Android’s cryptographic API to
generate AES-256 bit keys.
During evaluation testing, Gossamer tested the CRC DaR on the Samsung Galaxy Note 3
running Android 4.4.
3.3 Physical Boundaries
The physical boundary of the TOE is the physical perimeter of the evaluated device
(Android 4.4) on which the TOE resides.
4 Security Policy
This section summaries the security functionality of the TOE:
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
5
1. Cryptographic support
2. User data protection
3. Identification and authentication
4. Security Management
5. Protection of the TSF
6. Trusted path/channels
4.1 Cryptographic support
The TOE uses the cryptographic services from the evaluated platform. The evaluated
platform runs Android 4.4 operating system. Android’s APIs allow generation of keys
through KeyGenerator, and random numbers are generated using SecureRandom. Keys are
used to protect data belonging to the applications that use the TOE.
4.2 User data protection
The TOE protects user data by providing encryption services for applications to encrypt
their data. The TOE allows encryption of data using AES-256 bit keys.
4.3 Identification and authentication
The TOE authenticates applications by requiring a PIN/passphrase to unlock the
application’s file encryption key. A wrong password results in the unsuccessful loading of
the application’s BouncyCastle keystore. Without the correct keystore, the application
cannot load the keys necessary for file encryption/decryption.
4.4 Security management
The TOE’s services/options are inaccessible until a configuration has been created. The
TOE does not allow invocation of its services without configuration of the TOE’s settings
upon first start up. The TOE allows the changing of passwords for management purposes.
4.5 Protection of the TSF
The TOE relies on the physical boundary of the evaluated platform as well as the Android
operating system for the protection of the TOE’s application components.
The TOE checks for updates by selecting the check current version option on its menu. If
an update is needed, CRC shall deliver, via email or other agreed upon method, an updated
application. The TOE’s software is digitally signed by CyberReliant. Each update is
accompanied by documentation outlining changes to the overall service, as well as
compatible versions of the CRC API.
The native Android cryptographic library, which provides the TOE’s cryptographic
services, have built-in self-tests that are run at power-up to ensure that the algorithms are
correct. If any of the self-tests fail, the TOE will not be able to perform its cryptographic
services.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
6
4.6 Trusted path/channels
The TOE does not transmit any data between itself and another product. All of the data
managed by the TOE resides on the evaluated platform (Android 4.4).
5 Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
documents:
 Protection Profile for Application Software, Version: 1.1, 5 November 2014 with
the following extended package:
 Extended Package: File Encryption. Version 1.0, 11/10/2014
That information has not been reproduced here and the referenced Protection Profiles
should be consulted if there is interest in that material.
6 Documentation
The following documents were available with the TOE for evaluation:
[OM] Data at Rest (DaR) Data Encryption/Security Solution, CRC DaR Service
Operations & Maintenance Manual, Version 1.0.2, October 27, 2015.
7 IT Product Testing
This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the Evaluation Team. It is
derived from information contained in the Detailed Test Report (ASPP11/FEEP10) for
CRC Data at Rest Service (Native), Version 0.4, 10/291/2015 .
7.1 Developer Testing
No evidence of developer testing is required in the assurance activities for this product.
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing
The evaluation team verified the product according a Common Criteria Certification
document and ran the tests specified in the ASPP11 & FEEP10 including the tests
associated with optional and selection-based requirements.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
7
8 Evaluated Configuration
The evaluated configuration consists of the CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native)
Version 1.0.0 (Version Code 2) running on an evaluated mobile device running Android
4.4.
9 Results of the Evaluation
The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are
presented in detail in the proprietary ETR. The reader of this document can assume that all
EAL1 work units received a passing verdict.
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 rev 4 and CEM version 3.1 rev 4. The evaluation determined the Product
Name TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the Part 3 Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL
1).
9.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE)
The evaluation team applied each ASE CEM work unit. The ST evaluation ensured the ST
contains a description of the environment in terms of policies and assumptions, a statement
of security requirements claimed to be met by the Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native)
Version 1.0.0 (Version Code 2) products that are consistent with the Common Criteria, and
product security function descriptions that support the requirements.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ADV CEM work unit. The evaluation team
assessed the design documentation and found it adequate to aid in understanding how the
TSF provides the security functions. The design documentation consists of a functional
specification contained in the Security target and Guidance documents. Additionally the
evaluator performed the assurance activities specified in the ASPP11 & FEEP10 related to
the examination of the information contained in the TSS.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
8
9.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AGD CEM work unit. The evaluation team
ensured the adequacy of the user guidance in describing how to use the operational TOE.
Additionally, the evaluation team ensured the adequacy of the administrator guidance in
describing how to securely administer the TOE. All of the guides were assessed during the
design and testing phases of the evaluation to ensure they were complete.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found
that the TOE was identified.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran
the set of tests specified by the assurance activities in the ASPP11 & FEEP10 and recorded
the results in a Test Report, summarized in the Assurance Activities Report.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)
The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team
performed a public search for vulnerabilities and did not discover any public issues with
the TOE.
The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence
and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the evaluation team was justified.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
9
9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results
The evaluation team’s assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims
in the ST are met. Additionally, the evaluation team’s testing also 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.
10 Validator Comments/Recommendations
This was one of first evaluations performed against the Protection Profile for Application
Software, Version: 1.1 and the first one that had included the File Encryption Extended
Package. As a result the evaluators and validators identified multiple issues that needed to
be addressed by the appropriate Technical Rapid Response Teams. Some of the issues
resulted in formal Technical Decisions that have been published on the NIAP web site.
There were some other trrt decisions that were made for this evaluation but that have not
yet been finalized as formal Technical Decisions. Those will be published in further TDs
and/or are noted in the applicable section of the Assurance Activity report.
11 Annexes
Not applicable
12 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: CyberReliant Corp Data at Rest (DaR) Service
(Native) (ASPP11/FEEP10) Security Target, Version 0.6, 10/21/15.
13 Glossary
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
 Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL). An IT security evaluation facility
accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and
approved by the CCEVS Validation Body to conduct Common Criteria-based
evaluations.
 Conformance. The ability to demonstrate in an unambiguous way that a given
implementation is correct with respect to the formal model.
 Evaluation. The assessment of an IT product against the Common Criteria using the
Common Criteria Evaluation Methodology to determine whether or not the claims
made are justified; or the assessment of a protection profile against the Common
Criteria using the Common Evaluation Methodology to determine if the Profile is
complete, consistent, technically sound and hence suitable for use as a statement of
requirements for one or more TOEs that may be evaluated.
CRC Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) Validation Report Version 0., October 29, 2015
10
 Evaluation Evidence. Any tangible resource (information) required from the sponsor
or developer by the evaluator to perform one or more evaluation activities.
 Feature. Part of a product that is either included with the product or can be ordered
separately.
 Target of Evaluation (TOE). A group of IT products configured as an IT system, or
an IT product, and associated documentation that is the subject of a security evaluation
under the CC.
 Validation. The process carried out by the CCEVS Validation Body leading to the
issue of a Common Criteria certificate.
 Validation Body. A governmental organization responsible for carrying out validation
and for overseeing the day-to-day operation of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation
and Validation Scheme.
14 Bibliography
The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this Validation Report:
[1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation: Part 1:
Introduction and General Model, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2102.
[4] Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.1, May 2014 (ASPP11)
[5] Extended Package: File Encryption. Version 1.0, 11/10/2014 (ASPP11/FEEP10)
[6] CyberReliant Corp Data at Rest (DaR) Service (Native) (ASPP11/FEEP10)
Security Target, Version 0.6, 10/21/15 (ST)
[7] Assurance Activity Report (ASPP11/FEEP10) for CRC Data at Rest Service
(Native), Version 0.4, October 29, 2015 (AAR)
[8] Detailed Test Report (ASPP11/FEEP10) for CRC Data at Rest Service (Native),
Version 0.4, 10/291/2015 (DTR)