National Information Assurance Partnership
Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme
Validation Report
Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series
Report Number: CCEVS-VR-11195-2021
Dated: July 6, 2021
Version: 1.0
National Institute of Standards and Technology Department of Defense
Information Technology Laboratory ATTN: NIAP, SUITE: 6982
100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort Meade, MD 20755-6982
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Validation Team
Paul Bicknell
Jenn Dotson
Ted Farnsworth
Linda Morrison
The MITRE Corporation
Common Criteria Testing Laboratory
Chris Keenan
Wasif Sikder
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Columbia, MD
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
iii
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1
2 Identification ....................................................................................................................1
3 Architectural Information.................................................................................................2
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms ........................................................................................3
3.2 TOE Architecture.....................................................................................................3
3.3 Physical Boundaries.................................................................................................3
4 Security Policy .................................................................................................................4
4.1 Security audit ...........................................................................................................4
4.2 Cryptographic support..............................................................................................4
4.3 Identification and authentication..............................................................................4
4.4 Security management...............................................................................................4
4.5 Protection of the TSF ...............................................................................................4
4.6 TOE access...............................................................................................................5
4.7 Trusted path/channels...............................................................................................5
5 Assumptions & Clarification of Scope ............................................................................5
6 Documentation.................................................................................................................6
7 IT Product Testing............................................................................................................6
7.1 Developer Testing....................................................................................................6
7.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing.....................................................................6
8 Results of the Evaluation .................................................................................................6
8.1 Evaluation of the Security Target (ASE) .................................................................6
8.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV) ...................................................................7
8.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD) ......................................................7
8.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC) ..........................................7
8.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE).......................7
8.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)..............................................................8
8.7 Summary of Evaluation Results...............................................................................8
9 Validator Comments/Recommendations .........................................................................8
10 Annexes............................................................................................................................9
11 Security Target.................................................................................................................9
12 Glossary ...........................................................................................................................9
13 Bibliography...................................................................................................................10
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
1
1 Executive Summary
This report documents the assessment of the National Information Assurance Partnership
(NIAP) Validation team of the evaluation of Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series solution provided by Aruba, a
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. It presents the evaluation results, their justifications,
and the conformance results. This Validation Report (VR) is not an endorsement of the Target
of Evaluation (TOE) 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 Columbia, MD, United States of America, and was
completed in July 2021. 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 and meets the assurance requirements of the collaborative
Protection Profile for Network Devices, version 2.2e Version 2.2e, 23 March 2020.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200,
6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) identified in this Validation Report 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). This VR 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 (CCEVS) 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 ETR are consistent with the evidence produced.
The technical information included in this report was obtained from the Aruba, a Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company 6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series
Security Target, Version 0.5, 06/24/2021 and analysis performed by the Validation team.
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, security evaluations are conducted by commercial testing
laboratories called Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs) using the Common
Evaluation Methodology (CEM) in accordance with National Voluntary Laboratory
Assessment Program (NVLAP) accreditation.
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
2
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 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 (PP) 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 Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325,
8360, and 8400 Switch Series
(Specific models identified in Section 3.1)
Protection Profile collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.2e, 23 March
2020
ST Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325,
8360, and 8400 Switch Series Security Target, Version 0.5, 06/24/2021
Evaluation Technical
Report
Evaluation Technical Report for Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series, Version 0.3,
06/24/2021
CC Version Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1,
rev 5
Conformance Result CC Part 2 extended, CC Part 3 conformant
Sponsor Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
Developer Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
Common Criteria
Testing Lab (CCTL)
Gossamer Security Solutions, Inc.
Columbia, MD
CCEVS Validators Paul Bicknell, Jenn Dotson, Ted Farnsworth, Linda Morrison
3 Architectural Information
Note: The following architectural description is based on the description presented in the
Security Target.
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200,
6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series running Aruba OS-CX version 10.06.
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
3
The TOE is a family of switches designed to support scalability, security and high
performance for campus networks.
For the purpose of evaluation, the TOE will be treated as a network device offering CAVP
tested cryptographic functions, security auditing, secure administration, trusted updates, self-
tests, and secure connections to other servers (e.g., to transmit audit records).
3.1 TOE Evaluated Platforms
The evaluated configuration consists of the following devices running ArubaOS-CX version
10.06:
Series Identifier Processor
Aruba 6200F NXP 1046A ARMv8-A CPU [ARMv8 microarchitecture]
Aruba 6300M NXP 1046A ARMv8-A CPU [ARMv8 microarchitecture]
Aruba 6300F NXP 1046A ARMv8-A CPU [ARMv8 microarchitecture]
Aruba 6405 NXP 1046A ARMv8-A CPU [ARMv8 microarchitecture]
Aruba 6410 NXP 1046A ARMv8-A CPU [ARMv8 microarchitecture]
Aruba 8320 Intel Atom C2538 [Rangley microarchitecture]
Aruba 8325 Intel Xeon D-1518 [Broadwell microarchitecture]
Aruba 8360 NXP 1046A ARMv8-A CPU [ARMv8 microarchitecture]
Aruba 8400 Intel Xeon D-1527 [Broadwell microarchitecture]
3.2 TOE Architecture
The underlying architecture of each TOE appliance consists of hardware that supports
physical network connections, memory, and processor and software that implements
switching functions, configuration information and drivers. While hardware varies between
different appliance models, the software code is shared across all platforms. It is in the
software code that all the security functions claimed in this security target are enforced.
3.3 Physical Boundaries
Each TOE appliance runs the 10.06 version of the ArubaOS-CX software and has physical
network connections to its environment to facilitate the switching of network traffic. The TOE
appliance can also be the destination of network traffic, where it provides interfaces for its
own management.
The TOE may be accessed and managed through a PC or terminal in the environment which
can be remote from or directly connected to the TOE.
The TOE can be configured to forward its audit records to an external SYSLOG server in the
network environment. The TOE can also be configured to work with a Network Time Server
(NTP Server). The scope of the evaluation is limited to the requirements in the ST – all other
functionality is outside the scope of the evaluation.
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
4
4 Security Policy
This section summaries the security functionality of the TOE:
1. Security audit
2. Cryptographic support
3. Identification and authentication
4. Security management
5. Protection of the TSF
6. TOE access
7. Trusted path/channels
4.1 Security audit
The TOE is able to generate logs for a wide range of security relevant events. The TOE can
be configured to store the logs locally so they can be accessed by an administrator and also to
send the logs to a designated log server using TLS to protect the logs while in transit on the
network.
4.2 Cryptographic support
The TOE provides CAVP certified cryptography in support of its SSHv2 and TLS v1.2
protocol implementations. Cryptographic services include key management, random bit
generation, encryption/decryption, digital signature and secure hashing.
4.3 Identification and authentication
The TOE requires users to be identified and authenticated before they can use functions
mediated by the TOE, with the exception of passing network traffic in accordance with its
configured switching rules and reading the login banner. It provides the ability to both assign
attributes (user names, passwords and roles) and to authenticate users against these attributes.
4.4 Security management
The TOE provides Command Line Interface (CLI) commands to access the wide range of
security management functions to manage its security policies. All administrative activity and
functions including security management commands are limited to authorized users (i.e.,
administrators) only after they have provided acceptable user identification and authentication
data to the TOE. The security management functions are controlled through the use of roles
that can be assigned to TOE users. The TOE supports the following roles: Administrators,
Operators. The Administrator role can make changes to the TOE configuration while the
Operators role is a read-only role.
4.5 Protection of the TSF
The TOE implements a number of measures to protect the integrity of its security features.
The TOE protects stored passwords and cryptographic keys so they are not directly accessible
in plaintext. The TOE also ensures that reliable time information is available for both log
accountability and synchronization with the operating environment by providing a hardware
clock and the ability to synchronize with the network time server. The TOE employs both
dedicated communication channels as well as cryptographic means to protect communication
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
5
between itself and other components in the operation environment. The TOE performs self-
tests to detect failure and protect itself from malicious updates.
4.6 TOE access
The TOE can be configured to display a logon banner before and after (a post-login banner) a
user session is established. The TOE also enforces inactivity timeouts for local and remote
sessions.
4.7 Trusted path/channels
The TOE protects interactive communication with administrators using SSH to protect the
CLI interface, ensuring integrity and preventing disclosure. If the negotiation of an encrypted
session fails or if the user does not have authorization for remote administration, an attempted
connection will not be established.
The TOE protects communication with network peers, such as a log server, using TLS
connections to prevent unintended disclosure or modification of logs.
5 Assumptions & Clarification of Scope
Assumptions
The Security Problem Definition, including the assumptions, may be found in the following
documents:
• collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, Version 2.2e, 23 March 2020
That information has not been reproduced here and the NDcPP22e should be consulted if there
is interest in that material.
Clarification of scope
The scope of this evaluation was limited to the functionality and assurances covered in the
NDcPP22e and applicable Technical Decisions as described for this TOE in the Security
Target. Other functionality included in the product was not assessed as part of this evaluation.
All other functionality provided by the devices needs to be assessed separately, and no further
conclusions can be drawn about their effectiveness.
All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that
need clarification. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications
of this evaluation. Note that:
• As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration
meets the security claims made with a certain level of assurance (the assurance
activities specified in the collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices and
performed by the evaluation team).
• This evaluation covers only the specific device models and software as identified in
this document, and not any earlier or later versions released or in process.
• 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
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
6
CEM defines an “obvious” vulnerability as one that is easily exploited with a
minimum of understanding of the TOE, technical sophistication and resources.
6 Documentation
The following documents were available with the TOE for evaluation:
• Common Criteria Admin Guide Network Device collaboration Protection Profile, Target
of Evaluation: Aruba 6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series,
Version 1.9, June 14, 2021
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 Assurance Activity Report for Aruba, a Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company 6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series,
Version 0.3, 06/24/2021 (AAR).
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 to the Common Criteria Certification
document and ran the tests specified in the NDcPP22e including the tests associated with
optional requirements. Testing took place between October 2020 and May 2021 at Gossamer.
8 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
assurance activities and 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 5 and CEM version 3.1 rev 5. The evaluation determined the Aruba, a Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company 6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series
TOE to be Part 2 extended, and to meet the SARs contained in the NDcPP22e.
8.1 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 Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series that are consistent with the
Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that support the requirements.
The Validation team 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
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
7
was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion
reached by the Evaluation team was justified.
8.2 Evaluation of the Development (ADV)
The Evaluation team applied each 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 document. Additionally, the Evaluation team performed
the assurance activities specified in the NDcPP22e related to the examination of the
information contained in the TSS.
The Validation team 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.
8.3 Evaluation of the Guidance Documents (AGD)
The Evaluation team applied each 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 Validation team 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.
8.4 Evaluation of the Life Cycle Support Activities (ALC)
The Evaluation team applied each ALC CEM work unit. The Evaluation team found that the
TOE was identified.
The Validation team 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.
8.5 Evaluation of the Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE)
The Evaluation team applied each ATE CEM work unit. The Evaluation team ran the set of
tests specified by the assurance activities in the NDcPP22e and recorded the results in a Test
Report, summarized in the AAR.
The Validation team 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.
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
8
8.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity (VAN)
The Evaluation team applied each AVA CEM work unit. The vulnerability analysis is in the
Detailed Test Report (DTR) prepared by the evaluator. The vulnerability analysis includes a
public search for vulnerabilities. The public search for vulnerabilities did not uncover any
residual vulnerability.
The evaluator searched the
• National Vulnerability Database (https://web.nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search),
• Vulnerability Notes Database (http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/),
• Rapid7 Vulnerability Database (https://www.rapid7.com/db/vulnerabilities),
• Tipping Point Zero Day Initiative (http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories ),
• Exploit / Vulnerability Search Engine (http://www.exploitsearch.net),
• SecurITeam Exploit Search (http://www.securiteam.com),
• Tenable Network Security (http://nessus.org/plugins/index.php?view=search),
• Offensive Security Exploit Database (https://www.exploit-db.com/)
The search was performed on 06/08/2021 with the following search terms: "Aruba 6200",
"Aruba 6300", "Aruba 6400", "Aruba 8320", "Aruba 8325", "Aruba 8360", "Aruba 8400",
"NXP 1046A", "Intel Atom C2538", "Intel Xeon D-1518", "Intel Xeon D-1527", "Yocto",
"OpenSSL".
The Validation team 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.
8.7 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.
9 Validator Comments/Recommendations
The Validation team 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 security functional requirements specified in the ST, 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.
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
9
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.
10 Annexes
Not applicable
11 Security Target
The Security Target is identified as: Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200,
6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series Security Target, Version 0.5,
06/24/2021.
12 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.
• 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.
Version 1.0, 07/06/2021
10
13 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 5, April 2017.
[2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 2: Security
functional components, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017.
[3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation Part 3: Security
assurance components, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017.
[4] collaborative Protection Profile for Network Devices, version 2.2e, 23 March 2020.
[5] Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360,
and 8400 Switch Series Security Target, Version 0.5, 06/24/2021 (ST).
[6] Assurance Activity Report for Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200,
6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series, Version 0.3, 06/24/2021
(AAR).
[7] Detailed Test Report for Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 6200, 6300,
6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series, Version 0.3, 06/24/2021 (DTR).
[8] Evaluation Technical Report for Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
6200, 6300, 6400, 8320, 8325, 8360, and 8400 Switch Series, Version 0.3, June 24,
2021 (ETR).