CryptoServerCP5 ST Lite

CryptoServer
Security Target Lite for CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5

Imprint
Copyright 2018 Utimaco IS GmbH
Germanusstr. 4
52080 Aachen
Germany
Phone +49 (0)241 / 1696-200
Fax +49 (0)241 / 1696-199
Internet http://hsm.utimaco.com
e-mail [email protected]
Document Number 2018-0014
Document Version 2.0.0
Date 23th November 2018
Status released
All Rights reserved No part of this documentation may be reproduced in any form (printing, photocopy or
according to any other process) without the written approval of Utimaco IS GmbH or be
processed, reproduced or distributed using electronic systems.
Utimaco IS GmbH reserves the right to modify or amend the documentation at any time
without prior notice. Utimaco IS GmbH assumes no liability for typographical errors and
damages incurred due to them.
All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Change History .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Document Introduction.................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Notations ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2.3 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 6
1.2.4 References .............................................................................................................. 6
1.2.5 Terminology ............................................................................................................. 7
2 Security Target Introduction .................................................................................................. 8
2.1 ST and TOE Reference..................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Related Documents ........................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Organisation ................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 TOE Overview ................................................................................................................ 9
2.5 TOE Description ........................................................................................................... 12
2.5.1 TOE Configuration and TOE Environment ...................................................................... 12
2.5.2 TOE Boundary ........................................................................................................ 18
2.6 Required Non-TOE Hardware/Software/Firmware ............................................................... 21
3 Conformance Claims .......................................................................................................... 23
3.1 CC Conformance Claim .................................................................................................. 23
3.2 PP Claim .................................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Package Claim............................................................................................................. 23
3.4 Conformance Rationale ................................................................................................. 23
4 Security Problem Definition ................................................................................................. 24
4.1 Assets ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Subjects ..................................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Threats ...................................................................................................................... 25
4.4 Organisational Security Policies ...................................................................................... 26
4.5 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 27
5 Security Objectives ............................................................................................................ 29
5.1 Security Objectives for the TOE ....................................................................................... 29
5.2 Security Objectives for the Operational Environment ............................................................ 32
6 Extended Components Definition .......................................................................................... 35
6.1 Generation of Random Numbers (FCS_RNG) ...................................................................... 35
6.2 Basic TSF Self Testing (FPT_TST_EXT.1) ........................................................................... 35
7 Security Requirements ....................................................................................................... 37
7.1 Typographical Conventions ............................................................................................ 37
7.2 SFR Architecture .......................................................................................................... 37
Page 3 of 126
Table of Contents
7.2.1 SFR Relationships ................................................................................................... 37

7.2.2 SFRs and the Key Lifecycle ....................................................................................... 40
7.3 Security Functional Requirements ................................................................................... 41
7.3.1 Cryptographic Support (FCS) ..................................................................................... 46
7.3.2 Identification and Authentication (FIA) ......................................................................... 56
7.3.3 User Data Protection (FDP) ....................................................................................... 61
7.3.4 Trusted Path/Channels (FTP) ..................................................................................... 67
7.3.5 Protection of the TSF (FPT) ....................................................................................... 70
7.3.6 Security Management (FMT)...................................................................................... 73
7.3.7 Security Audit Data Generation (FAU) .......................................................................... 82
7.4 Security Assurance Requirements ................................................................................... 84
7.4.1 Refinement of Security Assurance Requirements ........................................................... 85
8 Rationales ....................................................................................................................... 89
8.1 Security Objectives Rationale.......................................................................................... 89
8.1.1 Security Objectives Rationale..................................................................................... 89
8.1.2 Security Objectives Sufficiency .................................................................................. 90
8.2 Security Requirements Rationale ..................................................................................... 91
8.2.1 Security Requirements Coverage ................................................................................ 91
8.2.2 SFR Dependencies .................................................................................................. 96
8.2.3 Rationale for SARs ................................................................................................ 102
8.2.4 AVA_VAN.5 Advanced Methodical Vulnerability Analysis ................................................ 102
9 TOE Summary Specification............................................................................................... 103
9.1 SF.USER_AUTH: User Authentication .............................................................................. 103
9.2 SF.KEY_AUTH: Key Authorisation................................................................................... 104
9.3 SF.ADMIN: Administration ............................................................................................ 105
9.4 SF.KEY_MAN: Key Management .................................................................................... 106
9.5 SF.CRYPTO: Cryptographic Support ............................................................................... 107
9.6 SF.REL: Reliability ...................................................................................................... 108
9.7 SF.SWUPDATE: Software Update ................................................................................... 110
9.8 Coverage of SFRs by Security Functions ......................................................................... 110
10 Annex ........................................................................................................................... 115
10.1 Glossary and Acronyms ............................................................................................... 115
10.2 References ............................................................................................................... 124
Page 4 of 126
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Change History

Version Date Description
1.9.5 13th November 2018 First release of Security Target Lite for CryptoServer CP5
5.1.0.0, based on full Security Target with same version
2.0.0 23th November 2018 Release of Security Target Lite for CryptoServer CP5
5.1.0.0, based on full Security Target with same version
1.2 Document Introduction

This Security Target (ST) was developed based on the Protection Profile (PP) prEN 419 221-
5 “Protection Profiles for TSP Cryptographic Modules - Part 5: Cryptographic Module for
Trust Services”, version v1.0 [PP_CMTS_1.0] as well as the Common Criteria-certified
version v0.15 [PP_CMTS].1
The following subchapters provide some information for the further understanding of this
document and introduce the reader to some used conventions.
1.2.1 Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the Protection Profile
[PP_CMTS] as well as [PP_CMTS_1.0].
1.2.2 Notations
The notation, formatting, and conventions used in this ST are consistent with those used in
the Common Criteria, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012 [CC1], [CC2], [CC3].
The Common Criteria allow several operations to be performed on security requirements:
refinement, selection, assignment and iteration are defined in Section C.2 of [CC1].
 Refinement: The refinement operation is used to add details to a requirement, and thus
further restricts a requirement.
1 Please note that the versions v0.15 and v1.0 of the Protection Profile only differ in formal and editorial
aspects, version v1.0 [PP_CMTS_1.0] being the sanitized version of v0.15 [PP_CMTS], which is the
one officially certified and listed on the Common Criteria portal as certified Protection Profile, see
https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/. The two versions v1.0 and v0.15 do not differ in any of the
requirements, like Security Functional Requirements (SFRs), Security Assurance Requirements
(SARs) or Assumptions (A.<xxx>).
Page 5 of 126
Introduction
 Selection: The selection operation occurs where a given component contains an element
where a choice from several items has to be made by the PP/ST author. Whenever an
element within a PP contains a selection, the PP author could leave the selection
uncompleted, restrict the selection by removing some of the choices (but leaving two or
more) or complete the selection by choosing one or more items. Whenever an element
within an ST contains a selection, the ST author has to complete that selection. If a
selection was already completed in the PP, the PP text is shown in non-underlined italic
letters. If a selection is completed by the ST author the text is shown in underlined
italicized letters.
 Assignment: The assignment operation is used to assign a specific value to an
unspecified parameter (e.g. the length of a password). Whenever an element in a PP
contains an assignment, the PP author could leave the assignment uncompleted,
complete the assignment, narrow the assignment, to further limit the range of values that
is allowed or transform the assignment to a selection, thereby narrowing the assignment.
Whenever an element in an ST contains an assignment, the ST author has to complete
that assignment, the PP text is also given within a footnote where the original text is given.
If an assignment was already completed in the PP, the PP text is shown in non-underlined
italic letters. If an assignment is completed by the ST author the text is shown in
underlined italicized letters.
 Iteration: The iteration operation is used when a component is repeated with varying
operations. Iterations within [PP_CMTS] are denoted by showing a slash “/” and an
iteration indicator after the CC component identifier. Iterations within the ST are denoted
by showing a double-slash “//” and an iteration indicator after the PP component and the
CC component, respectively, identifier.
1.2.3 Abbreviations
Assumptions, threats, organisational security policies and security objectives (for TOE and
environment) are assigned with a unique label for easy reference as follows:
T.<xxx> Threats
P.<xxx> Organisational security policies
A.<xxx> Assumptions about the TOE security environment
OT.<xxx> Security objectives for the TOE
OE.<xxx> Security objectives for the operating environment
1.2.4 References
References in this document are specified with the help of brackets (e.g.: [<Reference>]). A
list of all referenced documents can be found in chapter 10.2 “References”.
Page 6 of 126
Introduction
1.2.5 Terminology
A complete list of used terms and abbreviations can be found in chapter 10.1 “Glossary and
Acronyms”. Thereby Common Criteria and IT technology terms relevant for this ST are
described. Most of the definitions are taken out of the PP [PP_CMTS] as well as from the
Common Criteria.
Page 7 of 126
Security Target Introduction
2 Security Target Introduction
2.1 ST and TOE Reference

Title: CryptoServer - Security Target Lite for CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2
CP5
ST Version: 2.0.0
ST Date: 23th November 2018
Author: Utimaco IS GmbH
Developer: Utimaco IS GmbH
Product: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5
TOE-name long: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5
TOE-name short: CryptoServer CP5
TOE-versions: CryptoServer CP5 Se12 5.1.0.0, CryptoServer CP5 Se52 5.1.0.0,
CryptoServer CP5 Se500 5.1.0.0, CryptoServer CP5 Se1500 5.1.0.0
Product Type: Cryptographic module
Certification TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V.
Authority:
CC Version: Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012 [CC1], [CC2], [CC3]
Keywords: Cryptographic module, Hardware security module (HSM), crypto
server, electronic signature, digital signature, digital seal, sealing,
eIDAS Regulation, Qualified Electronic Signature Creation Device,
QSCD, SAM, Signature Activation Module, Trust Service Provider,
TSP, key generation, key management, tamper protection, secure
messaging, trusted channel, random number generation, ECDSA,
RSA, AES, SHA, HMAC
2.2 Related Documents

All related documents can be found in chapter 10.2 “References”.
2.3 Organisation
The main chapters of this ST are Security Target Introduction with the description of the TOE
(Target of Evaluation), Conformance claims, Security problem definition, Security objectives,
Extended components definition, Security requirements and TOE summary specification as
well as annexes. This document is structured according to the Security Target requirements
of [CC1].
 Chapter 2: The TOE description provides general information about the TOE, its generic
structure and boundaries.
Page 8 of 126
 Chapter 3: The ST conformance claims section states conformance to Protection Profiles.

 Chapter 4: The security problem definition describes security aspects of the environment
in which the TOE is intended to be used and the manner in which it is intended to be
employed. The security problem definition includes threats relevant to secure TOE
operation (section 4.3), organisational security policies (section 4.4), which must be
complied by the TOE, and assumptions regarding the TOE's intended usage and
environment of use (section 4.5).
 Chapter 5: The statement of security objectives defines the security objectives for the
TOE (section 5.1) and for its environment (section 5.2). The rationale (section 8.1)
presents evidence that the security objectives satisfy the threats and policies.
 Chapter 6: This chapter defines the extended components.
 Chapter 7: The security requirements are subdivided into TOE Security Functional
Requirements (section 7.3) and Security Assurance Requirements (section7.4).
 Chapter 8: The rationale (section 8.2) explains how the set of requirements is complete
relative to the security objectives.
 Chapter 9: The TOE summary specification provides a description of the TOE security
functionality in narrative form.
The annex offers a glossary and acronyms as well as relevant references.
2.4 TOE Overview

The scope of this Security Target is to describe the functionality of the TOE "CryptoServer
Se-Series Gen2 CP5" (short: CryptoServer CP5, or CryptoServer in this document) in terms
of Common Criteria and to define security functional and assurance requirements for this
system.
The CryptoServer CP5 is a hardware security module whose primary purpose is to provide
secure cryptographic services such as signing and verification of data (ECDSA, RSA),
encryption or decryption (for various cryptographic algorithms like AES and RSA), hashing,
on-board random number generation and secure key generation, key storage and further key
management functions in a tamper-protected environment. As such, it may serve as general
purpose HSM. Apart from that, the CryptoServer CP5 supports local signing/sealing and
server signing in accordance with EN 419 241-1 Security Requirements and EN 419 241-2
Protection Profile for QSCD for Server Signing [PP_QSCD]. Furthermore, it provides the
functionality for creating protected backups of keys and for secure update of defined parts of
the TOE software.
The CryptoServer CP5 is suitable for use by trust service providers (TSP) supporting
electronic signature and electronic sealing operations, certificate issuance and revocation,
time stamp operations, and authentication services, as identified in eIDAS Regulation (EU)
No. 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market [Regulation]. In order to meet
the security assurance requirements of Qualified Electronic Signature, and Electronic Seal,
Creation Devices for use by trust service providers as specified in eIDAS Regulation
[Regulation], the CryptoServer CP5 supports the concept of “Assigned keys” as defined in
the Protection Profile (PP) [PP_CMTS] or [PP_CMTS_1.0]. Assigned keys ensure that the
signatory has sole control over the use of his private, assigned key that is used to create
digital signatures according to eIDAS. The PP [PP_CMTS] defines the security requirements
for cryptographic modules used by trust service providers as identified in eIDAS Regulation
[Regulation].
Page 9 of 126
The CryptoServer can optionally also be used as a general purpose HSM. Thus, in addition
to Assigned keys, also General (non-Assigned) keys that have lower restrictions are
supported. General keys can for instance be exported or imported (in an encrypted way),
whereas key export or import is not allowed for Assigned keys.
In addition to its suitability as Qualified Signature Creation Device (QSCD) for local
signing/sealing and server signing in accordance with eIDAS Regulation [Regulation], the
CryptoServer can optionally also be used for implementing a QSCD for eIDAS-compliant
remote Server Signing in the sense of CEN Protection Profile EN 419 241-2, “Trustworthy
Systems Supporting Server Signing Part 2: Protection Profile for QSCD for Server Signing”,
[PP_QSCD]. In this case, the customer has to develop a Signature Activation Module (SAM)
module in the sense of [PP_QSCD] and certify it against this CEN Protection Profile EN 419
241-2, [PP_QSCD]. The SAM may be either implemented as so-called external SAM which
calls the CryptoServer’s external interface (PCIe, see below) for signature creation, and
which must be located within a physically protected environment and communicate with the
CryptoServer over a secure channel, or it may be implemented as so-called internal SAM in
form of one or more firmware modules which must be loaded into the CryptoServer CP5 and
run within its secure physical boundary. For signature creation, such internal SAM can use
the CryptoServer’s internal interface, see also Figure 6. Both architectures allow the SAM to
use the services of the TOE as a cryptographic module that is eIDAS-certified according to
CEN Protection Profile prEN 419 221-5 [PP_CMTS]. SAM and CryptoServer CP5 together
form a QSCD for remote Server Signing in the sense of CEN Protection Profile EN 419 241-2
[PP_QSCD].
An internal SAM can only be loaded into a CryptoServer CP5 if it is signed by Utimaco with a
dedicated CryptoServer CP5 Module Signature Key. Utimaco will only sign firmware modules
with this key if they belong to the TOE, or if the module is an internal SAM which is eIDAS-
certified according to [PP_QSCD], and if, as part of this eIDAS certification, it has been
validated that the SAM follows the CryptoServer CP5 User Guidance so that it doesn’t violate
the TOE Security Functionality.
The CryptoServer CP5 is designed as a protected cryptographic module provided in form of

a PCIe (PCI express) plug-in card (specific hardware and software product, see Figure 1) for
high security applications.
Figure 1: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 PCIe security module
All hardware components of the TOE, including the Central Processing Unit, all memory
chips, Real Time Clock, and hardware noise generator for random number generation, are
located on a printed circuit board (PCB). These hardware components are completely
Page 10 of 126
covered with potting material (epoxy resin) and a heat sink. This hard, opaque enclosure
protects the sensitive CryptoServer hardware components from physical attacks. The
resistance of the TOE hardware and sensory to physical and chemical attacks has been
evaluated and successfully certified according to the requirements of FIPS 140-2 standard,
level 3. The protected security module PCB in form of a PCIe plug-in card is called PCIe
security module.
To enable communication of the cryptographic module with a host, the PCIe security module
offers a PCIe interface and two USB interfaces.
Before delivery the PCIe security module can be optionally integrated into a Utimaco
CryptoServer LAN appliance (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The CryptoServer LAN exists in
two variants providing the same functionality but having a different height. Both are a 19-inch
network appliance with display, control buttons and USB interfaces on the front panel. They
contain an industry-quality PC motherboard, backplane with PCIe bus interface, flash disk
(as mass storage), two redundant power supplies and backup battery. The PCIe security
module is plugged into the PCIe bus interface of the backplane. The CryptoServer LAN may
be connected to an Ethernet network via a Gigabit network interface on the backside.
Figure 2: CryptoServer LAN v4
Figure 3: CryptoServer LAN v5
Page 11 of 126
2.5 TOE Description

This chapter contains the following sections:
 TOE configuration and TOE environment (section 2.5.1)
 TOE boundary (section 2.5.2)
2.5.1 TOE Configuration and TOE Environment

The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is the cryptographic module "CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2
CP5" (CryptoServer CP5, or CryptoServer), versions CryptoServer CP5 Se12 5.1.0.0,
CryptoServer CP5 Se52 5.1.0.0, CryptoServer CP5 Se500 5.1.0.0 and CryptoServer CP5
Se1500 5.1.0.0. The different versions (models) reflect different performance capabilities
regarding public key operations (RSA, ECDSA) and transactions per second, with
CryptoServer CP5 Se1500 5.1.0.0 being the model with highest performance and
CryptoServer CP5 Se12 5.1.0.0 being the model with lowest performance and lowest price.
The CryptoServer CP5 is a cryptographic module where at the time of delivery all hardware
components of the cryptographic module, including the Central Processing Unit, all memory
chips, Real Time Clock, and hardware noise generator for random number generation, are
located on a printed circuit board (PCB). Versions CryptoServer CP5 Se500 5.1.0.0 and
CryptoServer CP5 Se1500 5.1.0.0 additionally contain a crypto accelerator chip (in order to
provide highest performance on RSA and ECDSA operations), which is not assembled in
versions CryptoServer CP5 Se12 5.1.0.0 or CryptoServer CP5 Se52 5.1.0.0.
All hardware components are completely covered with potting material (epoxy resin) and
heat sink. The this way protected PCB is given in form of a PCIe plug-in card and is called
PCIe security module.
Page 12 of 126
Figure 4: PCIe security module with interfaces
The PCIe security module provides the following interfaces (see Figure 4):
 (1) PCIe interface which is used for operational power input, data input, data output,
control input and status output
 (2) USB 2.0 port (can be used for receiving status output)
 (3) USB 2.0 port (can be used for receiving status output)
 (4) Erase pushbutton for performing External Erase
 (5) LED flash light, flashes up red to indicate the activation of the Erase pushbutton
The module's cryptographic boundary consists of a physical boundary and a logical
boundary. The physical boundary is defined as the outer perimeter of the heat sink on the top
side and the epoxy surface on the bottom side of the module. Figure 5 below shows the
physical boundary from the side and the top. The red dashed line indicates the TOE’s
physical boundary.
Page 13 of 126
Figure 5: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 physical boundary
The communication between the customer's application software and the cryptographic
module is supported by the PCIe interface, by a PCIe device driver and communication
software. A PIN pad (smartcard reader with keypad) and smartcards are provided to support
the administration of the cryptographic module, and for the management of key shares.
The software components integrated in the cryptographic module have a modular structure
and comprise the following parts:
Part 1 – Boot loader
Part 2 – Security Module Operating System (SMOS)
Part 3 – Firmware modules
These software components are developed by Utimaco and will be loaded by Utimaco into
the cryptographic module. Additionally, the operating system SMOS and all firmware
modules are packed in a so-called CryptoServer CP5 firmware package and can also be
loaded into the cryptographic module by the customer.
The logical boundary consists of the external TOE interface which can be accessed via the
TOE’s PCIe interface, and of an internal TOE interface which may optionally be used by an
internal SAM (Signature Activation Module). Such internal SAM consists of one or more
firmware modules which are loaded and running within the secure physical boundary of the
CryptoServer CP5. An internal SAM provides its own external interface functions which are
available at the PCIe interface in addition to the CryptoServer CP5 external interface
functions. It must use the TOE command handling as provided by the CryptoServer in order
to communicate via the PCIe interface.
The following requirements hold for an internal SAM:
1. Such internal SAM must be eIDAS-certified according to [PP_QSCD].
2. As part of this certification it is validated that the SAM follows the TOE user guidance
and does not violate the TOE Security Functionality.
Page 14 of 126
3. An internal SAM must be signed by Utimaco with the dedicated CryptoServer CP5
Module Signature Key (this signature is only used for internal SAM modules fulfilling
(1) and (2)),
4. and it must be loaded into the CryptoServer CP5. This is only possible if the SAM is
signed with the CryptoServer CP5 Module Signature Key, and if the command for the
download is authenticated by a user in Administrator role.
Figure 6 below shows the logical boundary of the TOE (red dashed line). The physical
boundary is indicated by the blue line.
External Client Application,

e.g. external SAM
CryptoServer
CP5 external
external interface
interface
Internal SAM
CryptoServer CP5 Internal SAM
CryptoServer CP5 internal interface (optional)
Firmware modules
CryptoServer CP5
Figure 6: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 logical boundary
The CryptoServer CP5 supports the following cryptographic algorithms:

 AES for encryption, decryption, CMAC calculation and secure messaging
 ECDSA with key size >= 224 bit on dedicated elliptic curves for signature generation
and signature verification
 RSA with key size >= 2048 bit and <= 8192 bit for signature generation and signature
verification and encryption and decryption
 SHA-2, SHA-3 and HMAC for hashing
Furthermore the CryptoServer CP5 offers key establishment:

 AES key generation
 ECDSA key generation
 RSA key generation
 Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement
 Key Derivation
For random number generation and generation of all cryptographic keys, the CryptoServer
CP5 relies on an implemented hardware random noise generator.
Page 15 of 126
For operation purposes, the CryptoServer CP5 supports the following cryptographic services:
 Functions for Initialisation:
 Generation and export of Master Backup Key
 Import of Master Backup Key
 Functions for Key Management:

 Key generation (AES keys, ECDSA key pairs, RSA key pairs)
 Encrypted import and export of private and secret keys
 Backup and restore of keys
 Key deletion
 Cryptographic Functions:
 Signature generation (ECDSA, RSA)
 Signature verification (ECDSA, RSA)
 Encryption (AES, RSA)
 Decryption (AES, RSA)
 Generation of random bytes
For the operation purpose, the CryptoServer CP5 supports the following administrative
services:
 User administration (creation and deletion of users, change of reference
authentication data (RAD))
 System time setting/display
 Export and deletion of audit data
 Unblock user
 Unblock key
To support the security of the above mentioned features of the TOE, the CryptoServer CP5
provides appropriate countermeasures for resistance especially against the following attacks:
 Cloning of the product
 Unauthorised disclosure of confidential data (during generation, storage and
processing)
 Unauthorised manipulation of data (during generation, storage and processing)
 Unauthorised usage of private and secret keys
 Forgery of data to be processed
 Derivation of information on the private key from the related public part for generated
key pairs
 Physical and chemical attacks
Furthermore, the TOE provides a secure software update mechanism. Software revisions
shall be granted security certification before their installation in the TOE.
The CryptoServer CP5 product life-cycle is decomposed into the following phases:
Page 16 of 126
 Development phase: The design and production of the TOE together constitute the
development phase of the TOE. In the design phase, the components and the
software of the TOE are designed and developed. In the production phase, the TOE
is manufactured consisting of an assembly of supplied components and the software.
The development phase ends with the delivery of the TOE parts (PCIe security
module, software and guidance documents) together with some non-TOE
deliverables to the customer.
 Usage phase: The initialisation and operational use of the TOE together constitute
the usage phase of the TOE. In the initialisation phase the TOE is initialised by
generating or importing the Master Backup Key, which is a support key that will be
used for later backup and restore of e. g. signature keys. After initialisation (which
includes the creation of user accounts), the TOE is enabled for use in key
management functions of secret, public and private keys and cryptographic
operations like e. g. signing operations. The operational usage phase begins and
after authentication the user can use the TOE for key management and for
cryptographic tasks. Furthermore, the TOE provides a software update function.
Considering the TOE and its life-cycle described above, the following types of environments
can be distinguished:
 Development environment corresponding to the design phase
 Manufacturing environment corresponding to the production phase
 Initialisation environment corresponding to the initialisation phase
 Operational environment corresponding to the operational usage phase
The TOE developers ensure that the assignment of responsibilities during the design phase
is done in a manner which maintains IT security. The development environment in which
the TOE is developed is a well-structured environment with well-defined responsibilities. The
specification, implementation and tests in the development departments are well organised.
Suitable measures enforce the usage of the guidelines. The confidentiality and integrity of
development results is protected. The used measures are always documented.
In the manufacturing environment responsibilities are assigned in manner which maintains
IT security. The TOE is protected from physical attacks which might compromise security.
The manufacturing environment is well documented. Measures are defined to protect
security data like cryptographic keys against disclosure and manipulation. Security data
generation algorithms are accessible to authorised and trusted persons only. Security data
are generated, transported and inserted into the TOE, in such a way to preserve its
appropriate confidentiality and integrity. Optionally, the PCIe security module can be
integrated into an Utimaco CryptoServer LAN (19-inch network appliance).
Leaving the manufacturing environment, the TOE parts are delivered to the customer. At the
customer in the initialisation environment the administrative preparations for the
operational usage take place initially. The initialisation environment may be identical with the
operational environment.
In the operational environment the main tasks are user management, key management of
secret and private keys and creation of digital signatures or digital seals. The responsibilities
are assigned in manner which maintains IT security. After authentication the user can use
the TOE e.g. to manage cryptographic keys or to generate signatures. Furthermore, the TOE
provides a secure software update mechanism.
Page 17 of 126
The Common Criteria (CC) does not prescribe any specific life-cycle model. However, in
order to define the application of the assurance classes, the CC assume the following implicit
life-cycle model consisting of three phases: TOE development (including the development as
well as the production of the TOE), TOE delivery and TOE operational use.
For the evaluation of the CryptoServer CP5 the development phase (consisting of design and
production phase) corresponds to the TOE development in the sense of CC. The usage
phase (consisting of initialisation and operational usage phase) corresponds to the TOE
operational use in the sense of CC. The TOE delivery takes place between both phases.
The following paragraphs outline how some CC assurance activities apply to parts of the life-
cycle (cf. chapter 7.4):
The ALC class which deals with security measures in the development environment of the
TOE applies to the development environment (belonging to the design phase) and to the
manufacturing environment (belonging to the production phase). In particular, the site where
the TOE software is developed as well as the production site are subject to this CC class.
The measures for TOE delivery to the customer are subject to the aspect ALC_DEL of the
ALC class.
The guidance documentation delivered by the TOE developer as part of the TOE delivery
procedures are subject to the AGD class. The guidance documentation describes all
measures necessary for secure usage of the TOE.
The operational usage phase of the TOE is explicitly in focus of this ST. All TOE hardware
and executable software are covered by the evaluation. In particular, the ADV class applies
to the specification and implementation of the security functionality of the TOE, its security
architecture and design. Testing is subject to the ATE class providing assurance that the
TOE behaves as described. Vulnerability assessment class AVA addresses the possibility of
exploitable vulnerabilities introduced in the development or the operation of the TOE.
2.5.2 TOE Boundary

The following list contains an overview of all deliverables associated to the TOE:
 Hardware, version 5.01.4.0 Se12/Se52 (module without crypto accelerator) or version
5.01.4.0 Se500/Se1500 (module with crypto accelerator)
 Software, version numbers see below
 Guidance documents for the administrator and the user of the CryptoServer CP5,
delivered as electronic files.
The table of TOE deliverables can therefore be described as follows:
Page 18 of 126
TOE deliverable Type/Form, Name Exact

reference
Hardware HW Hardware of the TOE, PCIe security 5.01.4.0

module (with/without crypto accelerator) Se500/Se1500
(module with
crypto
accelerator)
5.01.4.0
Se12/Se52
(module
without crypto
accelerator)
Software SW Boot Loader 5.01.4.0
FPGA 5.01.0.8
Sensory Controller 2.00.0.31
and CryptoServer CP5 firmware
package consisting of the following
firmware modules:
ADM (.msc and .sys) (Module 3.0.25.5
Administration)
AES (.msc and .sys) (AES 1.4.1.7
Cryptography)
ASN1 (.msc and .sys) (Decoding and 1.0.3.4
Encoding ASN.1)
CMDS (.msc and .sys) (Command 3.6.0.11
Scheduler)
CXI (.msc) (Cryptographic Services 2.2.3.6
eXternal Interface)
CXIAL (.msc) (CXI Abstraction Layer) 1.0.0.0
DB (.msc and .sys) (Database 1.3.2.4
Management)
ECA (.msc and .sys) (Elliptic Curve 1.1.12.4
Arithmetic)
ECDSA (.msc and .sys) (ECDSA 1.1.16.2
Cryptography)
EXAR (.msc and .sys) (Driver for Crypto 2.2.1.1
Accelerator)
HASH (.msc and .sys) (Hashing 1.0.12.1
Algorithms)
HCE (.msc and .sys) (Generic Internal 2.2.2.3
Interface for Crypto Accelerator)
LNA (.msc and .sys) (Long Number 1.2.4.4
Arithmetic)
Page 19 of 126

reference
MBK (.msc) (Master Backup Key 2.3.0.0
Management)
POST (.msc and .sys) (Power-On Self- 1.0.0.2
Tests)
SMOS (.msc and .sys) (Security Module 5.5.9.2
Operating System)
UTIL (.msc and .sys) (Utilities for RTC 3.0.5.3
and RNG)
VDES (.msc and .sys) (DES 1.0.9.4
Cryptography)
VRSA (.msc and .sys) (RSA 1.3.6.5
Cryptography)
General guidance Doc Operating Manual in three variants
documents (delivery variant PCIe/LAN v4/LAN v5):
CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 PCIe 2017-0006-en,
Operating Manual version 1.0.15
CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 LAN 2017-0005-en,
Operating Manual version 1.0.13
CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 LAN 2018-0011-en,
V5 Operating Manual version 1.0.1
User Manual:
CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 2017-0008,
Administration Manual version 2.0.2
Interface Specifications:
CryptoServer - Firmware Module CXI for 2017-0010,
CryptoServer CP5 – Interface version 1.0.3
Specification
CryptoServer - Firmware Module ADM - 2009-0010,
Interface Specification - ADM Version ≥ version 1.7.6
3.0.0.0
CryptoServer - Firmware Module CMDS 2009-0002,
- Interface Specification - CMDS Version version 1.8.3
≥ 3.0.0.0
CryptoServer – Firmware Module MBK – 2003-0006,
Interface Specification version 1.10.1
Page 20 of 126

reference
Internal SAM Doc CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 - 2018-0013,

Developer SAM Developer Guide version 1.1.3
Documentation
(only delivered to Interface Specifications:
developers of an CryptoServer - Firmware Module AES - 2003-0008,
internal SAM) Interface Specification version 1.6.1
CryptoServer – Firmware Module CXIAL 2018-0002,
– Interface Specification version 1.0.1
CryptoServer – Firmware Module DB – 2002-0009,
CryptoServer – Firmware Module ECA – 2006-0004,
CryptoServer – Firmware Module 2006-0005,
ECDSA – Interface Specification version 1.4.8
CryptoServer – Firmware Module HASH 2002-0010,
CryptoServer – Firmware Module SMOS 2008-0001,
– Interface Specification - SMOS version 2.5.11
Version ≥ 2.5.0.0
CryptoServer – Firmware Module UTIL – 2009-0012,
Interface Specification - UTIL Version ≥ version 1.2.5
3.0.0.0
CryptoServer – Firmware Module VRSA 2002-0019,
Table 1: TOE deliverables
2.6 Required Non-TOE Hardware/Software/Firmware

The following hardware and software which do not belong to the TOE is required for the
operating environment and is always delivered together with the TOE:
Additional deliverables Type/Form Exact reference
PIN pad (smartcard reader HW/SW Utimaco cyberJack one FW-Version V1.0
with keypad)
10 smartcards (for HW/SW Java Card J2E081 - JCOP V2.4.2. R3

administrative purposes)
The TOE is delivered in three different variants:

 CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 – PCIe (PCIe plug-in card)
 CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 – LAN (network-attached appliance v4)
 CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 – LAN v5 (network-attached appliance v5)
Page 21 of 126
Depending on the delivery variant, apart from the TOE itself, the following non-TOE
hardware, software and further data is delivered with the TOE (non-TOE-deliverables, not
necessarily required but help to run the TOE):
Deliverable: CSLAN CSLAN cable product

v4 v5 CD
Delivered variant:
CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 – PCIe - - - 1
CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 – LAN 1 - 2 1
CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 – LAN v5 - 1 2 1
Herein denotes:
 CSLAN v4/v5: CryptoServer LAN (19-inch network appliance with two redundant
power supplies, version v4 or v5) (non-TOE hardware)
 Cable: power supply cable (non-TOE hardware)
 Product CD: The product CD containing the following firmware, software and data:
o The CryptoServer driver (for Windows and Linux) (non-TOE software)
o The USB driver for the PIN pad “Utimaco cyberJack one” for Windows (non-
TOE software)
o Various cryptographic APIs (non-TOE software, to be used on host)
o The German versions of the Operating Manuals for both TOE delivery variants
o The documentation of the cryptographic APIs in PDF and HTML format (non-
TOE documentation)
o The installation files of various administration tools and key management tools
(non-TOE software, to be used on host)
o Further guidance documents, e. g. for all administration tools (non-TOE
documentation)
o The ADMIN.key keyfile with the authentication key for the default
administrator ADMIN of the CryptoServer (non-TOE data)
The TOE is never delivered with any internal SAM loaded.
Page 22 of 126
Conformance Claims
3 Conformance Claims
3.1 CC Conformance Claim

This ST claims conformance to
 Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 1: Introduction
and General Model; CCMB-2012-09-001, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012
[CC1]
 Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Security

Functional Requirements; CCMB-2012-09-002, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September
2012 [CC2]
 Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security

Assurance Requirements; CCMB-2012-09-003, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September
2012 [CC3]
as follows
 CC Part 2 extended
 CC Part 3 conformant
The
 Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Evaluation
methodology; CCMB-2012-09-004, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012 [CEM]
has to be taken into account.
3.2 PP Claim
This Security Target claims strict conformance to the Protection Profile EN 419 221-5
Protection Profiles for TSP Cryptographic Modules – Part 5: Cryptographic Module for Trust
Services; v0.15, 2016-11-29 [PP_CMTS].
3.3 Package Claim

The assurance level for this Security Target is EAL4 augmented with AVA_VAN.5 (EAL4+
conformant).
3.4 Conformance Rationale

This Security Target claims strict conformance with the Protection Profile [PP_CMTS].
Page 23 of 126
Security Problem Definition
4 Security Problem Definition

This chapter contains the following sections:
 Assets (section 4.1)
 Subjects (section 4.2)
 Threats (section 4.3)
 Organisational Security Policy (section 4.4)
 Assumptions (section 4.5)
4.1 Assets
The assets that need to be protected by the TOE are identified below.
R.SecretKey: secret keys used in symmetric cryptographic functions and private keys used
in asymmetric cryptographic functions, managed and used by the TOE in support of the
cryptographic services that it offers. This includes user keys, owned and used by specific
users, and support keys used in the implementation and operation of the TOE. The asset
also includes copies of such keys made for external storage and/or backup purposes. The
confidentiality and integrity of these keys must be protected.
R.PubKey: public keys managed and used by the TOE in support of the cryptographic
services that it offers (including user keys and support keys). This asset includes copies of
keys made for external storage and/or backup purposes. The integrity of these keys must be
protected.
R.ClientData: data supplied by a client for use in a cryptographic function. Depending on the
context, this data may require confidentiality and/or integrity protection.
R.RAD: reference data held by the TOE that is used to authenticate a user (hence to control
access to privileged administrator functions such as TOE backup, export of audit data) or to
authorise a user for access to secret and private keys (R.SecretKey). This asset includes
copies of authentication/authorisation data made for external storage and/or backup
purposes. The integrity of the RAD must be protected; its confidentiality must also be
protected unless the authentication method used means that the RAD is public data (such as
a public key).
4.2 Subjects
The types of subjects identified in this ST are:
S.Application: a client application, or process acting on behalf of a client application and

that communicates with the TOE over a local or external interface. Client applications will in
some situations be acting directly on behalf of end users (see S.User).
Page 24 of 126
S.User: an end user of the TOE who can be associated with secret keys and
authentication/authorisation data held by the TOE. An end user communicates with the TOE
by using a client application (S.Application).
S.Admin: an administrator of the TOE. Administrators are responsible for performing the
TOE initialisation, TOE configuration and other TOE administrative functions.
Each type of subject may include many individual members, for example a single TOE will
generally have many users who are all included as members of the type S.User.
4.3 Threats
The following threats are defined for the TOE. The attacker (i.e. the ‘threat agent’) described
in each of the threats is a subject who is not authorised for the relevant action, but who may
present themselves as either a completely unknown user, or as one of the subjects in section
4.2 (but in this case the attacker will not have access to the authentication or authorisation
data for the subject).
T.KeyDisclose Unauthorised disclosure of secret/private key

An attacker obtains unauthorised access to the plaintext form of a secret key (R.SecretKey),
enabling either direct reading of the key or other copying into a form that can be used by the
attacker as though the key were their own. This access may be gained during generation,
storage, import/export, use of the key or backup if supported by the TOE.
T.KeyDerive Derivation of secret/private key

An attacker derives a secret key (R.SecretKey) from publicly known data, such as the
corresponding public key or results of cryptographic functions using the key or any other data
that is generally available outside the TOE.
T.KeyMod Unauthorised modification of a key

An attacker makes an unauthorised modification to a secret or public key (R.SecretKey or
R.PubKey) while it is stored in, or under the control of, the TOE, including export and
backups if supported. This includes replacement of a key as well as making changes to the
value of a key, or changing its attributes such as required authorisation, usage constraints or
identifier (changing the identifier to the identifier used for another key would allow
unauthorised substitution of the original key with a key known to the attacker). The threat
therefore includes the case where an attacker is able to break the binding between a key and
its critical attributes2.
T.KeyMisuse Misuse of a key

An attacker uses the TOE to make unauthorised use of a secret key (R.SecretKey) that is
managed by the TOE (including the unauthorised use of a secret key for a cryptographic
function that is not permitted for that key3), without necessarily obtaining access to the value
of the key.
2 See OT.KeyIntegrity in section 4.1 for further discussion of critical attributes of a key.
3
This therefore means that the threat includes unauthorised use of a cryptographic function that makes
use of a key.
Page 25 of 126
T.KeyOveruse Overuse of a key

An attacker uses a key (R.SecretKey) that has been authorised for a specific use (e.g. to
make a single signature) in other cryptographic functions that have not been authorised.
T.DataDisclose Disclosure of sensitive client application data

An attacker gains access to data that requires protection of confidentiality (R.ClientData, and
possibly R.RAD) supplied by a client application during transmission to or from the TOE or
during transmission between physically separate parts of the TOE.
T.DataMod Unauthorised modification of client application data

An attacker modifies data (R.ClientData such as DTBS/R, authentication/authorisation data,
or a public key (R.PubKey)) supplied by a client application during transmission to the TOE
or during transmission between physically separate parts of the TOE, so that the result
returned by the TOE (such as a signature or public key certificate) does not match the data
intended by the originator of the request.
T.Malfunction Malfunction of TOE hardware or software

The TOE may develop a fault that causes some other security property to be weakened or to
fail. This may affect any of the assets and could result in any of the other threats being
realised. Particular causes of faults to be considered are:
 Environmental conditions (including temperature and power)
 Failures of critical TOE hardware components (including the RNG)
 Corruption of TOE software.
4.4 Organisational Security Policies

P.Algorithms Use of approved cryptographic algorithms
The TOE offers key generation functions and other cryptographic functions provided for
users that are endorsed by recognised authorities as appropriate for use by TSPs.
Application Note 1 (PP)

The relevant authorities and endorsements are determined by the context of the client
applications that use the TOE. For digital signatures within the European Union this is as
indicated in [Regulation] and an exemplary list of approved algorithms and parameters is
given in [TS 119 312] (see also [PP_CMTS] section 1.3.1.3).
P.KeyControl Support for control of keys

The life cycle of the TOE and any secret keys that it manages (where such keys are
associated with specific entities, such as the signature creation data associated with a
signatory or the seal creation data associated with a seal creator4), shall be implemented in
such a way that the secret keys can be reliably protected by the legitimate owner against use
by theirs, and in such a way that the use of the secret keys by the TOE can be confined to a
set of authorised cryptographic functions.
4
A seal creator may be a legal person (see [Regulation]) rather than a natural person, and seal creation
data may therefore be authorised for use by a number of natural persons, depending on the nature and
requirements of the trust service provided.
Page 26 of 126

This policy is intended to ensure that the TOE can be used for qualified electronic seals and
qualified electronic signatures as in [Regulation], but recognises that not all keys are used for
such purposes. Therefore, although the TOE must be able to support the necessary strong
controls over keys in order to create such seals and signatures, not all keys need the same
level and type of control.
P.RNG Random Number Generation

The TOE is required to generate random numbers that meet a specified quality metric, for
use by client applications. These random numbers shall be suitable for use as keys,
authentication/authorisation data, or seed data for another random number generator that is
used for these purposes.
P.Audit Audit trail generation

The TOE is required to generate an audit trail of security-relevant events, recording the event
details and the subject associated with the event.

The cryptographic module TOE is assumed to be part of a larger system that manages audit
data. The TOE therefore logs audit records, and it is assumed that these are collected,
maintained and reviewed in the larger system. Hence there is no separate auditor role within
the cryptographic module TOE, but the role of System Auditor is assumed to exist in the
larger system – cf. A.AuditSupport in [PP_CMTS] section 3.5.
4.5 Assumptions
A.ExternalData Protection of data outside TOE control
Where copies of data protected by the TOE are managed outside of the TOE, client
applications and other entities must provide appropriate protection for that data to a level
required by the application context and the risks in the deployment environment.
In particular, any backups of the TOE and its data are maintained in a way that ensures
appropriate controls over making backups, storing backup data, and using backup data to
restore an operational TOE. The number of sets of backup data does not exceed the
minimum needed to ensure continuity of the TSP service. The ability to restore a TOE to an
operational state from backup data requires at least dual person control (i.e. the participation
and approval of more than one authenticated administrator):
A.Env Protected operating environment

The TOE operates in a protected environment that limits physical access to the TOE to
authorised Administrators. The TOE software and hardware environment (including client
applications) is installed and maintained by Administrators in a secure state that mitigates
against the specific risks applicable to the deployment environment.
A.DataContext Appropriate use of TOE functions

Any client application using the cryptographic functions of the TOE will ensure that the
correct data are supplied in a secure manner (including any relevant requirements for
authenticity, integrity and confidentiality). For example, when creating a digital signature over
a DTBS the client application will ensure that the correct (authentic, unmodified) DTBS/R is
supplied to the TOE, and will correctly and securely manage the signature received from the
TOE; and when certifying a public key, the client application will ensure that necessary
checks are made to prove possession of the corresponding private key. The client
Page 27 of 126
application may make use of appropriate secure channels provided by the TOE to support
these security requirements. Where required by the risks in the operational environment a
suitable entity (possibly the client application) performs a check of the signature returned
from the TOE, to confirm that it relates to the correct DTBS.
Client applications are also responsible for any required logging of the uses made of the TOE
services, such as signing (or sealing) events.
Similar requirements apply in local use cases where no client application need be involved,
but in which the TOE and its user data (such as keys used for signatures) need to be
configured in ways that will support the need for security requirements such as sole control of
signing keys.
Appropriate procedures are defined for the initial creation of data and continuing operation of
the TOE according to the specific risks applicable to the deployment environment and the
ways in which the TOE is used.
A.Uauth Authentication of application users

Any client application using the cryptographic services of the TOE will correctly and securely
gather identification and authentication/authorisation data from its users and securely
transfer it to the TOE (protecting the confidentiality of the authentication/authorisation data as
required) when required to authorise the use of TOE assets and services.
A.AuditSupport Audit data review

The audit trail generated by the TOE will be collected, maintained and reviewed by a System
Auditor according to a defined audit procedure for the TSP.

As noted for P.Audit in [PP_CMTS] section 3.4, the TOE is assumed to exist as part of a
larger system and the System Auditor is a role within this larger system.
A.AppSupport Application security support

Procedures to ensure the ongoing security of client applications and their data will be defined
and followed in the environment, and reflected in use of the appropriate TOE cryptographic
functions and parameters, and appropriate management and administration actions on the
TOE. This includes, for example, any relevant policies on algorithms, key generation
methods, key lengths, key access, key import/export, key usage limitations, key activation,
crypto periods and key renewal, and key/certificate revocation.
Page 28 of 126
Security Objectives
5 Security Objectives
This section identifies and defines the security objectives for the TOE and its operational
environment.
Security objectives reflect the stated intent and counter the identified threats, as well as
comply with the identified organisational security policies and assumptions.
5.1 Security Objectives for the TOE

The following security objectives describe security functions to be provided by the TOE.
OT.PlainKeyConf Protection of confidentiality of plaintext secret keys

The plaintext value of secret keys is not made available outside the TOE (except where the
key has been exported securely in the manner of OT.ImportExport). This includes protection
of the keys during generation, storage (including external storage), and use in cryptographic
functions, and means that even authorised users of the keys and administrators of the TOE
cannot directly access the plaintext value of a secret key.
OT.Algorithms Use of approved cryptographic algorithms

The TOE offers key generation functions and other cryptographic functions provided for
users that are endorsed by recognised authorities as appropriate for use by TSPs. This
ensures that the algorithms used do not enable publicly known data to be used to derive
secret keys.

See note under P.Algorithms ([PP_CMTS] section 4.4) on relevant references for digital
signatures within the European Union.
OT.KeyIntegrity Protection of integrity of keys

The value and critical attributes of keys (secret or public) have their integrity protected by the
TOE against unauthorised modification (unauthorised modifications include making
unauthorised copies of a key such that the attributes of the copy can be changed without the
same authorisation as for the original key). Critical attributes in this context are defined to be
those implementation-level attributes of a key that could be used by an attacker to cause the
equivalent of a modification to the key value by other means (e.g. including changing the
cryptographic functions for which a key can be used, the users with access to the key, or the
identifier of the key). This objective includes protection of the keys during generation, storage
(including external storage), and use.
OT.Auth Authorisation for use of TOE functions and data

The TOE carries out an authentication/authorisation check on all subjects before allowing
them to use the TOE. The following types of entity are distinguished for the purposes of
authorisation (i.e. each type has a distinct method of authorisation):
 administrators of the TOE
 users of TOE cryptographic functions (client applications using secure channels)
 users of secret keys.
In particular, the TOE always requires authorisations before using a secret key.

Local client applications within a suitable security environment (such as client applications
that are connected to the TOE by a channel such as a PCIe bus within the same hardware
Page 29 of 126
Security Objectives
appliance) do not require authentication to communicate with the TOE, as noted in

[PP_CMTS] section 1.3.1. However, use of a secret key always requires prior authorisation.
Application Note 1 (ST)

Local Client Applications may either be internal, running within the physical boundary of the
TOE and using the internal TOE interface, or non-internal, using the external TOE PCIe
interface.
 An external SAM (Signature Activation Module) is a non-internal Local Client
Application using the local (external) TOE PCIe interface which has to authenticate
like any other non-internal Local Client Application.
 An internal SAM is an internal Local Client Application which consists of firmware
modules running within the secure physical boundary of the CryptoServer CP5 and
using the internal TOE interface in accordance with the TOE Guidance. Such internal
SAM is integrity protected by the TOE and does not require authentication to
communicate with the TOE, as noted in Application Note 6 (PP) above and
Application Note 29 (PP) (taken from [PP_CMTS], Application Note 6 in section 1.3.1,
and Application Note 29).
TOE Guidance describes the internal TOE interface and specifies all rules how the internal
TOE interface must be used by an internal SAM module so that the TOE security
functionality is not compromised. The adherence to this guidance must be validated in the
context of the eIDAS evaluation of the internal SAM according to [PP_QSCD]. Therefore, the
TOE can assume that the internal SAM is trustworthy and does not compromise the TOE
security functionality.
An internal SAM without this evaluation cannot be loaded into the TOE because it will not be
signed with the CryptoServer CP5 Module Signature Key and hence the TOE will reject it.
The internal TOE interface contains a general CXIAL interface providing interface functions
which allow the internal SAM to benefit from the security functionality as implemented in the
TOE including key attribute management and key authorisation.
The internal TOE interface also contains a service, the SAEK signature interface (SAEK =
SAM Authorised External Key) for signature calculation, which allows the internal SAM to
implement its own key authorisation functionality: The SAEK signature interface allows an
internal SAM application to request usage of a signature key for which the TOE will not check
the key authorisation. As a consequence, an internal SAM calling the SAEK signature
interface takes full responsibility on correct legitimation of this operation, including key
authorisation as required by [PP_CMTS]: As requested by TOE Guidance, the internal SAM
may only invoke the SAEK signature interface if it has completely validated key authorisation
of the signature key before. Therefore, the TOE can implicitly derive prior successful key
authorisation of the signature key from each invocation of the SAEK signature interface.
Additionally, the internal TOE interface contains a general cryptographic interface providing
interface functions which allow the internal SAM to use it as a pure cryptographic library and
to benefit from the cryptographic SFRs FCS_COP.x and FCS_CKM.x as implemented by the
TOE. For cryptographic keys generated or used with functions from this general
cryptographic interface none of the other SFRs like FDP_<xxx> are claimed, instead, the
internal SAM is fully responsible for the secure usage and management of such keys.
OT.KeyUseConstraint Constraints on use of keys

Any key (secret or public) has an unambiguous definition of the purposes for which it can be
used, in terms of the cryptographic functions or operations (e.g. encryption or signature) that
it is permitted to be used for. The TOE rejects any attempt to use the key for a purpose that
is not permitted. The TOE also has an unambiguous definition of the subjects that are
Page 30 of 126
Security Objectives
permitted to access the key (and the purposes for which this access can be used) and allows
this to be set to the granularity of an individual subject – these access constraints apply to
use of the key even where the key value is not accessible. This objective means that the
TOE also prevents unauthorised use of any cryptographic functions that use a key.
OT.KeyUseScope Defined scope for use of a key after authorisation

The TOE is required to define and apply clearly stated limits on when authorisation and re-
authorisation are required in order for a secret key to be used5. For example, the TOE may
allow secret keys to be used for a specified time period or number of uses after initial
authorisation, or for may allow the key to be used until authorisation is explicitly rescinded.
As another example, the TOE may implement a policy that requires re-authorisation before
every use of a secret key.

Such limits on the use of a key after initial authorisation are termed “re-authorisation
conditions” in this PP. A wide range of policies and re-authorisation conditions are allowed,
and different policies may be applied to different types of secret key, but the re-authorisation
conditions for all types of secret key must be unambiguously defined in the Security Target.
The decision to use supported re-authentication conditions is made on the basis of the
application context. Making appropriate use of re-authorisation conditions supports client
applications in meeting their requirements for OE.DataContext and OE.AppSupport.
OT.DataConf Protection of confidentiality of sensitive client application data

The TOE provides secure channels to client applications that can be used to protect the
confidentiality of sensitive data (such as authentication/authorisation data) during
transmission between the client application and the TOE, or during transmission between
separate parts of the TOE where that transmission passes through an insecure environment.

Protection of secret keys (as a specific type of sensitive data) is also subject to additional
protection specified in other TOE objectives. Any requirements for secure storage and
control of access to other types of client application data within the TOE rely on the client
application using appropriate interfaces and cryptographic functions to protect it, as required
by OE.DataContext and OE.AppSupport. For example, if a client application uses the TOE to
perform cryptographic functions on data that represent a passphrase value and the
passphrase value is to be stored on the TOE, then the client application would need to use
an appropriate encryption function before storing the data on the TOE.
OT.DataMod Protection of integrity of client application data

The TOE provides secure channels to client applications that can be used to protect the
integrity of sensitive data (such as data to be signed authentication/authorisation data, or
public key certificates) during transmission between the client application and the TOE.

Any requirements for integrity protection of client application data within the TOE rely on the
client application using appropriate interfaces and cryptographic functions to protect it, as
required by OE.DataContext and OE.AppSupport.
OT.ImportExport Secure import and export of keys
5
Any attempt to use the key in cryptographic functions that are not permitted for that key is addressed
by OT.KeyUseConstraint.
Page 31 of 126
Security Objectives
The TOE allows import and export of secret keys only by using a secure method that
protects the confidentiality and integrity of the data during transmission – in particular, secret
keys must be exported only in encrypted form (it is not sufficient to rely on properties of a
secure channel to provide the protection: control to be identified as non-exportable, in which
case any attempt to export them will be rejected automatically. Public keys may be imported
and exported in a manner that protects the integrity of the data during transmission.
Assigned keys cannot be imported or exported.
OT.Backup Secure backup of user data

Any method provided by the TOE for backing up user data, including secret keys, preserves
the security of the data and is controlled by authorised Administrators. The secure backup
process preserves the confidentiality and integrity of the data during creation, transmission,
storage and restoration of the backup data. Backups also preserve the integrity of the
attributes of keys.
OT.RNG Random number quality

Random numbers generated and provided to client applications for use as keys,
authentication/authorisation data, or seed data for another random number generator that is
used for these purposes shall meet a defined quality metric in order to ensure that random
numbers are not predictable and have sufficient entropy.
OT.TamperDetect Tamper Detection

The TOE shall provide features to protect its security functions against tampering. In
particular the TOE shall make any physical manipulation within the scope of the intended
environment (adhering to OE.Env) detectable for the administrators of the TOE.
OT.FailureDetect Detection of TOE hardware or software failures

The TOE detects faults that would cause some other security property to be weakened or to
fail, including:
 Environmental conditions outside normal operating range (including temperature and
power)
 Failures of critical TOE hardware components (including the RNG)
 Corruption of TOE software.
On detection of a fault, the TOE takes action to maintain its security and the security of the
data that it contains and controls.
OT.Audit Generation of audit trail

The TOE creates audit records for security-relevant events, recording the event details and
the subject associated with the event. The TOE ensures that the audit records are protected
against accidental or malicious deletion or modification of records by providing tamper
protection (either prevention or detection) for the audit log.
5.2 Security Objectives for the Operational Environment

The following security objectives relate to the TOE environment. This includes client
applications as well as the procedure for the secure operation of the TOE.
OE.ExternalData Protection of data outside TOE control

Where copies of data protected by the TOE are managed outside of the TOE, client
applications and other entities shall provide appropriate protection for that data to a level
Page 32 of 126
Security Objectives
required by the application context and the risks in the deployment environment. This
includes protection of data that is exported from, or imported to, the TOE (such as audit data
and encrypted keys).
In particular, any backups of the TOE and its data shall be maintained in a way that ensures
appropriate controls over making backups, storing backup data, and using backup data to
restore an operational TOE. The number of sets of backup data shall not exceed the
minimum needed to ensure continuity of the TSP service. The ability to restore a TOE to an
operational state from backup data shall require at least dual person control (i.e. the
participation and approval of more than one authenticated administrator).
OE.Env Protected operating environment

The TOE shall operate in a protected environment that limits physical access to the TOE to
authorised Administrators. The TOE software and hardware environment (including client
applications) shall be installed and maintained by Administrators in a secure state that
mitigates against the specific risks applicable to the deployment environment, including
(where applicable):
 Protection against loss or theft of the TOE or any of its externally stored assets.
 Inspections to deter and detect tampering (including attempts to access side-
channels, or to access connections between physically separate parts of the TOE, or
parts of the hardware appliance).
 Protection against the possibility of attacks based on emanations from the TOE (e.g.
electromagnetic emanations) according to risks assessed for the operating
environment.
 Protection against unauthorised software and configuration changes on the TOE and
the hardware appliance.
 Protection to an equivalent level of all instances of the TOE holding the same assets
(e.g. where a key is present as a backup in more than one instance of the TOE).
OE.DataContext Appropriate use of TOE functions

Any client application using the cryptographic functions of the TOE shall ensure that the
correct data are supplied in a secure manner (including any relevant requirements for
authenticity, integrity and confidentiality). For example, when creating a digital signature over
a DTBS the client application shall ensure that the correct (authentic, unmodified) DTBS/R is
supplied to the TOE, and shall correctly and securely manage the signature received from
the TOE; and when certifying a public key, the client application shall ensure that necessary
checks are made to prove possession of the corresponding private key. The client
application may make use of appropriate secure channels provided by the TOE to support
these security requirements. Where required by the risks in the operational environment a
suitable entity (possibly the client application) shall perform a check of the signature returned
from the TOE, to confirm that it relates to the correct DTBS.
Client applications shall be responsible for any required logging of the uses made of the TOE
services, such as signing (or sealing) events.
Similar requirements shall apply in local use cases where no client application need be
involved, but in which the TOE and its user data (such as keys used for signatures) need to
be configured in ways that will support the need for security requirements such as sole
control of signing keys.
Appropriate procedures shall be defined for the initial creation of data and continuing
operation of the TOE according to the specific risks applicable to the deployment
environment and the ways in which the TOE is used.
Page 33 of 126
Security Objectives
OE.Uauth Authentication of application users

Any client application using the cryptographic services of the TOE shall correctly and
securely gather identification and authentication/authorisation data from its users and
securely transfer it to the TOE (protecting the confidentiality of the
authentication/authorisation data as required) when required to authorise the use of TOE
assets and services.
OE.AuditSupport Audit data review

The audit trail generated by the TOE will be collected, maintained and reviewed by a System
Auditor according to a defined audit procedure for the TSP.

As noted for P.Audit in [PP_CMTS] section 3.4, the TOE is assumed to exist as part of a
larger system and the System Auditor is a role within this larger system.
OE.AppSupport Application security support

Procedures to ensure the ongoing security of client applications and their data shall be
defined and followed in the environment, and reflected in use of the appropriate TOE
cryptographic functions and parameters, and appropriate management and administration
actions on the TOE. This includes, for example, any relevant policies on algorithms, key
generation methods, key lengths, key access, key import/export, key usage limitations, key
activation, crypto periods and key renewal, and key/certificate revocation.
Page 34 of 126
Extended Components Definition
6 Extended Components Definition
6.1 Generation of Random Numbers (FCS_RNG)

This family describes the functional requirements for random number generation used for
cryptographic purposes.
Family behaviour:
This family defines quality requirements for the generation of random numbers which are intended to
be use for cryptographic purposes.
Component levelling:
FCS_RNG: Generation of random numbers 1
Management: FCS_RNG.1
There are no management activities foreseen.
Audit: FCS_RNG.1
There are no actions defined to be auditable.
FCS_RNG.1 Generation of random numbers
Hierarchical to: No other components.

Dependencies: No dependencies.
FCS_RNG.1.1 The TSF shall provide a [selection: physical, non-physical true, deterministic,
hybrid physical, hybrid deterministic] random number generator that
implements: [assignment: list of security capabilities].
FCS_RNG.1.2 The TSF shall provide [selection: bits, octets of bits, numbers [assignment:
format of the numbers]] that meet [assignment: a defined quality metric].

A physical random number generator (RNG) produces the random number by a noise source
based on physical random processes. A non-physical true RNG uses a noise source based
on non-physical random processes like human interaction (key strokes, mouse movement).
A deterministic RNG uses a random seed to produce a pseudorandom output. A hybrid RNG
combines the principles of physical and deterministic RNGs where a hybrid physical RNG
produces at least the amount of entropy the RNG output may contain and the internal state
of a hybrid deterministic RNG output contains fresh entropy but less than the output of RNG
may contain.
6.2 Basic TSF Self Testing (FPT_TST_EXT.1)

The extended component defined here is a simplified version of FPT_TST.1 in [CC2].
Page 35 of 126
Extended Components Definition
Family behaviour:
Components in this family address the requirements for self-testing the TSF for selected
correct operation.
Component levelling:
FPT_TST_EXT Basic TSF Self Testing 1
Management: FPT_TST_EXT.1
There are no management activities foreseen.
Audit: FPT_TST_EXT.1
The following actions should be auditable if FAU_GEN Security audit data generation is
included in the PP/ST:
 Indication that TSF self-test was completed.
FPT_TST_EXT.1 Basic TSF Self Testing

FPT_TST_EXT.1.1 The TSF shall run a suite of the following self-tests [selection: during
initial start-up (on power on), periodically during normal operation, at the
request of the authorised user, at the conditions [assignment: conditions
under which self-tests should occur]] to demonstrate the correct operation
of the TSF: [assignment: list of self-tests run by the TSF].
Page 36 of 126
Security Requirements
7 Security Requirements
This chapter gives the security functional requirements (SFR) and the security assurance
requirements (SAR) for the TOE and the environment.
Security functional requirements components given in section 7.3 are drawn from Common
Criteria part 2 [CC2]. Some security functional requirements represent extensions to [CC2],
with a reasoning given in section 6. Operations for assignment, selection and refinement
have been made.
The TOE security assurance requirements statements given in section 7.4 “Security
Assurance Requirements” are drawn from the security assurance components from Common
Criteria part 3 [CC3].
7.1 Typographical Conventions

The following conventions have been used by the Protection Profile [PP_CMTS] in the
definitions of the SFRs and SARs:
 Refinements are denoted in one of two ways, depending on whether they add detail
to an SFR or SAR (‘explanatory refinements’) or update the text of an SFR or SAR
element (‘element refinements’). Explanatory refinements follow the SFR/SAR that
they update and are marked by the word “Refinement” in bold followed by text
describing the refinement. Element refinements are indicated by bold text within an
SFR/SAR element, with the original text indicated in a footnote.
 Selections and assignments made in the PP are italicized, and the original text is
indicated in a footnote. Selections and assignments that are left to be filled in by the
Security Target author appear in square brackets with an indication that a selection or
assignment is to be made, [selection:] or [assignment:], and the description of
selection options or assignment description are italicized.
If an Application Note e. g. to an SFR was added by the Protection Profile, this is denoted by
“Application Note <nn> (PP)”, with <nn> being the number of the Application Note as given
in the Protection Profile. If an additional Application Note was added by the Security Target
writer, this is denoted by “Application Note <nn> (ST)”.
7.2 SFR Architecture

7.2.1 SFR Relationships
The following diagrams Figure 7 and Figure 8 are taken from the PP (Figures 2 and 3 in
[PP_CMTS]). They give a graphical presentation of the connections between the Security
Functional Requirements (SFRs) from section 7.3 below and the underlying functional areas
and operations that the TOE provides. The diagrams provide a context for SFRs that relates
to their use in the TOE, whereas section 7.3 defines the SFRs grouped by the abstract class
and family groupings in [CC2].
Page 37 of 126
Figure 7: Architecture of Key Protection SFRs
Figure 5 illustrates the architecture of the SFRs from the PP that provide for the protection of
cryptographic keys. In this ST most of the SFRs are iterated (see chapter 7.3), the security
architecture therefore is enhanced in a natural way that all iterations of a specific SFR of the
PP are responsible to implement the security requirements from the PP. For example, all
Page 38 of 126
cryptographic keys are generated according to all iterations of SFR FCS_CKM.1 and with
support from FCS_RNG.1, etc.
Figure 8: Architecture of User, TSF Protection & Audit SFRs
Figure 6 illustrates the architecture of the SFRs from the PP that provide for the requirements
on the user concept, TSF protection and auditing. Also here, in this ST some of the SFRs are
iterated (see chapter 7.3), the security architecture therefore is enhanced in a natural way
Page 39 of 126
that dedicated iterations of a specific SFR of the PP are responsible to implement the
security requirements from the PP. In particular, users are authenticated according to
FIA_UID.1, FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth, and FIA_AFL.1//UserAuth, with unblocking of blocked
users according to FMT_SMF.1 and FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User.
7.2.2 SFRs and the Key Lifecycle

The generic lifecycle for a key is illustrated in Figure 9 that is taken from the PP (Figure 4 in
[PP_CMTS]). It shows the methods by which a key may arrive in the TOE (import, generation
or restore from backup), resulting in binding of a set of attributes to the key and storage of
the key, and finally the ways in which a stored key may be processed (export, use in a
cryptographic function, backup, or destruction). The SFRs related to each of these aspects
are described below Figure 9.
Export
Import
Use
Attributes
Generate Stored key
bound to key
Backup
Restore
Destroy
Figure 9: Generic Key Lifecycle and Related SFRs
Import:
 FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics requires a secure channel (FTP_TRP.1/Local and
FTP_TRP.1/External) and import in encrypted form or by using at least two
components
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of key import
Generate:
 FCS_CKM.1 (all iterations) requires approved algorithms
 FCS_RNG.1 defines requirements on random number generation
 FMT_MSA.3/Keys defines requirements on key attribute initialisation
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of key generation (and of failure of RNG)
Restore:
 FDP_ACF.1/Backup requires that only an Administrator can restore from a backup,
all backups must preserve confidentiality and integrity of keys (as appropriate to key
type) and their attributes, and any restore must be under dual person control
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of a restore (or of any integrity failure during a restore
attempt)
Attributes bound to key:

 FMT_MSA.3/Keys defines requirements on key attribute initialisation
 FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage, FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys (all iterations) and
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (all iterations) define requirements on key attribute modification
Page 40 of 126
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of changes to key attributes
Stored key:
 FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics requires no plaintext access
 FDP_SDI.2 requires protection of the integrity of keys and their attributes
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of integrity errors detected
Export:
 FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics requires a secure channel (FTP_TRP.1), authorisation before
key export, no export of Assigned Keys, export controlled by the Export flag attribute,
and export in encrypted form
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of key export
Use:
 FIA_AFL.1//KeyAuth requires blocking of access to a key on reaching an
authorisation failure threshold (FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics and FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key
define requirements on unblocking)
 FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage requires authorisation before use of a key and that the key
can only be used as identified in its Key Usage attribute
 FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth requires authorisation before initial use of a key and describes
any additional requirements for re-authorisation conditions such as expiry of a time
period or number of uses of a key (or when the key authorisation period has been
explicitly ended)
 FDP_RIP.1 requires protection of authorisation data on de-allocation
 FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics requires no access to intermediate values in any operation
 using a secret key
 FCS_COP.1 requires the use of approved algorithms
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of authorisation failures (and blocking or unblocking)
Backup:
 FDP_ACF.1/Backup requires that only an Administrator can make a backup; all
backups must preserve confidentiality and integrity of keys (as appropriate to their
key type) and their attributes
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of a backup
Destroy:
 FDP_RIP.1 requires keys to be protected on de-allocation
 FCS_CKM.4 requires key zeroisation on de-allocation
 FAU_GEN.1 requires auditing of key destruction
7.3 Security Functional Requirements

The following table summarises all TOE functional requirements to meet the security
objectives.
Page 41 of 126
No. SFR Dependency
FCS Cryptographic Support
1. FCS_CKM.1//AES [FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic key distribution or

FCS_COP.1 Cryptographic operation]
FCS_CKM.4 Cryptographic key destruction
2. FCS_CKM.1//RSA [FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic key distribution or

3. FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA [FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic key distribution or

4.
[FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without security attributes, or
FCS_CKM.4
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with security attributes, or
FCS_CKM.1 Cryptographic key generation]
5.
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encr
yption_CBC
6.
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encr
yption_OFB
7.
[FDP_ITC.1 I
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decr
port of user data without security attributes, or
yption_CBC
8.
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decr
yption_OFB
9.
FCS_COP.1//AES_CMA
C
10.
FCS_COP.1//AES_ECB
11.
FCS_COP.1//AES_GC
M
Page 42 of 126
No. SFR Dependency
12.
[FDP_ITC.1 I
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Sign
port of user data without security attributes, or
13.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verif
y
14.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Encr
yption
15.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Decr
yption
16.
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_S
ign
17.
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_V
erify
18.
FCS_COP.1//HMAC
19.
FCS_COP.1//Hash
20.
FCS_COP.1//Diffie-
Hellman
21.
FCS_COP.1//KeyDeriva
tion
22. FCS_RNG.1 No dependencies.
FIA Identification and Authentication
23. FIA_UID.1 No dependencies.
24. FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification
Page 43 of 126
No. SFR Dependency
25. FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification
26. FIA_AFL.1//UserAuth FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth Timing of authentication
27. FIA_AFL.1//KeyAuth FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth Timing of authentication
28. FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth No dependencies
FDP User data protection
29. FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics FDP_IFF.1 Simple security attributes
30.
FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow control
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics
FMT_MSA.3 Static attribute initialisation
31.
FDP_ACF.1 Security attribute based access control
FDP_ACC.1/KeyUsage
32.
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control
FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage
33.
FDP_ACF.1 Security attribute based access control
FDP_ACC.1/Backup
34.
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control
FDP_ACF.1/Backup
35. FDP_SDI.2 No dependencies
36. FDP_RIP.1 No dependencies
FTP Trusted path/channels
37. FTP_TRP.1/Local No dependencies
38. FTP_TRP.1/External No dependencies
FPT Protection of the TSF
39. FPT_STM.1 No dependencies
40. FPT_TST_EXT.1 No dependencies
41. FPT_PHP.1 No dependencies
42. FPT_PHP.3 No dependencies
43. FPT_FLS.1 No dependencies
FMT Security management
44. FMT_SMR.1 FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification.
45. FMT_SMF.1 No dependencies
Page 44 of 126
No. SFR Dependency
46.
FMT_SMR.1 Security roles
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//U
FMT_SMF.1 Specification of Management Functions
ser
47.
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//K
ey
48.
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog
49.
FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdat
e
50.
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control, or
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//
FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow control]
AFlag
51.
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//
ExportF
52.
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//
AuthD
53.
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//
None
54.
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//Aut
hD
55.
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//No
ne
56.
FMT_MSA.1 Management of security attributes
FMT_MSA.3/Keys
FAU Security audit data generation
57. FAU_GEN.1 FPT_STM.1 Reliable time stamps
58.
FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation
FAU_GEN.2
FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification
59. FAU_STG.2 FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation
Table 2: Security Functional Requirements
The individual security functional requirements are specified in the sections below.
Page 45 of 126
7.3.1 Cryptographic Support (FCS)

FCS_CKM.1//AES Cryptographic key generation

Dependencies: [FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic key distribution or
FCS_CKM.1.1//AES The TSF shall generate cryptographic keys in accordance with a

specified cryptographic key generation algorithm AES key generation6 and
specified cryptographic key sizes of 128, 192 or 256 bit length7 that meet the
following: Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) as specified in [FIPS 197]
chapters 3.1 and 6, with random number generation according to
FCS_RNG.18.
FCS_CKM.1//RSA Cryptographic key generation

FCS_CKM.1.1//RSA The TSF shall generate cryptographic keys in accordance with a

specified cryptographic key generation algorithm RSA key pair generation with
pre-defined or given public exponent9 and specified cryptographic key sizes of
minimum 2048 and maximum 8192 bits modulus length10 that meet the
following: generation of RSA key pairs according to [SOG-IS-Crypto] section
4.111.
FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA Cryptographic key generation

FCS_CKM.1.1//ECDSA The TSF shall generate cryptographic keys in accordance with

a specified cryptographic key generation algorithm ECDSA key pair
generation with given elliptic curve domain parameters12 and specified
6 [assignment: cryptographic key generation algorithm]

7 [assignment: cryptographic key sizes]
8 [assignment: list of standards]
Page 46 of 126
cryptographic key sizes of minimum 224 bits13 that meet the following:
ECDSA key pair generation for ECC domain parameters Curve P-224, Curve
P-256, Curve P-384 or Curve P-521 as specified in [FIPS 186-4] appendix 6,
or brainpoolP224r1, brainpoolP256r1, brainpoolP320r1, brainpoolP384r1,
brainpoolP512r1, brainpoolP224t1, brainpoolP256t1, brainpoolP320t1,
brainpoolP384t1 or brainpoolP512t1 as specified in [ECCBP] chapter 10, or
curve FRP256v1 as specified in [ANSSI] and with random number generation
according to FCS_RNG.114.

The Security Target must include all key generation operations that are intended to support
TSP operations using one or more iterations of FCS_CKM.1.
The relevant authorities and endorsements for completion of the SFRs are determined by the
context of the client applications that use the TOE. For digital signatures within the European
Union this is as indicated in [Regulation] and an exemplary list of algorithms and parameters
is given in [TS 119 312] or [SOG-IS-Crypto] (see also [PP_CMTS] section 1.3.1.3).
Note that key generation needs to be linked to the setting of security attributes of a key
(including the link to a subject who owns the key, via the setting of authorisation data) as in
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys and FMT_MSA.1/AKeys,

Dependencies: [FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without security attributes, or
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with security attributes, or FCS_CKM.1
Cryptographic key generation]
FCS_CKM.4.1 The TSF shall destroy cryptographic keys in accordance with a

specified cryptographic key destruction method zeroisation15 that meets the
following: overwriting the key by zeroising in case of secret or private keys16.

The Security Target must specify the method(s) of secure destruction of all secret keys and
all support keys17, and must ensure that all are covered by a secure destruction method. If
necessary, then more than one iteration of FCS_CKM.4 may be included to describe
different standards for secure deletion. The ‘list of standards’ in the final assignment may be
met in the Security Target by simply providing a description of the action taken to zeroise the
keys rather than referencing an external standard.

Plaintext secret and private keys are destroyed by the method overwriting by zeroising, as
required by this SFR.

15 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: cryptographic key destruction method]
17 See the description of ‘support keys’ in the refinement of ADV_ARC.1 in section 7.4.1.
Page 47 of 126
Encrypted secret and private keys are destroyed by deleting the logical address, and by
zeroizing the encryption key in case of a physical attack: For permanent storage inside the
TOE, the TOE enforces all secret and private keys to be stored encrypted with the TOE’s
internal Master Key. The commands for key deletion delete the encrypted secret and private
keys by deletion of the logical addresses, respectively. After that it is no longer possible to
address the memory areas of the encrypted keys via the TOE interface.
Furthermore, there is no logical access from outside of the TOE to the Master Key itself. In
case of e. g. a physical attack, the Master Key is protected by the TOE’s alarm mechanism
and its hard, opaque tamper-evident enclosure. The Master Key will be actively zeroised in
case of an alarm. The Master Key will also actively be erased in case of a Clear command
(by actively overwriting it with a new Master Key).
This ensures secure storage and destruction also for encrypted secret and private keys.
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_CBC Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//AES_Encryption_CBC The TSF shall perform encryption18 in

accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm AES block cipher in CBC
mode with ISO 7816-4 or PKCS#5 padding19 and cryptographic key sizes of
16, 24 or 32 bytes length20 that meet the following: [NIST SP 800-38A] chapter
6.2, [FIPS 197] chapter 5 (AES block cipher in CBC mode)21.
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_OFB Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//AES_Encryption_OFB The TSF shall perform encryption22 in

accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm AES block cipher in OFB
18 [assignment: list of cryptographic operations]

19 [assignment: cryptographic algorithm]
Page 48 of 126
6.4, [FIPS 197] chapter 5 (AES block cipher in OFB mode)25.
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_CBC Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//AES_Decryption_CBC The TSF shall perform decryption26 in

accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm AES block cipher in CBC
6.2, [FIPS 197] chapter 5 (AES block cipher in CBC mode)29.
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_OFB Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//AES_Decryption_OFB The TSF shall perform decryption30 in

accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm AES block cipher in OFB
6.4, [FIPS 197] chapter 5 (AES block cipher in OFB mode)33.
FCS_COP.1//AES_CMAC


Page 49 of 126

FCS_COP.1.1//AES_CMAC The TSF shall perform data integrity protection34 in accordance

with a specified cryptographic algorithm AES CMAC35 and cryptographic key
sizes of 16, 24 or 32 bytes length36 that meet the following: [NIST SP 800-
38B]37.
FCS_COP.1//AES_ECB Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//AES_ECB The TSF shall perform encryption and decryption38 in

accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm AES block cipher in ECB
mode39 and cryptographic key sizes of 16, 24 or 32 bytes length40 that meet
the following: [NIST SP 800-38A] chapter 6.1, [FIPS 197] chapter 5 (AES
block cipher in ECB mode)41.

Encryption and decryption in accordance with FCS_COP.1//AES_ECB can only be invoked
by an internal SAM. It is not provided as a cryptographic service at the external TOE
interface.
FCS_COP.1//AES_GCM Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//AES_GCM The TSF shall perform authenticated encryption and

decryption42 in accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm AES block
cipher in GCM mode43 and cryptographic key sizes of 16, 24 or 32 bytes

Page 50 of 126
length44 that meet the following: [NIST SP 800-38A] chapter 7, [FIPS 197]
chapter 5 (AES block cipher in GCM mode)45.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Sign Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//RSA_Sign The TSF shall perform the generation of a digital signature46 in

accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm RSA signature scheme
with appendix according to [PKCS#1], RSASSA-PSS or RSASSA-PKCS-
v1_5,47 and cryptographic key sizes of minimum 2048 and maximum 8192 bits
modulus length48 that meet the following: [PKCS#1], chapters 8.1.1 or 8.2.149.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verify Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//RSA_Verify The TSF shall perform the verification of a digital signature50 in

accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm RSA signature scheme
with appendix according to [PKCS#1], RSASSA-PSS or RSASSA-PKCS1-
V1_5,51 and cryptographic key sizes of minimum 2048 and maximum 8192 bits
modulus length52 that meet the following: [PKCS#1], chapters 8.1.2 or 8.2.253.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Encryption Cryptographic operation

Page 51 of 126

FCS_COP.1.1//RSA_Encryption The TSF shall perform encryption54 in accordance with a

specified cryptographic algorithm RSA encryption scheme according to
[PKCS#1], RSAES-OAEP or RSAES-PKCS-v1_5,55 and cryptographic key
sizes of minimum 2048 and maximum 8192 bits modulus length56 that meet
the following: [PKCS#1], chapters 7.1.1 or 7.2.157.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Decryption Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//RSA_Decryption The TSF shall perform decryption58 in accordance with a

specified cryptographic algorithm RSA encryption scheme according to
[PKCS#1], RSAES-OAEP or RSAES-PKCS-v1_5,59 and cryptographic key
sizes of minimum 2048 and maximum 8192 bits modulus length60 that meet
the following: [PKCS#1], chapters 7.1.2 or 7.2.261.
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Sign Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//ECDSA_Sign The TSF shall perform the generation of a digital

signature in accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm ECDSA63
62

Page 52 of 126
and cryptographic key sizes of minimum 224 bits64 that meet the following:
signature generation according to [ANSI-X9.62] with signature keys based on
ECC domain parameters Curve P-224, Curve P-256, Curve P-384 or Curve P-
521 as specified in [FIPS 186-4] appendix D, or brainpoolP224r1,
brainpoolP256r1, brainpoolP320r1, brainpoolP384r1, brainpoolP512r1,
brainpoolP224t1, brainpoolP256t1, brainpoolP320t1, brainpoolP384t1 or
brainpoolP512t1 as specified in [ECCBP] chapter 10, or curve FRP256v1 as
specified in [ANSSI]65.
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Verify cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//ECDSA_Verify The TSF shall perform the verification of a digital

signature accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm ECDSA67 and
66
cryptographic key sizes of minimum 224 bits68 that meet the following:
signature generation according to [ANSI-X9.62] with signature keys based on
ECC domain parameters curve P-224, curve P-256, curve P-384 or curve P-
521 as specified in [FIPS 186-4] appendix D, or curve brainpoolP224r1,
brainpoolP256r1, brainpoolP320r1, brainpoolP384r1, brainpoolP512r1,
brainpoolP224t1, brainpoolP256t1, brainpoolP320t1, brainpoolP384t1 or
brainpoolP512t1 as specified in [ECCBP] chapter 10, or curve FRP256v1 as
specified in [ANSSI]69.
FCS_COP.1//HMAC Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//HMAC The TSF shall perform HMAC calculation70 in accordance with a

specified cryptographic algorithm HMAC71 and cryptographic key sizes

71 [assignment: cryptographic algorithm]2
Page 53 of 126
between 4 and 1024 bytes 72 that meet the following: [FIPS 198] and [RFC
2104], with hash value calculation according to FCS_COP.1//Hash73.

HMAC calculation in accordance with FCS_COP.1.1//HMAC and cryptographic key size
smaller than 13 bytes can only be used in the context of command authentication. It is not
provided as a cryptographic service.
HMAC calculation as a cryptographic service is provided in accordance with
FCS_COP.1//HMAC and a minimum key size of 13 bytes.
FCS_COP.1//Hash Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//Hash The TSF shall perform hash value calculation74 in accordance with a
specified cryptographic algorithm SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512,
SHA3-224, SHA3-256, SHA3-384 or SHA3-51275 and cryptographic key sizes
none76 that meet the following: [FIPS 180-4] chapter 6 for SHA-2, and [FIPS
202] for SHA-377.
FCS_COP.1//Diffie-Hellman Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//Diffie-Hellman The TSF shall perform Diffie-Hellmann Key agreement78

in accordance with a specified cryptographic algorithm Diffie-Hellman
protocol79 and cryptographic key sizes 204880 that meet the following:
[PKCS#3], chapter 6.881.

Page 54 of 126

Diffie-Hellman Key agreement in accordance with FCS_COP.1.1//Diffie-Hellman can only be
used in the context of establishing a Secure Messaging session (trusted channel according
to FTP_TRP.1/Local or FTP_TRP.1/External). It is not provided as a cryptographic service.
FCS_COP.1//KeyDerivation Cryptographic operation

FCS_COP.1.1//KeyDerivation The TSF shall perform Key Derivation82 in accordance

with a specified cryptographic algorithm KDF in Feedback Mode with HMAC83
and cryptographic key sizes 4-102484 that meet the following: [NIST SP 800-
108], chapter 5.2, with HMAC calculation according to FCS_COP.1//HMAC 85.

Key Derivation in accordance with FCS_COP.1.1//KeyDerivation can only be used in the
context of establishing a Secure Messaging session (trusted channel according to
FTP_TRP.1/Local or FTP_TRP.1/External) and for the backup of cryptographic keys
(FDP_ACC.1/Backup, FDP_ACF.1/Backup). It is not provided as a cryptographic service.

The Security Target must include all cryptographic functions that are intended to support
TSP operations using one or more iterations of FCS_COP.1. This includes cryptographic
operations for digital signatures and seals, implementing trusted paths (FTP_TRP.1) and
secure channels (FTP_TRP.1), key encryption (e.g. FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics), and any
backups (FDP_ACF.1/Backup) that the TOE creates. If the TOE supports software or
firmware updates then the iterations must include the cryptographic operations used to
support the validation of digital signatures on the updates as described in the refinement to
ADV_ARC.1 in section 7.4.1.
The relevant authorities and endorsements for completion of each of these iterations are
determined by the context of the client applications that use the TOE. For digital signatures
and seals within the European Union this is as indicated in [Regulation] and an exemplary list
of algorithms and parameters is given in [TS 119 312] or [SOG-IS-Crypto] (see also
[PP_CMTS], section 1.3.1.3).
FCS_RNG.1 Random number generation

Page 55 of 126
FCS_RNG.1.1 The TSF shall provide a hybrid deterministic86 random number

generator that implements: RNG class DRG.4 of [AIS 20/31] chapter 4.987
(DRG.4.1) The internal state of the RNG shall use PTRNG of class PTG.2 as random
source88.
(DRG.4.2) The RNG provides forward secrecy.
(DRG.4.3) The RNG provides backward secrecy even if the current internal state is
known.
(DRG.4.4) The RNG provides enhanced forward secrecy on condition89 that 1000
requests for pseudo random bits have been made after last entropy input
during instantiation or reseeding90
(DRG.4.5) The internal state of the RNG is seeded by an PTRNG of class PTG.291
FCS_RNG.1.2 The TSF shall provide octets of bits92 that meet:

(DRG.4.6) The RNG generates output for which 7∙107 93 strings of bit length 128 are
mutually different with probability 0.9998.94
(DRG.4.7) Statistical test suites cannot practically distinguish the random numbers from
output sequences of an ideal RNG. The random numbers must pass test
procedure A95.96

For more information on the selections and assignments see the SFR definition in section
6.1. The Security Target describes the uses made of the RNG and its relationship to other
SFRs such as FCS_CKM.1, and to any random number generation function/service made
available to users or clients applications.
7.3.2 Identification and Authentication (FIA)

FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification

86 [selection: physical, non-physical true, deterministic, hybrid physical, hybrid deterministic]

87 [assignment: list of security capabilities]
88 [AIS 20/31]: [selection: use PTRNG of class PTG.2 as random source, have [assignment: work factor],
require [assignment: guess work]]
89
[AIS 20/31]: [selection: on demand, on condition [assignment: condition], after [assignment: time] ]
90 [AIS 20/31]: [condition]
91
[AIS 20/31]: [selection: selection: internal entropy source, PTRNG of class PTG.2, PTRNG of class
PTG.3, [other selection]]
92 [selection: bits, octets of bits, numbers [assignment: format of the numbers]]
93 [AIS 20/31]: [assignment: number of strings]
94 [AIS 20/31]: [assignment: probability]

95 [AIS 20/31]: [assignment: additional test suites]
96 [AIS 20/31]: [assignment: a defined quality metric]
Page 56 of 126
FIA_UID.1.1 The TSF shall allow

(1) Self-test according to FPT_TST_EXT.1,
(2) usage of commands where no user authentication is needed, including
requests for the status of the TOE97,
on behalf of the user to be performed before the user is identified.
FIA_UID.1.2 The TSF shall require each user to be successfully identified before allowing
any other TSF-mediated actions on behalf of that user.

The ‘list of additional TSF-mediated actions’ may be left empty (equivalent to an assignment
of ‘None’) if applicable.

An internal SAM is identified, authenticated and authorised when loaded to the CryptoServer
by verification of its signature with the CryptoServer CP5 Module Signature Key. It does not
need further identification or authentication when communicating with the TOE, as noted in
[PP_CMTS] section 1.3.1, Application Note 6. (See also Application Note 6 (PP) and
Application Note 29 (PP) in this ST.)
FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth Timing of authentication

Dependencies: FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification
FIA_UAU.1.1//UserAuth The TSF shall allow

(2) Identification of the user by means of TSF required by FIA_UID.1,
(3) usage of commands where no user authentication is needed, including
requests for the status of the TOE98.
on behalf of the user to be performed before the user is authenticated.
FIA_UAU.1.2//UserAuth The TSF shall require each user to be successfully
authenticated before allowing any other TSF-mediated actions on behalf of
that user.

97 [assignment: list of additional TSF mediated actions]

98 [assignment: list of TSF mediated functions]
Page 57 of 126
FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth Timing of authentication

Dependencies: FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification
FIA_UAU.1.1//KeyAuth The TSF shall allow

(2) Identification of the user by means of TSF required by FIA_UID.1,
(3) Authentication of the user by means of TSF required by
FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth,
(4) usage of commands where user authentication is needed but where no
authorisation for access to a secret key is needed99
on behalf of the user to be performed before the user is
authenticatedauthorised for access to a secret key. 100
FIA_UAU.1.2//KeyAuth The TSF shall require each user to be successfully
authenticated authorised for access to a secret key before allowing any other
TSF-mediated actions that require access to the secret key on behalf of that
user.101

The Security Target must separately identify any different types of identification and
authentication, e.g. for Administrators, local users, application users, using separate
iterations of the FIA_UID.1 and FIA_UAU.1 SFRs where the methods differ. The Security
Target must also separately identify the difference between authentication of users and
authorisation for use of keys as required for FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth. Separate iterations of FIA
SFRs may be necessary to capture these separate cases.
The ‘list of additional TSF-mediated actions’ in FIA_UAU.1.1 may be left empty (equivalent to
an assignment of ‘None’) if applicable.

For FIA_UAU.1 different types of identification and authentication via the external interface,
e.g. for Administrators, local users, application users are not needed because they all use
the same authentication mechanism.
The internal SAM is allowed to request usage of a secret key for signature generation either
by calling the generic internal TOE interface or by calling the internal SAEK signature
interface offered by the TOE. In the first case, usage of the key will be rejected unless the
SAM presents explicit key authorisation data (KRAD) to the TOE for verification. In the
second case, the SAM has the responsibility of performing and validating key authorisation
99 [assignment: list of TSF mediated functions]

100 on behalf of the user to be performed before the user is authenticated.
101 The TSF shall require each user to be successfully authenticated before allowing any other TSF-
mediated actions on behalf of that user.
Page 58 of 126
(see Application Note 1 (ST)) as mandated in the TOE Guidance. The TOE will implicitly
derive the result of key authorisation from the SAM.
FIA_AFL.1//UserAuth Authentication failure handling

Dependencies: FIA_UAU.1 Timing of authentication
FIA_AFL.1.1//UserAuth The TSF shall detect when five102 unsuccessful authentication

or authorisation attempts occur related to consecutive failed authentication
or authorisation attempts.103
FIA_AFL.1.2//UserAuth When the defined number of unsuccessful authentication or

authorisation attempts has been met104, the TSF shall block access to the
user account105 until unblocked by a User Administrator106 107.
FIA_AFL.1//KeyAuth Authentication failure handling

Dependencies: FIA_UAU.1 Timing of authentication
FIA_AFL.1.1//KeyAuth The TSF shall detect when five102 unsuccessful authentication

or authorisation attempts occur related to consecutive failed authentication
or authorisation attempts103.
FIA_AFL.1.2//KeyAuth When the defined number of unsuccessful authentication or

authorisation attempts has been met104, the TSF shall block access to the
key105 until unblocked by a Key Manager106 107.

The Security Target must separately identify the different types of authentication or
authorisation to which failure responses apply, and this should include all of the different
types of authentication identified for FIA_UAU.1 and failed authorisation attempts related to
attempts to use keys as in FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth. Where different authentication/authorisation
failure responses apply then the SFR should be iterated.
The unblocking of functionality blocked as described in each iteration of FIA_AFL.1.2 must
be described in a corresponding iteration of FMT_MTD.1 (cf. section 7.3.6).
102 [selection: [assignment: positive integer number], an administrator configurable positive integer within
[assignment: range of acceptable values]]
103 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of authentication events]
104 [selection: met, surpassed]
105 [assignment: description of the relevant functionality]
106 [selection: unblocked by [assignment: identification of the authorised subject or role], a time period
[assignment: time period] has elapsed]
107 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of actions]
Page 59 of 126

If an internal SAM invokes the SAEK signature interface, prior successful key authorisation is
implicitly derived by the TOE (see Application Note 1 (ST) for further explanation).
FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth Re-authenticating

FIA_UAU.6.1/KeyAuth The TSF shall authorise and re-authorise108 the user for access
to a secret key under the conditions
(1) Authorisation in order to be granted initial access to the key; and
(2) Re-authorisation of the key under the following conditions:
 after the number of uses of the secret key (as specified in the secret
key’s attributes) for which the secret key was last authorised has
already been made;
 after explicit rescinding of previous authorisation for access to the
secret key109.

Use of a key requires an initial authorisation by presentation of the correct authorisation data.
Subsequent uses may require re-authorisation on every use (in this case ‘Authorisation on
every subsequent access to the key’ is selected in FIA_UAU.6.1/KeyAuth (2)), or else the
TOE may allow some uses of the key without further authorisation until one of the specified
re-authorisation conditions occurs.
The TOE may also allow different re-authorisation conditions for different types of secret key.
The types of secret keys may be identified (in the first assignment in (2)) as individual keys,
or in terms of a generic definition (e.g. ‘all non-Assigned keys’). Where different re-
authorisation conditions apply to different types of key then the second assignment in (2)
may be used to specify the other types of key and the conditions that apply to them in a
similar manner.
The explicit rescinding of an authorisation period in (2) ensures that client applications or
users can decide to revoke a previous authorisation in (2) that may still be in force. If the
TOE intends to allow unlimited uses of a secret key after initial authorisation, until
authorisation is rescinded by a client application or user, then the selection ‘after explicit
rescinding of previous authorisation for access to the secret key’ is chosen in the Security
Target without any accompanying selections for time periods or number of uses. The
Security Target describes the method or methods used for such rescinding (such as
particular API commands).
It is the responsibility of the client application to make appropriate use of these any re-
authentication conditions according to the application context (cf. OE.DataContext and
OE.AppSupport).
Each ‘use’ of a key is expected to relate to one cryptographic function carried out with the
key. If there are circumstances where a different interpretation may be placed on the ‘use’ of
a key then this must be identified and explained in the Security Target and the Operational
Guidance. The intention here is to make clear any situations that are relevant to a key owner
108 [PP_CMTS] re-authenticate

109 [assignment: list of conditions under which re-authentication is required]
Page 60 of 126
who can be held responsible for use of the key (such as any case where a single
authorisation for use of a key could allow the creation of more than one signature using the
authorised key). Note that in order to make qualified electronic signatures under [Regulation]
then the user/application must be able to precisely control the signatures that can be made under
each authorisation.
Actions taken by the TOE in the case of successive authorisation failures must be specified
using an iteration of FIA_AFL.1.
7.3.3 User Data Protection (FDP)

FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics Subset information flow control

Dependencies: FDP_IFF.1 Simple security attributes
FDP_IFC.1.1/KeyBasics The TSF shall enforce the Key Basics SFP110 on

(1) subjects: all
(2) information: keys
(3) operations: all111.
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics Simple security attributes

Dependencies: FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow control
FDP_IFF.1.1/KeyBasics The TSF shall enforce the Key Basics SFP112 based on the
following types of subject and information security attributes:
(1) whether a key is a secret or a public key
(2) whether a secret key is an Assigned Key
(3) whether channels selected to export keys are secure
(4) the value of the Export Flag of a key113.
FDP_IFF.1.2/KeyBasics The TSF shall permit an information flow between a controlled

subject and controlled information via a controlled operation if the following
rules hold:
(1) Export of secret keys shall only be allowed provided that the secret key
is not an Assigned Key, that the secret key is encrypted, and that a
secure channel (providing authentication and integrity protection) is used
for the export
110 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: information flow control SFP]

111
[PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of subjects, information, and operations that cause controlled
information to flow to and from controlled subjects covered by the SFP]
112 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: information flow control SFP]
113 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of subjects and information controlled under the indicated SFP, and for
each, the security attributes]
Page 61 of 126
(2) Public keys shall always be exported with integrity protection of their key
value and attributes
(3) Keys shall only be imported over a secure channel (providing
authentication and integrity protection)
(4) A secret key can only be imported if it is a non-Assigned key
(5) Secret keys shall only be imported in encrypted form or using split-
knowledge procedures requiring at least two key components to
reconstruct the key, with key components supplied by at least two
separately authenticated users
(6) Unblocking access to a key shall not allow any subject other than those
authorised to access the key at the time when it was blocked114.

A secure channel for export of keys in FDP_IFF.1.2/KeyBasics (1) or for import of keys in
FDP_IFF.1.2/KeyBasics (3) is one that meets the requirements of FTP_TRP.1/Local or
FTP_TRP.1/External.
The encrypted form required for keys imported or exported over a secure channel requires
encryption of the key itself, in addition to any encryption provided by the secure channel.
Unblocking a key as in FDP_IFF.1.2/KeyBasics (6) is intended only to restore the ability of
subjects to authorise for access to a key by presenting the correct authorisation data. As
noted for FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key, the subject who unblocks the key must not be able also
to use the key as a result of the unblocking (unless of course they are able to supply the
correct authorisation data). This is a part of ensuring that sole control of secret keys can be
achieved.
FDP_IFF.1.3/KeyBasics The TSF shall enforce the following additional information

flow control rules: none115.
FDP_IFF.1.4/KeyBasics The TSF shall explicitly authorise an information flow based on

the following rules: none116.
FDP_IFF.1.5/KeyBasics The TSF shall explicitly deny an information flow based on the
following rules:
(1) No subject shall be allowed to access the plaintext value of any secret
key directly.
(2) No subject shall be allowed to export a secret key in plaintext.
(3) No subject shall be allowed to export an Assigned Key.
(4) No subject shall be allowed to export a secret key without submitting the
correct authorisation data for the key
(5) No subject shall be allowed to access intermediate values in any
operation that uses a secret key
114 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: for each operation, the security attribute-based relationship that must hold
between subject and information security attributes]
115 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: additional information flow control SFP rules]
116 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules, based on security attributes, that explicitly authorise information
flows]
Page 62 of 126
(6) A key with an Export Flag value marking it as non-exportable shall not
be exported117

The requirements of FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics apply regardless of how the key is stored by the
TOE, including when the key is externally stored (cf. [PP_CMTS], section 1.3.1.2 ).
Direct access to a key value in FDP_IFF.1.5/KeyBasics (1) is access that makes the value
available for reading or modification – this includes operations that would subsequently allow
reading or modification of the key (e.g. making a copy of the key with different attributes, or
with a different object type that would then allow direct read access). Note that this PP
assumes that key values are never modified after they have been generated.
Export of a key as in FDP_IFF.1.5/KeyBasics (1), (2), (4) and (6) is not the same as backup
(governed by FDP_ACF.1/Backup) or external storage of keys under continuing TOE control
(governed by other parts of the Key Basics SFP in FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics, and the Key
Usage SFP in FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage). Thus an Export Flag of ‘non-exportable’ does not
prevent backup or external storage of the keys under continuing TOE control.
The Security Target and/or Operational Guidance shall specify how any attributes not
supplied with an imported key are set when the key is imported (or alternatively how such
keys are rejected). Similarly, the Security Target and/or Operational Guidance shall describe
how the key’s attributes are represented when exported, so that their meaning can be
understood by the receiver.
If the TOE does not provide facilities to import or export keys then the relevant part of the
SFR is trivially satisfied, and this should be stated in the Security Target.
FDP_ACC.1/KeyUsage Subset access control

Dependencies: FDP_ACF.1 Security attribute based access control
FDP_ACC.1.1/KeyUsage The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP118 to objects based
on the following
(1) Subjects: all;
(2) Object: Keys
(3) Operations: all119
FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage Security attribute based access control

Dependencies: FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control
117 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules, based on security attributes, that explicitly deny information flows]
118 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: access control SFP]
119
[PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of subjects, objects, and operations among subjects and objects
covered by the SFP]
Page 63 of 126
FDP_ACF.1.1/KeyUsage The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP120 to objects based
on the following:
(1) whether the subject is currently authorised to use the secret key
(2) whether the subject is currently authorised to change the attributes of the
secret key
(3) the cryptographic function that is attempting to use the secret key121.

Whether a subject is currently authorised for access to a secret key is determined by whether
the subject has submitted the correct authorisation data for the key, and whether this
authorisation is yet subject to one or more of the re-authorisation conditions in
FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth.
Whether a subject is currently authorised to change the attributes of a secret key is
determined by the iterations of FMT_MSA.1 in section 7.3.6.
FDP_ACF.1.2/KeyUsage The TSF shall enforce the following rules to determine if an

operation among controlled subjects and controlled objects is allowed:
(1) Attributes of a key shall only be changed by an authorised subject, and
only as permitted in the Key Attributes Modification Table.
(2) Only subjects with current authorisation for a specific secret key shall be
allowed to carry out operations using the plaintext value of that key.
(3) Only cryptographic functions permitted by the secret key’s Key Usage
attribute shall be carried out using the secret key122.

FDP_ACF.1.2/KeyUsage (1) refers to controls over changing attributes that are specified in
more detail in the iterations of FMT_MSA.1.
FDP_ACF.1.2/KeyUsage (2) requires that a key can only be used when the relevant subject
has been authorised either by presenting the correct authorisation data for the key as part of
the request for the operation or else the authorisation has previously been presented by the
subject and the current use of the key does not yet require re-authorisation according to
FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth (meaning that the current usage is therefore within the usage
constraints for time and number of uses since the last authorisation of use of the key). The
reference to use of the plaintext value of the key does not imply that a subject has access to
that value, only that it can be used to carry out operations within the TOE – reference to
operations of this sort are thus distinguished from operations that may use an encrypted form
of a secret key (e.g. for external storage of keys) and that are not necessarily restricted in
this way.
FDP_ACF.1.3/KeyUsage The TSF shall explicitly authorise access of subjects to objects

based on the following additional rules: none123.

121
[PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of subjects and objects controlled under the indicated SFP, and for
each, the SFP-relevant security attributes, or named groups of SFP-relevant security attributes]
122
[PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules governing access among controlled subjects and controlled objects
using controlled operations on controlled objects]
123
[PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules, based on security attributes, that explicitly authorise access of
subjects to objects]
Page 64 of 126
FDP_ACF.1.4/KeyUsage The TSF shall explicitly deny access of subjects to objects


The requirements of FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage apply regardless of how the key is stored by the
TOE, including when the key is externally stored (cf. [PP_CMTS], section 1.3.1.2).
FDP_ACC.1/Backup Subset access control

Dependencies: FDP_ACF.1 Security attribute based access control
FDP_ACC.1.1/Backup The TSF shall enforce the Backup SFP125 on

(1) subjects: all
(2) objects: keys
(3) operations: backup, restore126.
FDP_ACF.1/Backup Security attribute based access control

Dependencies: FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control
FDP_ACF.1.1/Backup The TSF shall enforce the Backup SFP127 to objects based on
the following:
(1) whether the subject is an administrator128.
FDP_ACF.1.2/Backup The TSF shall enforce the following rules to determine if an

operation among controlled subjects and controlled objects is allowed:
(1) Only authorised administrators shall be able to perform any backup
operation provided by the TSF to create backups of the TSF state or to
restore the TSF state from a backup
(2) Any restore of the TSF shall only be possible under at least dual person
control, with each person being an administrator
(3) Any backup and restore shall preserve the confidentiality and integrity of
the secret keys, and the integrity of public keys
124 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules, based on security attributes, that explicitly deny access of subjects
to objects]
126
[PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of subjects, objects, and operations among subjects and objects
covered by the SFP]
128
[PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of subjects and objects controlled under the indicated SFP, and for
each, the SFP-relevant security attributes, or named groups of SFP-relevant security attributes]
Page 65 of 126
(4) Any backup and restore operations shall preserve the integrity of the key
attributes, and the binding of each set of attributes to its key129.

Preserving the binding of a set of attributes to its key (in FDP_ACF.1.2/Backup (4)) means
that it is not possible for the attributes to be changed during a backup operation, or by
modification of the backup data while it is away from the TSF.
Backups may contain keys whose export flag attribute marks them as ‘non-exportable’. The
ST author specifies the cryptographic operations used to protect confidentiality and integrity
of any supported backups using one or more iterations of FCS_COP.1.

The following iterations of FCS_COP.1 are used to protect confidentiality and integrity of any
supported backups:
 FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_CBC
 FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_CBC
 FCS_COP.1//AES_CMAC
 FCS_COP.1//KeyDerivation
FDP_ACF.1.3/Backup The TSF shall explicitly authorise access of subjects to objects

FDP_ACF.1.4/Backup The TSF shall explicitly deny access of subjects to objects

based on the following additional rules: none131

If the TOE does not provide backup and restore operations, then the Security Target shall
include FDP_ACC.1/Backup and FDP_ACF.1/Backup but shall state in an Application Note
for each of these SFRs that the relevant security requirements are trivially met because no
backup facility is provided.
FDP_SDI.2 Stored data integrity monitoring and action
Hierarchical to: FDP_SDI.1 Stored data integrity monitoring.

FDP_SDI.2.1 The TSF shall monitor user data stored in containers controlled by the TSF for
integrity errors132 on all keys (including security attributes)133, based on the
following attributes: integrity protection data134.
129 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules governing access among controlled subjects and controlled objects
using controlled operations on controlled objects]
130 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules, based on security attributes, that explicitly authorise access of
subjects to objects]
131 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: rules, based on security attributes, that explicitly deny access of subjects
to objects]
132 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: integrity errors
133 [PP_CMTS] objects
134 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: user data attributes]
Page 66 of 126
FDP_SDI.2.2 Upon detection of a data integrity error, the TSF shall

(1) prohibit the use of the altered data
(2) notify the error to the user135.

No specific requirement is placed here on the nature of the integrity protection data, but the
Security Target shall describe this protection measure, and shall identify the iteration of
FCS_COP.1 that covers any cryptographic algorithm used.
This SFR may also be used in the implementation of the mechanism for protection against
modification access to the value of a secret key in FDP_IFF.1.5/KeyBasics, and in the
requirement for export of public keys with integrity protection in FDP_IFF.1.2/KeyBasics.
The integrity protection data in FDP_SDI.2.1 is included in the list of attributes identified in
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys and FMT_MSA.1/AKeys, and protects the value of the key and of its
other security attributes, including when the key is externally stored by the TOE (cf.
[PP_CMTS], section 1.3.1.2).
FDP_RIP.1 Subset residual information protection

FDP_RIP.1.1 The TSF shall ensure that any previous information content of a resource is
made unavailable upon the de-allocation of the resource from136 the following
objects:
(1) authorisation data
(2) secret keys137.

Authorisation data is not to be stored persistently in the TOE; the refinements to ADV_ARC.1
in section 7.4.1 require the approach to minimising the time that this data is held before de-
allocation according to FDP_RIP.1.
7.3.4 Trusted Path/Channels (FTP)

FTP_TRP.1/Local Trusted Path

FTP_TRP.1.1/Local The TSF shall provide a communication path between itself and
local138 client applications139 that are logically distinct from other
135 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: action to be taken]

136 [PP_CMTS] [selection: allocation of the resource to, de-allocation of the resource from]
137 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of objects]
138 [PP_CMTS] [selection: remote, local]
139 [PP_CMTS] users
Page 67 of 126
communication paths and provides assured authentication140 of its end points

and protection of the communicated data from modification and disclosure141.
FTP_TRP.1.2/Local The TSF shall permit local client applications142 to initiate

communication via the trusted path.
FTP_TRP.1.3/Local The TSF shall require the use of the trusted path for protecting the
confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data exchanged between the local
client application and the TOE over a channel that passes through an insecure
environment 143.

FTP_TRP.1/Local must be completed in a Security Target to identify the local client
applications and to reflect the way that the TOE communicates with them, and to justify the
security of this communication path. Where the TOE and local client applications are located
within the physical boundary of the same hardware appliance (e.g. local applications running
on a server and communicating with a PCI card on the server’s internal PCI bus) then the
trusted path may be mapped in the Security Target to the physical configuration, and no
additional authentication or cryptographic protection are required (because of the physical
security assumed in the appliance environment).
If the TOE does not provide an interface for local client applications, then this SFR is not
applicable and is trivially satisfied. This should be stated in the Security Target.
The TOE may provide other additional channels that provide only authentication and integrity
protection (not confidentiality), in which case other iterations of FTP_TRP.1 may be added in
the ST, allowing the selection of only modification protection in FTP_TRP.1.1 for these
additional iterations.
The Security Target shall identify in an application note the iterations of FCS_COP.1 that
provide any cryptographic functions that contribute to the implementation of the trusted path,
and the SFRs that provide the authentication of the end points.

Although non-internal local client applications and remote external client applications may
run in different environments they have to use the identically same trusted communication
mechanism to communicate with the TOE. The following iterations of FCS_COP.1 are used
to create the trusted path and to provide the authentication of its end points:
 FCS_COP.1//Diffie-Hellman
 FCS_COP.1//RSA_Sign
 FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verify
 FCS_COP.1//HMAC
 FCS_COP.1//Hash
140 [PP_CMTS] identification

141 [PP_CMTS] [selection: modification, disclosure, [assignment: other types of integrity or confidentiality
violation]]
142 [selection: the TSF, local users, remote users]
143 [selection: initial user authentication, [assignment: other services for which trusted path is required] ]
Page 68 of 126
An internal SAM, being an internal local client application, is authenticated by the TOE when
loaded within its physical boundary by verifying its module signature applied with the
CryptoServer CP5 Module Signature Key. In line with Application Notes 6 and 29 from the
PP, the physical protection provided by the TOE is considered a sufficiently trusted path and
no further cryptographic protection is required for the communication between the TOE and
the internal SAM (see also Application Note 1 (ST)).
FTP_TRP.1/External Trusted Path

FTP_TRP.1.1/External The TSF shall provide a communication path between itself and
remote144 external client applications145 that are logically distinct from other
communication paths and provides assured authentication146 of its end points
and protection of the communicated data from modification and disclosure147.
FTP_TRP.1.2/External The TSF shall permit remote external client applications148 to

initiate communication via the trusted path.
FTP_TRP.1.3/External The TSF shall require the use of the trusted path for protecting
the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data exchanged between the
external client application and the TOE over a channel that passes through an
insecure environment 149.

FTP_TRP.1/External must be completed in a Security Target to identify the external client
applications and to reflect the way that the TOE communicates with them, and to justify the
security of this communication path. The word “remote” in FTP_TRP.1.1/External and
FTP_TRP.1.2/External refers to client applications that are described as “external” in the rest
of this PP.
If the TOE does not provide an interface for external client applications, then this SFR is not
applicable and is trivially satisfied. This should be stated in the Security Target.
The TOE may provide other additional channels that provide only authentication and integrity
protection (not confidentiality), in which case other iterations of FTP_TRP.1 may be added in
the ST, allowing the selection of only modification protection in FTP_TRP.1.1 for these
additional iterations.
144 [PP_CMTS] [selection: remote, local]

145 [PP_CMTS] users
146 [PP_CMTS] identification
147 [PP_CMTS] [selection: modification, disclosure, [assignment: other types of integrity or confidentiality
violation]]
148 [selection: the TSF, local users, remote users]
149 [selection: initial user authentication, [assignment: other services for which trusted path is required]
Page 69 of 126
The Security Target shall identify in an application note the iterations of FCS_COP.1 that
provide any cryptographic functions that contribute to the implementation of the trusted path,
and the SFRs that provide the authentication of the end points.

Although non-internal local client applications and remote external client applications may
run in different environments they have to use the identically same trusted communication
mechanism to communicate with the TOE. The following iterations of FCS_COP.1 are used
to create the trusted path and to provide the authentication of its end points:
 FCS_COP.1//Diffie-Hellman
 FCS_COP.1//RSA_Sign
 FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verify
 FCS_COP.1//HMAC
 FCS_COP.1//Hash
7.3.5 Protection of the TSF (FPT)

FPT_STM.1 Reliable time stamps
FPT_STM.1.1 The TSF shall be able to provide reliable time stamps.

The TOE must provide timestamps suitable for supporting the time in an audit record for
FAU_GEN.1. If the TOE provides additional time stamping services for client applications, or
other record of the time of an operation for client applications, then these should be covered
in one or more separate iterations of the SFR, with an Application Note added to define any
specific requirement for reliability of the time information for that service.
FPT_TST_EXT.1 Basic TSF Self Testing

FPT_TST_EXT.1.1 The TSF shall run a suite of the following self-tests during initial start-
up (or power-on or reset) and at the conditions firmware download, PTRNG
request, DRBG request and key pair generation150 to demonstrate the correct
operation of the TSF:
 At initial start-up (or power-on or reset):
o Software/firmware integrity test
o Cryptographic algorithm tests
150
[selection: during initial start-up (on power on), periodically during normal operation, at the request
of the authorised user, at the conditions [assignment: conditions under which self-tests should occur]]
Page 70 of 126
o Critical Functions Tests including memory tests and Random number

generator tests
 At firmware download:
o Firmware download test (via RSA signature verification)
 At each PTRNG request:
o PTRNG online test according to [AIS 20/31] for RNG class PTG.2
 At each DRBG request:
o Conditional DRBG test according to [FIPS 140-2] §4.9.2
 At key pair generation:
o Pair-wise consistency test according to [FIPS 140-2] §4.9.2151.

Completion of the selection in FPT_TST_EXT.1.1 may be by ‘None’ (in which case the ‘and’
preceding the selection should be deleted and no selection text included). Completion of the
list of additional tests in the final assignment may include tests performed at initial start-up (or
power-on) and/or tests run under the conditions specified in the earlier selection and
assignment. The term ‘start-up (or power-on) means that the tests should be executed at
least any time that the TOE is powered-on.
The tests of the cryptographic functions shall include all cryptographic functions covered by
FCS_COP.1. The Operational Guidance shall include a description of the errors that may
arise from self-test and the actions that should be taken in response to each.
FPT_PHP.1 Passive detection of physical attack

FPT_PHP.1.1 The TSF shall provide unambiguous detection of physical tampering

that might compromise the TSF.
FPT_PHP.1.2 The TSF shall provide the capability to determine whether physical
tampering with the TSF’s devices or TSF’s elements has occurred.

Passive detection of a physical attack is typically achieved by using physical seals and an
appropriate physical design of the TOE that allows the TOE administrator to verify the
physical integrity of the TOE as part of a routine inspection procedure.
Because of the requirement for a physically secure environment with regular inspections (cf.
OE.Env), the level of protection (and hence resistance to attack potential) that is required by
the implementation of FPT_PHP.1 for this TOE is equivalent to the physical security
mechanisms for tamper detection and response required by section 7.7.2 Physical security
general requirements and section 7.7.3 Physical security requirements for each physical
security embodiment in ISO/IEC 19790:2012 for Security Level 3. (Cf. refinement of
AVA_VAN.5 in section 7.4.1.)
151 [assignment: list of additional self-tests run by the TSF]
Page 71 of 126
FPT_PHP.3 Resistance to physical attack

FPT_PHP.3.1 The TSF shall resist physical manipulation152 to the entire TOE
components implementing the TSF153 by responding automatically such that
the SFRs are always enforced.

This SFR is linked to the requirements for passive detection of physical attacks in
FPT_PHP.1, and should identify the relevant responses of the TOE involved in meeting the
key zeroisation requirements of ISO/IEC 19790:2012 Security Level 3. As in the case of
FPT_PHP.1, because of the requirement for a physically secure environment with regular
inspections (cf. OE.Env), the level of protection (and hence resistance to attack potential)
that is required by the implementation of FPT_PHP.3 for this TOE is equivalent to the level of
assessment for this aspect of tamper detection and response required for section 7.7.2
Physical security general requirements and section 7.7.3 Physical security requirements by
each physical security embodiment in ISO/IEC 19790:2012 for Security Level 3. (Cf.
refinement of AVA_VAN.5 in section 7.4.1.)
FPT_FLS.1 Failure with preservation of secure state

FPT_FLS.1.1 The TSF shall preserve a secure state when the following types of failures
occur:
1. Self-test according to FPT_TST_EXT.1 fails
2. Environmental conditions are outside normal operating range
(including temperature and power)
3. Failures of critical TOE hardware components (including the
RNG) occur
4. Corruption of TOE software occurs
5. Failures caused by sensitive TOE software components154.

The Operational Guidance shall include a description of the specific failures that are detected
(e.g. the thresholds for environmental conditions, and the nature of the monitoring of specific
critical TOE hardware components), how these failures are notified, and the actions that
should be taken in response to each.
152 [assignment: physical tampering scenarios]

153 [assignment: list of TSF devices/elements]
154 [assignment: list of types of failures in the TSF]
Page 72 of 126
7.3.6 Security Management (FMT)

For the purposes of specifying a minimum set of security attributes of keys, and the
constraints on initialisation and modification of these attributes in FMT_MSA.1 and
FMT_MSA.3, two separate types of keys are defined: Assigned Keys (defined and
recognised by having their ‘Assigned Flag’ attribute set to ‘assigned’), and general keys
(keys that have their ‘Assigned Flag’ attribute set to ‘non-assigned’).
According to the Protection Profile [PP_CMTS] (as well as [PP_CMTS_1.0]), Assigned Keys
represent a type of key that can be more easily mapped to requirements for sole control as
required by [Regulation], because changes to some of their attributes are more tightly
controlled (see FMT_MSA.1/AKeys, and the description of attributes below) and, since they
are intended for use within the TOE, because they cannot be imported or exported155. In
particular, an Administrator cannot avoid the need to provide the current authorisation data in
order to use such a key, nor can an Administrator change the authorisation data (which
would then allow use of the key by the Administrator). This enables a key to be generated
and then to be made an Assigned Key at the point where it is assigned to an individual
signatory or, in the case of a key used for the creation of electronic seals, to a group of key
users156.
In the FMT_MSA SFRs specified for keys by the PP [PP_CMTS], the permitted values of
assignments have been restricted to identify a minimum set of attributes that must be
mapped to their implementation in the TOE, and to specify a minimum set of constraints on
their initialisation and subsequent modification. Additional notes regarding these attributes
are as follows:
 key identifier: this must be sufficient to uniquely identify the key within the system of
which the TOE is a part
 key type: this identifies at a minimum whether the key is a secret key of a symmetric
cryptographic algorithm or the secret (commonly called private) key of an asymmetric
cryptographic algorithm
 authorisation data: value of data that allows the key to be used for cryptographic
operations according to the rules in other SFRs such as FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics,
FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage, and FDP_ACF.1/Backup. Authorisation data is required only for
secret keys
 re-authorisation conditions: the constraints on uses of the key that can be made before
reauthorisation is required according to FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth, and which determines
whether a subject is currently authorised to use a key as in FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage. The
types of secret keys to which re-authorisation conditions apply, and the details of the re-
authorisation conditions for the specific TOE are described in FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth in
section 7.3.2
 key usage: the cryptographic functions that are allowed to use the key as detailed in
FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage
 export flag: indicates whether the key is allowed to be exported (cf.
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics); allowed values are referred to in the PP as ‘true’ (meaning that
155
Assigned Keys may be stored externally in a form that protects the confidentiality and integrity of the
key and the binding of the key to its attributes (in particular the requirements of the SFRs
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics and FDP_SDI.1 apply to externally stored keys), as discussed in [PP_CMTS]
section 1.3.1.
156
Secure operating procedures will be needed in order to ensure that the process from generation to
assignment is suitable for maintaining any requirements for non-repudiation that may apply to the
application context for use of the key (cf. OE.DataContext and the refinement to AGD_OPE.1 in section
7.4.1).
Page 73 of 126
export is allowed) and ‘false’ (meaning that export is not allowed) but may be mapped to
other suitable binary values in the TOE implementation
 assigned flag: indicates whether the key has currently been assigned. Once a key has
been assigned by an Administrator then its authorisation data can only be changed on
successful validation of the current authorisation data – it cannot be changed or reset by
an Administrator – and the key usage attribute cannot be changed; allowed values are
referred to in the PP as ‘assigned’ and ‘non-assigned’ but may be mapped to other
suitable binary values in the TOE implementation.

Dependencies: FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification.
FMT_SMR.1.1 The TSF shall maintain the roles Administrator, Non-internal Local
Client Application, Internal SAM, External Client Application157, Key
User, User Administrator, Key Manager, Security Officer158 159.
FMT_SMR.1.2 The TSF shall be able to associate users with roles.

The Local Client Application role represents an identifiable subject that communicates locally
with the TOE, i.e. within the same hardware appliance. The External Client Application role
represents an identifiable subject that communicates remotely with the TOE over a secure
channel. A TOE can support one or both types of Client Applications.
The Key User role represents a normal, unprivileged subject who can invoke operations on a
key according to the other authorisation requirements for the key – this role may sometimes
act through a client application.

The TOE implements the following roles for the different users:
 Administrator Roles
o User Administrator (user management tasks like creation of users, deletion of
users)
o Administrator (general administration of the CryptoServer like system time
setting, load, update and deletion of firmware)
o Key Manager (key management tasks necessary for the usage of the
CryptoServer like unblocking of blocked keys, key generation, key export and
import, key backup and key restore, key deletion)
o SO (Security Officer) (creating, modifying or deleting key group specific
configuration objects and initiating key groups where he belongs to)
 Key User (uses the CryptoServer for cryptographic operations like signature creation)
 External Client Application (uses the CryptoServer for creating a secure channel; thus
each authenticated user can in addition assume the role External Client Application)
157 [selection: Local Client Application, External Client Application]

158 [assignment: list of additional authorised identified roles]
159 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: the authorised identified roles]
Page 74 of 126
 Local Client Application; two types of local client applications exist:

o An Internal SAM is an internal Local Client Application that runs within the
physical boundary of the TOE and uses the internal TOE interface. It can be
assumed to be sufficiently identified and authenticated (see Application Note 1
(ST)).
o A Non-internal Local Client Application connects to the TOE via the PCIe
interface, it uses the CryptoServer for creating a secure channel; thus each
authenticated user can in addition assume the role Local Client Application.
FMT_SMF.1 Security management functions

FMT_SMF.1.1 The TSF shall be capable of performing the following management

functions:
1. Unblock of access due to authentication or authorisation failures
2. Modifying attributes of keys
3. Export and deletion of the audit data, which can take place only under the
control of the Administrator role
4. backup and restore functions160
5. key import function161
6. key export function162
7. software update function (FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdate)163.

The unblocking of authentication or authorisation failures in FMT_SMF.1.1 (1) is related to
the authentication and authorisation failures described in FIA_AFL.1 (and its iterations). The
attributes of keys in FMT_SMF.1.1 (2) correspond to the attributes in FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys
and FMT_MSA.1/AKeys. Export of audit data in FMT_SMF.1.1 (3) relates to the ability to
export audit data from the TOE for preservation and storage elsewhere. The selections in
FMT_SMF.1.1 (4), (5) and (6) identify whether or not the TOE provides the relevant functions
(and must therefore correspond to the relevant statements in the ST for
FDP_IFF.1.2/KeyBasics, FDP_ACC.1/Backup and FDP_ACF.1/Backup.
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User Management of TSF data

Dependencies: FMT_SMR.1 Security roles
160 [selection: backup and restore functions, no backup and restore functions]
161 [selection: key import function, no key import function]
162 [selection: key export function, no key export function]
163 [assignment: list of management functions to be provided by the TOE]
Page 75 of 126
FMT_MTD.1.1/Unblock//User The TSF shall restrict the ability to unblock164 the any
user account blocked due to consecutive authentication failures165 to User
Administrators166.
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key Management of TSF data

FMT_MTD.1.1/Unblock//Key The TSF shall restrict the ability to unblock167 the any
key blocked due to consecutive authorisation failures168 to Key
Managers169.

The list of TSF data assigned must correspond to the relevant data blocked by authentication
or authorisation failures according to the associated iteration(s) of FIA_AFL.1. For the
purposes of unblocking, the TSF data in the assignment includes any key that can be
affected by blocking due to failure of authorisation (as in FIA_UAU.6), as well as user
accounts (as in FIA_UAU.1) blocked by authentication/authorisation failures.
There is a distinction between administrators authorised to unblock a key and users
authorised to use the key. When unblocking a secret key, the unblocking process must not
allow a subject to use the key other than a subject who is authorised by presentation of the
current authorisation data. For example, an administrator who is able to unblock the key
cannot then use the key as a result of the unblocking (so the unblocking process does not
itself allow the key to be used, nor does it enable the authorisation data to be changed
without proving knowledge of the previous authorisation data). This is a part of ensuring that
sole control of secret keys can be achieved.
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog Management of TSF data

FPT_STM.1 Reliable time stamps
FMT_MTD.1.1/AuditLog The TSF shall restrict the ability to control export and deletion
of170 the audit log records171 to the Administrator, User Administrator, Key
Manager and Security Officer role (for the ability to control export) and to the
164 [PP_CMTS] [selection: change_default, query, modify, delete, clear, [assignment: other operations]]
165 [assignment: list of TSF data]
166 [assignment: the authorised identified administrative roles]
168 [assignment: list of TSF data]
169 [assignment: the authorised identified administrative roles]
171 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: list of TSF data]
Page 76 of 126
Administrator and User Administrator role (for the ability to control deletion of
the audit log records)172.

The control of export and deletion of the audit log records helps to ensure their protection
against accidental or malicious deletion (deletion should normally occur only after the records
have been exported and preserved outside the TOE). Note that this does not require the
Administrator to carry out these export or delete operations manually as long as the actions
are controlled by the Administrator.
FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdate Management of TSF data

FMT_MTD.1.1//SWUpdate The TSF shall restrict the ability to update170 the TSF
executable code stored in the TOE in form of software or firmware171 to the
Administrator role172.
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//AFlag Management of security attributes

Dependencies: [FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control, or
FMT_MSA.1.1/GenKeys//AFlag The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP173 to restrict
174
the ability to modify the security attributes Assigned Flag of any General
(non-Assigned) Key175 to Key Managers, and only to change from non-
Assigned to Assigned176.
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//ExportF Management of security attributes

172 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: the authorised identified roles]

173 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: access control SFP(s), information flow control SFP(s)]
174 [PP_CMTS] [selection: change_default, query, modify, delete, [assignment: other operations]]
175 [assignment: list of security attributes]
176 [assignment: list of subjects, objects, and operations among subjects and objects covered by the
SFP]
Page 77 of 126
FMT_MSA.1.1/GenKeys//ExportF The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP177 to restrict
the ability to modify178 the security attributes Export Flag of any General (non-
Assigned) Key179 to Key Managers, and only to change from ‘true’ (meaning
that export is allowed) to ‘false’ (meaning that export is not allowed)180.
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//AuthD Management of security attributes

FMT_MSA.1.1/GenKeys//AuthD The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP181 to restrict
182
the ability to modify the security attributes Authorisation Data of any General
(non-Assigned) Key183 to any Key User, but only when modification operation
of Authorisation Data includes presentation of current Authorisation Data, or to
Key Managers184.
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//None Management of security attributes

FMT_MSA.1.1/GenKeys//None The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP185 to restrict
186
the ability to modify the security attributes Key ID, Key Type, Re-
Authorisation conditions, Key Usage, Integrity Protection Data of any General
(non-Assigned) Key187 to none (moreover the Re-Authorisation conditions are
SFP]
SFP]
Page 78 of 126
implicit and constant for all keys, and Integrity Protection Data are maintained
automatically by TSF)188.
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//AuthD Management of security attributes

FMT_MSA.1.1/AKeys//AuthD The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP189 to restrict
190
the ability to modify the security attributes Authorisation Data of any
Assigned Key191 to any Key User or Key Manager but only when modification
operation of Authorisation Data includes presentation of current Authorisation
Data192.
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//None Management of security attributes

FMT_MSA.1.1/AKeys//None The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP193 to restrict the
ability to modify194 the security attributes Key ID, Key Type, Re-Authorisation
conditions, Key Usage, Export Flag, Assigned Flag, Integrity Protection Data
of any Assigned Key195 to none (moreover the Re-Authorisation conditions are
implicit and constant for all keys, and Integrity Protection Data are maintained
automatically by TSF)196.

The Key Attributes Modification Table is referenced from FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys, and
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (and all its iterations). The required constraints on security attribute
modification specified in this PP [PP_CMTS] are shown in Table 1Table 3: Key Attribute
SFP]
192
[assignment: list of subjects, objects, and operations among subjects and objects covered by the
SFP]
196
[assignment: list of subjects, objects, and operations among subjects and objects covered by the
SFP]
Page 79 of 126
Modification Table; the Security Target completes the other parts not specified here (along
with any other information for other security attributes relevant to a particular TOE). The
specific attributes used by a particular TOE may vary, but the Security Target must make
clear how control is achieved over the ability to modify attributes of keys in terms of the
specific attributes and controls imposed by the TOE. Where applicable to the operational
environment for a particular TOE, these controls should be described with reference to the
ways that they are used to provide qualified electronic signatures and qualified electronic
seals that meet the requirements of [Regulation] (cf. the refinement to AGD_OPE.1 in section
7.4.1).
Where a TOE does not support one of the individual types of key then the Security Target
states this, and the requirements for that type of key are considered to be trivially satisfied.
Authorisation Data and Re-authorisation conditions are required for secret keys only. Re-
authorisation conditions include the conditions specified for FIA_UAU.6.1/KeyAuth (matching
the assignments and selections made for that SFR in the Security Target).
Key Attribute (MSA.1) Assigned Key General Key

Key ID Cannot be modified Cannot be modified
Key Type Cannot be modified Cannot be modified
Authorisation data Modified only when Modified only when
modification operation modification operation
includes successful includes successful
validation of current (pre- validation of current (pre-
modification) authorisation modification) authorisation
data data, or by an
Administrator
Re-authorisation Cannot be modified -
conditions
Key Usage Cannot be modified -
Export Flag Cannot be modified -
Assigned Flag Cannot be modified Can be modified only by

Administrator, and only to
change from non-Assigned
to Assigned
Integrity Protection Cannot be modified by Cannot be modified by
Data users (maintained users (maintained
automatically by TSF) automatically by TSF)
Table 3: Key Attribute Modification Table197
FMT_MSA.3/Keys Static attribute initialisation

Dependencies: FMT_MSA.1 Management of security attributes
197
It is acceptable for a Security Target to specify more restrictive modification conditions than listed
in this table, but not to specify less restrictive modification conditions. Where no specific condition
is specified (denoted by ‘---‘) then the Security Target is not constrained by this PP, but clearly the
requirements of the system of which the cryptographic module is a part may have more detailed
requirements for a specific deployment (i.e. operational environment).
Page 80 of 126
FMT_MSA.3.1/Keys The TSF shall enforce the Key Usage SFP198 to provide permissive199
default values for security attributes that are used to enforce the SFP.
FMT_MSA.3.2/Keys The TSF shall allow the Key Manager or Internal SAM200 to specify
alternative initial values to override the default values when an object
or information is created.
Key Attribute (MSA.1) Assigned Key General Key

Key ID Initialised by generation Initialised by generation
process process
Key Type Initialised by generation Initialised by generation
process process
Authorisation data Initialised by creator during Initialised by creator
generation during generation
Re-authorisation Initialised by Administrator -
conditions during generation
Key Usage Initialised by creator during -
generation
Export Flag False (i.e. no export -
allowed)
Assigned Flag Initialised by generation Non-Assigned
process
Integrity Protection Initialised automatically by Initialised automatically by
Data TSF TSF
Table 4: Key Attribute Initialisation Table197

The Key Attributes Initialisation Table is referenced from FMT_MSA.3/Keys and matches the
attributes covered by the separate iterations of FMT_MSA.1 above. The required constraints
on security attribute initialisation specified in [PP_CMTS] are shown in Table 2Table 4: Key
Attribute Initialisation Table; the Security Target completes the other parts not specified here
(along with any other information for other security attributes relevant to a particular TOE).
The specific attributes used by a particular TOE may vary, but the Security Target must
make clear how control is achieved over the ability to modify attributes of keys in terms of the
specific attributes and controls imposed by the TOE. Where applicable to the operational
environment for a particular TOE, these controls should be described with reference to the
ways that they are used to provide qualified electronic signatures and qualified electronic
seals that meet the requirements of [Regulation] (cf. the refinement to AGD_OPE.1 in section
7.4.1).
Where a TOE does not support one of the individual types of key then the Security Target
states this, and the requirements for that type of key are considered to be trivially satisfied.
Authorisation Data and Re-authorisation conditions are required for secret keys only, and
only as described in the assignments and selections made in the Security Target for
FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth.
198 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: access control SFP, information flow control SFP]
199 [selection, choose one of: restrictive, permissive, [assignment: other property]]
200 [assignment: the authorised identified roles according to the constraints in the Key Attribute
Initialisation Table]
Page 81 of 126
Attributes assigned by the TOE to any imported keys must be described in the Security
Target and in operational user guidance (see the refinements to AGD_OPE.1 in section
7.4.1), noting that a secret key can only be imported if it is a non-Assigned key (cf.
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics).
The Integrity Protection Data for a key is used to support FDP_SDI.2 and covers not only the
key but also its other attributes.
7.3.7 Security Audit Data Generation (FAU)

FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation
Dependencies: FPT_STM.1 Reliable time stamps
FAU_GEN.1.1 The TSF shall be able to generate an audit record of the following auditable
events:
a) Start-up and shutdown of the audit functions;
b) All auditable events for the not specified201 level of audit; and202
c) Startup of the TOE;
d) Shutdown of the TOE
e) Cryptographic key generation (FCS_CKM.1 (all iterations));
f) Cryptographic key destruction (FCS_CKM.4);
g) Failure of the random number generator (FCS_RND.1);
h) Authentication and authorisation failure handling (FIA_AFL.1 (all
iterations)): all unsuccessful authentication or authorisation attempts,
the reaching of the threshold for the unsuccessful authentication or
authorisation attempts and the blocking actions taken;
i) All attempts to import or export keys (FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics);
j) All modifications to attributes of keys (FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage,
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys and FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (all iterations));
k) Backup and restore (FDP_ACF.1/Backup): use of any backup function,
use of any restore function, unsuccessful restore because of detection
of modification of the backup data;
l) Integrity errors detected for keys (FDP_SDI.2);
m) Failures to establish secure channels (FTP_TRP.1/Local,
FTP_TRP.1/External);
n) Self-test completion (FPT_TST_EXT.1);
o) Failures detected by the TOE (FPT_FLS.1);
p) All administrative actions (FMT_SMF.1, FMT_MSA.1 (all iterations),
FMT_MSA.3/Keys,);
q) Unblocking of access (FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User and
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key);
r) Modifications to audit parameters (affecting the content of the audit log)
(FAU_GEN.1);
201 [PP_CMTS] [selection, choose one of: minimum, basic, detailed, not specified]
202 [PP_CMTS] Levels of audit are not required to be defined in the Security Target.
Page 82 of 126
s) none203.
FAU_GEN.1.2 The TSF shall record within each audit record at least the following
information:
a) Date and time of the event, type of event, subject identity (if
applicable), and the outcome (success or failure) of the event; and
b) For each audit event type, based on the auditable event definitions of
the functional components included in the PP/ST:
 none204.

The Security Target is not required to identify separate levels of audit in FAU_GEN.1.1.
However, the Operational Guidance is required to describe any configuration or other actions
that apply to audit functions, and to make clear, in cases where logging of particular audit
events is optional, how to ensure that any individual audit event is logged. Default logging
actions of the TOE must also be described in Operational Guidance.
The Administrative Actions logged need not be limited to those related to FMT SFRs: other
administrative actions affecting the operation of SFRs should also be included (and listed as
part of the assignment in FAU_GEN.1.1).
FAU_GEN.2 User identity association

Dependencies: FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation
FAU_GEN.2.1 For audit events resulting from actions of identified users, the TSF shall be
able to associate each auditable event with the identity of the user that
caused the event.
FAU_STG.2 Guarantees of audit data availability
Hierarchical to: FAU_STG.1 Protected audit trail storage

Dependencies: FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation
FAU_STG.2.1 The TSF shall protect the stored audit records in the audit trail from
unauthorised deletion.
FAU_STG.2.2 The TSF shall be able to prevent205 unauthorised modifications to the stored
audit records in the audit trail.
FAU_STG.2.3 The TSF shall ensure that all206 stored audit records will be maintained when
the following conditions occur: audit storage exhaustion207.
203 [assignment: other specifically defined auditable events]

204 [assignment: other audit relevant information]
205 [selection, choose one of: prevent, detect]
206 [PP_CMTS] [assignment: metric for saving audit records]
207 [PP_CMTS] [selection: audit storage exhaustion, failure, attack]
Page 83 of 126

The Operational Guidance is required to describe any use that the TOE makes of an external
audit server, the situation regarding records held locally on the TOE and those held
externally on an audit server (e.g. the TOE might accumulate records locally before
transferring them to an external audit server), and the way in which audit records are
maintained when local audit storage is exhausted (including description of the actions taken
by the TOE when audit storage exhaustion is detected). The Operational Guidance shall
describe the protection applicable to all records created by the TOE (in order to provide
prevention or detection of unauthorised modifications as in FAU_STG.2.2), and shall identify
any obligations for the environment in maintaining audit trail protection. The expectation is
that this will comprise cryptographic methods of prevention or detection of unauthorised
modification (including deletion) of audit records.
Control over export and deletion of the audit log records is limited to the Administrator role as
specified in FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog.
7.4 Security Assurance Requirements

The security assurance requirement level is EAL4 augmented with AVA_VAN.5. The
assurance components are identified in the table below (with augmentations in bold). It is
noted that due to the physically protected environment in which the TOE operates (as
expressed in OE.Env), it is unlikely that physical attacks will be within the scope of an
evaluation against this PP.
Assurance Class Assurance Components

Security Target (ASE) ST introduction (ASE_INT.1)
Conformance claims (ASE_CCL.1)
Security problem definition (ASE_SPD.1)
Security objectives (ASE_OBJ.2)
Extended components definition (ASE_ECD.1)
Derived security requirements (ASE_REQ.2)
TOE summary specification (ASE_TSS.1)
Development (ADV) Security architecture description (ADV_ARC.1)
Complete functional specification (ADV_FSP.4)
Basic modular design (ADV_TDS.3)
Implementation representation of the TSF
(ADV_IMP.1)
Guidance documents (AGD) Operational user guidance (AGD_OPE.1)
Preparative procedures (AGD_PRE.1)
Life cycle support (ALC) Production support, acceptance procedures and
automation (ALC_CMC.4)
Problem tracking CM coverage (ALC_CMS.4)
Delivery procedures (ALC_DEL.1)
Identification of security measures (ALC_DVS.1)
Developer defined life-cycle model (ALC_LCD.1)
Well-defined development tools (ALC_TAT.1)
Tests (ATE) Functional testing (ATE_FUN.1)
Analysis of coverage (ATE_COV.2)
Testing: basic design (ATE_DPT.1)
Independent testing – sample (ATE_IND.2)
Page 84 of 126
Assurance Class Assurance Components

Vulnerability assessment (AVA) Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis
(AVA_VAN.5)
Table 5: Security Assurance Requirements
7.4.1 Refinement of Security Assurance Requirements

The following refinements are made to selected assurance requirements in Table 5:
ADV_ARC.1 Security architecture description
Refinement:
The following specific topics must be addressed as part of ADV_ARC.1 for this Protection
Profile. It is acceptable for references to deliverables supplied for other assurance families,
such as ADV_FSP, to be used to meet these requirements, provided that the relationship of
the relevant interface specifications to the concepts in the Protection Profile is clear. Note
that in some cases, the requirement for description of these particular aspects under
ADV_ARC is intended to make clear any differences between the full capabilities of the
product and the scope of the Security Target.
(1) In general cryptographic modules will make use of ‘support keys’ as part of their
implementation of protection mechanisms, where these keys are generally not held on
behalf of specific users208 or client applications, but are used by the TOE to carry out its
normal operations and as part of the implementation mechanism other SFRs and to
protect the TSF itself. These support keys may be used for a variety of purposes
(including aspects such as authentication, authorisation, secure channels, security of
external storage, or internal data protection), For the purposes of this PP, support keys
used by the TOE are treated as TSF data, and require a specific security rationale to be
included as part of the ADV_ARC.1 deliverables. This rationale must include a
description of the key architecture, identifying all support keys used by the TOE (at least
in its evaluated configuration), their method of generation and storage, their purpose in
TOE operation, and the ways in which they are protected so as to support the
requirements of FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics and FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage (noting that the
mechanisms used for support keys may differ from those used for user keys). Examples
would be keys used for wrapping user keys in order to allow secure storage of the user
keys, keys used to implement secure channels, and keys used to protect backups. The
description must demonstrate that sufficient entropy has been used in the generation of
each support key, and the source of that entropy. The rationale must demonstrate that
these support keys cannot be exported/imported in a way that threatens the secure
operation of the TOE. The evaluator shall include the description of the support keys in
their analysis of the protection of user data (e.g. to confirm that it does not introduce
vulnerabilities in the implementation of the SFRs).
(2) If updates to the TOE software or firmware are supported then the ADV_ARC.1
deliverables must describe how the TOE is protected against unauthorised updates, by
208
Some support keys may be seen as being held on behalf of administrators, but the main intention of
distinguishing support keys and user keys is for the ADV_ARC.1 deliverables to describe all the different
types of key available, their properties, and their relationship to the SFRs in this Protection Profile.
Page 85 of 126
using digital signatures. This shall be confirmed by evaluator testing (if updates are
supported) to confirm that updates with invalid signatures are rejected without being
executed. The digital signature algorithms used to protect updates shall be included in
the scope of FCS_COP.1 signature SFR(s).
(3) The ADV_ARC.1 deliverables must in particular describe

a. Any use that the TOE makes of an audit server
b. The locations used for any externally stored keys and the structure and format of the
externally stored keys including the cryptographic structures that protect the keys in
their externally stored form, and that bind them to their attributes (support keys are
separately addressed by the description required in item 1 above)
c. All key import and/or export functions and the secure channels that they use
d. The secure channels supported by the TOE and the authentication mechanisms that
they use (cf. FTP_TRP.1/Local & FTP_TRP.1/External)
e. All local and external interfaces used for communications with users, client
applications, audit data, and stored TOE data (cf. [PP_CMTS] Figure 1)
f. The specific key attributes supported, their method of representation (e.g. the
relevant data structures and permitted values) and the method by which they are
bound to the corresponding key value (cf. FMT_MSA.1 (all iterations)) This also
includes identifying the types of keys (if any) that support re-authorisation conditions
described in FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth
g. The user types and roles supported, the interfaces by which they interact with the
TOE (e.g. a local administrator console or an externally available API), the
authentication methods used (cf. FIA_UAU.1 and Application Note 17 (PP)), and any
privileges available to the user type/role
h. All of the cryptographic functions provided (cf. [PP_CMTS] section 1.3.1.1) and
whether any non-endorsed cryptographic algorithms and/or cryptographic functions
are available (cf. FCS_COP.1 (all iterations) and [PP_CMTS] section 1.3.1.3)
i. The authorisation methods used for keys (cf. FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth &
FDP_ACC.1/KeyUsage)
j. Description of the way in which the TOE ensures that it only holds authorisation data
for the minimum time possible before de-allocating it according to FDP_RIP.1
k. If the TOE provides backup operations then the ADV_ARC deliverables shall
describe the use of support keys by the backup and restore processes (cf.
FDP_ACF.1/Backup), and in particular shall describe the ways in which confidentiality
and integrity of the backup are provided, and the way in which the TOE rejects an
attempt to carry out a restore process using backup data that has been modified
l. Any mechanisms that the TOE uses to support dual person control (cf.
FDP_ACF.1/Backup).
AGD_OPE.1 Operational user guidance
Refinement:
The following specific topics must be addressed as part of the Operational Guidance for the
TOE:
1. The specific ways in which the TOE needs to be configured and used in order to
provide qualified electronic signatures and qualified electronic seals that meet the
Page 86 of 126
requirements of [Regulation]. This includes ways in which the TOE can ensure that the
signatory can, with high level of confidence, have sole control over the use of the
secret key that acts as his/her signature creation data. Thus, for example, it may be
necessary for client applications to use TOE interfaces according to certain guidance in
order to correctly implement the requirements on attributes of keys as described in this
PP. It may be necessary for the TOE to define ways in which secret keys to be used for
signing purposes can be created in a way that does not allow subsequent modification
of some or all of their attributes, e.g. by an administrator, before they are assigned to
the signatory (cf. FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (all iterations)). The intention of this aspect of the
operational user guidance documentation is to identify the configuration and secure
use required for a particular TOE, and how it is necessary to connect this with other
aspects such as procedural controls and client applications in the operational
environment.
The evaluators shall test the identified ways of using the TOE for qualified electronic
signatures and qualified electronic seals to demonstrate that the description in the
Operational Guidance is suitably complete, and that the keys produced by following the
Operational Guidance do indeed meet the requirements of requirements of
[Regulation], Annex II & Annex III], for qualified electronic signatures and qualified
electronic seals.
2. The use of trusted channels (cf. FTP_TRP.1/Local & FTP_TRP.1/External).
3. The available key attributes, their possible values, and the meaning of each of these
values (cf. FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys and FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (all iterations)), including
their use to constrain the period and number of uses that are enabled by authorisation
of a key (cf. FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth and Application Note 19 (PP)).
4. Identification of any non-endorsed cryptographic algorithms and/or cryptographic
functions that are available (cf. FCS_COP.1 (all iterations) and [PP_CMTS] section
1.3.1.3).
5. Identification of any other cryptographic algorithms and operations that are not included
in the scope of the Security Target.
6. Possible errors from the self-test process and the actions that should be taken in
response to each (cf. FPT_TST_EXT.1 & Application Note 32 (PP)).
7. Specific failures detected by the TOE (cf. FPT_FLS.1 & Application Note 35 (PP)).
8. Audit functions and their configuration (including specification of the available audit
records), along with any other actions that are associated with audit functions (e.g.
archiving or viewing audit records, or use of an external audit server) (cf. FAU_GEN.1
& Application Note 42 (PP), FAU_STG.2 & Application Note 41 (PP),
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog & Application Note 39 (PP)).
9. Any configuration and operation requirements for dual-control operations (cf.
FDP_ACF.1/Backup).
10. If backup is provided by the TOE (cf. FDP_ACF.1/Backup), then the Operational
Guidance shall describe the backup and restore functions, and the administrator roles
that are required to carry them out.
11. If key import is provided by the TOE, then the Operational Guidance shall describe how
attributes are defined for any imported keys (cf. FMT_MSA.3/Keys). The evaluators
shall test the import process to demonstrate that the description in the Operational
Guidance is suitably complete, and that the keys imported have attributes appropriately
defined. Similarly, if key export is provided by the TOE then the Operational Guidance
shall describe whether attributes are exported with keys (and if so, then how the
attributes are represented and associated with the exported key), and the evaluators
Page 87 of 126
shall test the export process to demonstrate that the description in the Operational
Guidance is suitably complete, and that the handling of attributes is as described.
12. The Operational Guidance must contain explicit guidance for the developer of an
internal SAM how to invoke the internal TOE interface without compromising the TOE
security functionality. It must be validated in the course of the eIDAS evaluation of the
SAM that the internal SAM follows all these rules.
ATE_IND.2 Independent testing – sample
Refinement:
The following specific topics must be addressed as part of the independent testing of the
TOE:
1. The evaluator shall execute the electronic signature and electronic seal operations
provided by the TOE and shall confirm that the signatures and seals returned by the
TOE correspond to the correct DTBS.
2. If software and/or firmware updates are supported by the TOE, then the evaluator shall
carry out tests to ensure that only updates with valid digital signatures can be installed
on the TOE.
AVA_VAN.5 Advanced methodical vulnerability analysis
Refinement:
Regarding the protection of the TOE against physical attacks: because of the requirement for
a physically secure environment with regular inspections (cf. OE.Env), the level of protection
(and hence resistance to attack potential) that is required by the implementation of
FPT_PHP.1 and FPT_PHP.3 for this TOE is equivalent to the level of assessment for this
aspect of tamper detection and response in section 7.7.2 Physical security general
requirements and section 7.7.3 Physical security requirements for each physical security
embodiment in ISO/IEC 19790:2012 for Security Level 3.
Page 88 of 126
Rationales
8 Rationales
8.1 Security Objectives Rationale

8.1.1 Security Objectives Rationale
The table below shows the mapping of Threats, Organisational Security Policies and
Assumptions to Security Objectives for the TOE and for the TOE Environment.
OT.KeyUseConstraint
OT.KeyUseScope
OT.TamperDetect
OT.PlainKeyConf
OT.FailureDetect
OE.AuditSupport
OE.ExternalData
OT.ImportExport
.OT.KeyIntegrity
OE.Datacontext
OE.AppSupport
OT.Algorthms
OT.DataConf
OT.DataMod
OT.Backup
OE.Uauth
OT.Audit
OT.RNG
OT.Auth
OE.Env
T.KeyDisclose X X X X X X X X
T.KeyDerive X X
T.KeyMod X X X X
T.KeyMisuse X X
T.KeyOveruse X
T.DataDisclose X X X
T.DataMod X X X
T.Malfunction X
P.Algorithm X
P.KeyControl X X X X X X X
P.RNG X
P.Audit X
A.ExternalData X
A.Env X
A.DataContext X
A.AppSupport X
A.UAuth X
A.AuditSupport X
Table 6: Security Problem Definition mapping to Security Objectives
Page 89 of 126
Rationales
8.1.2 Security Objectives Sufficiency

The following paragraphs describe the rationale for the sufficiency of the Security Objectives
relative to the Threats, OSPs and Assumptions.
8.1.2.1 Threats
T.KeyDisclose is addressed by the requirement in OT.PlainKeyConf to keep plaintext secret
keys unavailable, and this is supported in terms of controls over key attributes (which might
threaten the confidentiality of the key if modified) in OT.KeyIntegrity. The confidentiality of
secret keys that are exported is protected partly by the use of a secure channel as described
in OT.DataConf and the requirements for import and export in OT.ImportExport (including the
requirement to export secret keys only in encrypted form, or to be able to exclude the export
of a key entirely). Physical tamper protection of the keys is provided by OT.TamperDetect
(supported by an appropriate inspection procedure as required in OE.Env). Protection of
secret key confidentiality during backup is ensured by OT.Backup. The environment also
contributes to maintaining secret key confidentiality by protecting any versions of a secret
key that may exist outside the TOE, as in OE.ExternalData, and by protecting the operation
of the TOE itself by providing a secure environment, as in OE.Env.
T.KeyDerive is addressed by the choice of algorithms that have been endorsed for the
appropriate purposes, and this is described in OT.Algorithms. Where keys are generated by
the TOE then the use of a suitable random number generator is required by OT.RNG in order
to mitigate the risk that an attacker can guess or deduce the key value.
T.KeyMod is addressed by requiring integrity protection of secret and public keys, and their
critical attributes in OT.KeyIntegrity, and by requiring use of secure channels that protect
integrity if a key is imported or exported (OT.ImportExport). Protection of key integrity during
backup is ensured by OT.Backup. Physical tamper protection of the keys is provided by
OT.TamperDetect (supported by an appropriate inspection procedure as required in
OE.Env).
T.KeyMisuse raises the possibility of a secret key being used for an unintended and
unauthorised purpose, and is addressed by the requirement in OT.Auth for the TOE to carry
out an authorisation check before using a secret key. OT.KeyUseConstraint expands on this
to set out requirements for the granularity of authorisation.
T.KeyOveruse is concerned with the possibility that more uses may be made of an
authorised key than were intended, and this is addressed by the requirements of
OT.KeyUseScope which requires that the TOE allows a user to define specific values for the
number of uses, or the time period of use, of a key that an authorisation allows.
T.DataDisclose is concerned with the transmission of data between client applications and
the TOE, or between separate parts of the TOE where the transmission passes through an
insecure environment. This is addressed by OT.DataConf, which requires the TOE to provide
secure channels to protect such communications. The appropriate use of such channels is a
requirement for the environment as expressed in OE.DataContext, as is the use of
appropriate procedures in OE.AppSupport.
T.DataMod is concerned with the possibility of unauthorised modification of data transmitted

between a client application and the TOE, and this is addressed by OT.DataMod which
requires that the TOE provides secure channels that can be used to protect the integrity of
Page 90 of 126
Rationales
data that they carry. As with T.DataDisclose, the appropriate use of such channels is a
requirement for the environment as expressed in OE.DataContext, as is the use of
appropriate procedures in OE.AppSupport.
T.Malfunction is addressed by the requirement in OT.FailureDetect for the TOE to detect

certain types of fault.
8.1.2.2 Organisational Security Policies

P.Algorithms requires the use of key generation and other cryptographic functions that are
endorsed by appropriate authorities, and this is addressed by OT.Algorithms.
P.KeyControl requires that the TOE can provide controls and support a key lifecycle to
ensure that secret keys can be reliably protected against use by those other than the owner
of the key, and that the keys can be confined to use for certain cryptographic functions. This
is addressed by a combination of TOE objectives as follows:
 OT.PlainKeyConf protects the value of the secret key to prevent the possibility of it
being used by unauthorised subjects
 OT.Algorithms ensures that endorsed algorithms that employ and support suitable
properties and procedures are provided by the TOE
 OT.Auth, OT.KeyUseConstraint and OT.KeyUseScope ensure that the TOE can
provide welldefined limits on the use of a key when it is authorised (as described
above for T.KeyMisuse and T.KeyOveruse)
 OT.ImportExport and OT.Backup ensure protection of keys when they are transmitted
outside
 the TOE to client applications or for backup purposes, including the prevention of
export of Assigned Keys.
P.Audit requires the TOE to provide an audit trail and this is addressed directly by OT.Audit
(which includes protection of the audit records).
8.1.2.3 Assumptions
Each of the Assumptions in section 3.5 is directly matched by a security objective for the
operational environment in section 4.2. The wording of each objective for the operational
environment includes the wording of each assumption, and no further rationale is therefore
given here.
8.2 Security Requirements Rationale

8.2.1 Security Requirements Coverage
The table below summarises the mapping of Security Objectives for the TOE to SFRs.
Page 91 of 126
Rationales
OT.KeyUseConstraint
OT.KeyUseScope
OT.TamperDetect
OT.PlainKeyConf
OT.FailureDetect
OT.ImportExport
OT.KeyIntegrity
OT.Algorithms
OT.DataConf
OT.DataMod
OT.Backup
OT.Audit
OT.RNG
OT.Auth
FCS_CKM.1//AES X
FCS_CKM.1//RSA X
FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA X
FCS_CKM.4 X
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_CBC X
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_OFB X
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_CBC X
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_OFB X
FCS_COP.1//AES_CMAC X
FCS_COP.1//AES_ECB X
FCS_COP.1//AES_GCM X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Sign X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verify X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Encryption X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Decryption X
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Sign X
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Verify X
FCS_COP.1//HMAC X
FCS_COP.1//Hash X
FCS_COP.1//Diffie-Hellman X
FCS_COP.1//KeyDerivation X
FCS_RNG.1 X
Page 92 of 126
Rationales
OT.KeyUseConstraint
OT.KeyUseScope
OT.TamperDetect
OT.PlainKeyConf
OT.FailureDetect
OT.ImportExport
OT.KeyIntegrity
OT.Algorithms
OT.DataConf
OT.DataMod
OT.Backup
OT.Audit
OT.RNG
OT.Auth
FIA_UID.1 X
FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth X
FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth X
FIA_AFL.1//UserAuth X
FIA_AFL.1//KeyAuth X
FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth X X
FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics X X X
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics X X X X
FDP_ACC.1/Key_Usage X X
FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage X X
FDP_ACC.1/Backup X
FDP_ACF.1/Backup X
FDP_SDI.2 X
FDP_RIP.1 X X
FTP_TRP.1/LOCAL X X X X X
FTP_TRP.1/External X X X X X
FPT_STM.1 X
FPT_TST_EXT.1 X
FPT_PHP.1 X
FPT_PHP.3 X
FPT_FLS.1 X
FMT_SMR.1 X X
Page 93 of 126
Rationales
OT.KeyUseConstraint
OT.KeyUseScope
OT.TamperDetect
OT.PlainKeyConf
OT.FailureDetect
OT.ImportExport
OT.KeyIntegrity
OT.Algorithms
OT.DataConf
OT.DataMod
OT.Backup
OT.Audit
OT.RNG
OT.Auth
FMT_SMF.1 X X
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User X
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key X
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog X
FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdate X
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//AFlag X
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//ExportF X
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//AuthD X
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//None X
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//AuthD X
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//None X
FMT_MSA.3/Keys X
FAU_GEN.1 X
FAU_GEN.2 X
FAU_STG.2 X
Table 7: TOE Security Objectives mapping to SFRs
OT.PlainKeyConf is addressed by the requirements in the Key Basics SFP defined in

FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics and FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics (especially FDP_IFF.1.5/KeyBasics).
Secure destruction of keys according to FCS_CKM.4 protects the key value at the end of its
lifetime. FDP_RIP.1 protects secret keys from being accessed after they have been
deallocated.
OT.Algorithms is addressed by the need to use endorsed standards for FCS_COP.1 (cf.
Application Note 14 (PP)) and the use of an appropriate random number generator in
FCS_CKM.1. Note that the refinements to assurance components in section 7.4.1 also
specify requirements that ensure clear documentation of endorsed and non-endorsed
algorithms and functions provided by the TOE.
Page 94 of 126
Rationales
OT.KeyIntegrity is addressed primarily by FDP_SDI.2 which requires integrity protection of

keys and their attributes by the TOE. FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics requires that any importing or
exporting of keys requires the use of secure channels and integrity protection (cf. the
requirement for an integrity protected channel as part of FTP_TRP.1/Local and
FTP_TRP.1/External, which is linked to the Key Basics SFP by Application Note 20 (PP)
under FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics
OT.Auth is addressed by FIA_UID.1, FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth, and FIA_AFL.1//UserAuth for

user authentication (with FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User, FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key,
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog, FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdate and its dependencies on FMT_SMR.1 and
FMT_SMF.1 ensuring that appropriate roles and unblocking for authorisation and
authentication failures are also provided). Authorisation for external client applications is
provided by the requirements for authentication of endpoints in FTP_TRP.1/Local and
FTP_TRP.1/External. Authorisation for access to a secret key is additionally addressed by
FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth, FIA_AFL.1//KeyAuth and FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth.
OT.KeyUseConstraint is addressed by the requirements for well-defined (and securely

initialised) key attributes in FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys (all iterations), FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (and all
its iterations), and FMT_MSA.3/Keys, and the application of the attributes to operate
constraints on the use of keys in FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics, FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics,
FDP_ACC.1/KeyUsage and FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage. FDP_RIP.1 protects authorisation data
(which enables a key to be used) from being accessed after it has been deallocated.
OT.KeyUseScope is addressed by the Key Usage SFP in FDP_ACC.1/KeyUsage and

FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage and by the constraints on time period or number of uses since the
last authorisation for use of a secret key required by FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth.
OT.DataConf is addressed by the authentication and confidentiality requirements for secure

channels in FTP_TRP.1/Local and FTP_TRP.1/External.
OT.DataMod is addressed by the authentication and integrity requirements for secure

channels in FTP_TRP.1/Local and FTP_TRP.1/External.
OT.ImportExport is addressed by the requirements for the use of secure import/export

through a secure channel and restrictions on how keys are imported and exported to protect
confidentiality and integrity in the Key Basics SFP in FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics and
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics, the requirements on the secure channels themselves in
FTP_TRP.1/Local and FTP_TRP.1/External.
OT.Backup separates out the requirements for any backup and restore properties that the
TOE may provide and is addressed directly by the Backup SFP in FDP_ACC.1/Backup and
FDP_ACF.1/Backup.
OT.RNG is addressed by the requirement in FCS_RNG.1 for a random number generator of

an appropriate type, which meets appropriate randomness metrics.
OT.TamperDetect is addressed by the requirement for passive tamper detection in

FPT_PHP.1 and the tamper response mechanisms in FPT_PHP.3.
OTFailureDetect is addressed by the self-test requirements of FPT_TST_EXT.1 and secure

failure requirements of FPT_FLS.1.
Page 95 of 126
Rationales
OT.Audit is addressed in terms of basic creation of audit records by the requirements for
audit record generation in FAU_GEN.1 and FAU_GEN.2 and provision of timestamps for use
in audit records in FPT_STM.1. Protection of the audit trail is ensured by FAU_STG.2,
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog and FMT_SMF.1. Support for the Administrator role that controls
export and deletion of audit records from the TOE is required by FMT_SMR.1.
8.2.2 SFR Dependencies

The dependencies between SFRs are addressed as shown in the table below. Where a
dependency is not met in the manner defined in [CC2] then a rationale is provided for why
the dependency is unnecessary or else met in some other way.
No. SFR Dependency Dependency satisfied by
FCS Cryptographic Support
1. FCS_CKM.1//AES [FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic key FCS_COP.1//AES_*

distribution or
FCS_CKM.4
FCS_CKM.4 Cryptographic key
destruction
2. FCS_CKM.1//RSA [FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic key FCS_COP.1//RSA_*

distribution or
FCS_CKM.4
destruction
3. FCS_CKM.1//ECD [FCS_CKM.2 Cryptographic key FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_*

SA distribution or
FCS_CKM.4
destruction
4.
[FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without FCS_CKM.1//AES
FCS_CKM.4
security attributes, or FCS_CKM.1//RSA
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with
FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA
security attributes, or
generation]
5.
FCS_COP.1//AES_
security attributes, or FCS_CKM.4
Encryption_CBC
generation]
destruction
6.
FCS_COP.1//AES_
Encryption_OFB
Page 96 of 126
Rationales

generation]
destruction
7.
FCS_COP.1//AES_
Decryption_CBC
generation]
destruction
8.
FCS_COP.1//AES_
Decryption_OFB
generation]
destruction
9.
FCS_COP.1//AES_
CMAC
generation]
destruction
10.
FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without FCS_CKM.1//AES
FCS_COP.1//AES_
ECB
generation]
destruction
11.
FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without FCS_CKM.1//AES
FCS_COP.1//AES_
GCM
generation]
destruction
12.
[FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without FCS_CKM.1//RSA
FCS_COP.1//RSA_
Sign
Page 97 of 126
Rationales

generation]
destruction
13.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_
Verify
generation]
destruction
14.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_
Encryption
generation]
destruction
15.
FCS_COP.1//RSA_
Decryption
generation]
destruction
16.
[FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA
FCS_COP.1//ECD
SA_Sign
generation]
destruction
17.
[FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA
FCS_COP.1//ECD
SA_Verify
generation]
destruction
18.
[FDP_ITC.1 Import of user data without FCS_CKM.1
FCS_COP.1//HMA
security attributes, or Cryptographic key
C
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with generation; not relevant
security attributes, or because a hash function
FCS_CKM.1 Cryptographic key does not use any
generation] cryptographic key. No
Page 98 of 126
Rationales

FCS_CKM.4 Cryptographic key key generation can be
destruction expected here.
FCS_CKM.4
Cryptographic key
destruction
19.
FCS_COP.1//Hash
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with generation: not relevant
security attributes, or because a hash function
FCS_CKM.1 Cryptographic key does not use any
generation] cryptographic key. No
FCS_CKM.4 Cryptographic key key generation can be
destruction expected here.
FCS_CKM.4
Cryptographic key
destruction: not relevant
because a hash function
does not use any
cryptographic key. No
key destruction can be
expected here.
20.
FCS_COP.1//Diffie-
Hellman
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with generation
FCS_CKM.1 Cryptographic key Cryptographic key
generation] destruction
destruction
21.
FCS_COP.1//KeyD
erivation
FDP_ITC.2 Import of user data with generation
FCS_CKM.1 Cryptographic key Cryptographic key
generation] destruction
destruction
22. FCS_RNG.1 No dependencies. n.a.
FIA Identification and authentication
23. FIA_UID.1 No dependencies. n.a.
24. FIA_UAU.1//UserA FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification FIA_UID.1

uth
25. FIA_UAU.1//KeyAu FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification FIA_UID.1

th
Page 99 of 126
Rationales
26. FIA_AFL.1//UserAu FIA_UAU.1 Timing of authentication FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth

th
27. FIA_AFL.1//KeyAut FIA_UAU.1 Timing of authentication FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth

h
28. FIA_UAU.6/KeyAut No dependencies n.a.

h
FDP User data protection
29. FDP_IFC.1/KeyBas FDP_IFF.1 Simple security attributes FDP_IFF.1/ KeyBasic

ics
30.
FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow FDP_IFC.1/ KeyBasics
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBas
control FMT_MSA.3/Keys
ics
31.
FDP_ACF.1 Security attribute based FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage
FDP_ACC.1/Key_U
access control
sage
32.
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control FDP_ACC.1/KeyUsage
FDP_ACF.1/KeyUs
FMT_MSA.3 Static attribute initialisation FMT_MSA.3/Keys
age
33.
FDP_ACF.1 Security attribute based FDP_ACF.1/Backup
FDP_ACC.1/Backu
access control
pl
34.
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control FDP_ACC.1/Backup
FDP_ACF.1/Backu
FMT_MSA.3 Static attribute initialisation The dependency on
p
FMT_MSA.3 is not
relevant in this case
since the attribute used
in FDP_ACF.1/Backup
is determined by the
ability of the user to
authenticate as an
administrator according
to
FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth.
35. FDP_SDI.2 No dependencies n.a.
36. FDP_RIP.1 No dependencies n.a.
TRP Trusted path/channels
37. FTP_TRP.1/Local No dependencies n.a.
38. FTP_TRP.1/Extern No dependencies n.a.

al
Page 100 of 126

Rationales
FPT Protection of the TSF
39. FPT_STM.1 No dependencies n.a.
40. FPT_TST_EXT.1 No dependencies n.a.
41. FPT_PHP.1 No dependencies n.a.
42. FPT_PHP.3 No dependencies n.a.
43. FPT_FLS.1 No dependencies n.a.
FMT Security management
44. FMT_SMR.1 FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification. FIA_UID.1
45. FMT_SMF.1 No dependencies n.a.
46.
FMT_SMR.1 Security roles FMT_SMR.1
FMT_MTD.1/Unblo
FMT_SMF.1 Specification of Management FMT_SMF.1
ck//User
Functions
47.
FMT_MTD.1/Unblo
ck//Key
Functions
48.
FMT_MTD.1/AuditL
og
Functions
49.
FMT_MTD.1//SWU
pdate
Functions
50.
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control, or FDP_ACC.1/Key_Usage
FMT_MSA.1/GenK
FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics
eys (all iterations)
control] FMT_SMR.1
FMT_SMR.1 Security roles FMT_SMF.1
FMT_SMF.1 Specification of Management
Functions
51.
FDP_ACC.1 Subset access control, or FDP_ACC.1/Key_Usage
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys
FDP_IFC.1 Subset information flow FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics
(all iterations)
control] FMT_SMR.1
FMT_SMR.1 Security roles FMT_SMF.1
FMT_SMF.1 Specification of Management
Functions
FMT_MSA.1 Management of security FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys (all
52. FMT_MSA.3/Keys
attributes iterations)
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (all
iterations)
FMT_SMR.1
Page 101 of 126

Rationales
FAU Security audit data generation
53. FAU_GEN.1 FPT_STM.1 Reliable time stamps FPT_STM.1
54.
FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation FAU_GEN.1
FAU_GEN.2
FIA_UID.1 Timing of identification FIA_UID.1
55.
FAU_GEN.1
FAU_STG.2 FAU_GEN.1 Audit data generation
Table 8: SFR Dependencies Rationale
Key attributes during import or export: the TOE may allow import or export of keys according
to the rules in FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics. For keys that may be imported or exported, the TOE
does not place any specific requirements on whether attributes are imported and exported
with keys. However, the refinement to AGD_OPE.1 in section 7.4.1 requires that the
behaviour of the TOE in this situation is described in documentation, and that the evaluators
confirm the behaviour that is documented. Application Note 41 (PP) (for FMT_MSA.1) also
requires that the initialisation of any attributes on import is described in the Security Target.
8.2.3 Rationale for SARs

The assurance level for the chosen protection profile is EAL4 augmented with AVA_VAN.5.
EAL4 allows a developer to attain a reasonably high assurance level without the need for
highly specialised processes and practices. It is considered to be the highest level that could
be applied to an existing product line without undue expense and complexity. As such, EAL4
is appropriate for commercial products that can be applied to moderate to high security
functions.
The TOE described in the protection profile is just such a product. Augmentation results from
the selection of AVA_VAN.5. All the dependencies of AVA_VAN.5 are satisfied by other
assurance components in the EAL4 assurance package.
8.2.4 AVA_VAN.5 Advanced Methodical Vulnerability Analysis

The TOE generates, uses and manages the highly sensitive data in the form of secret keys,
at least some of which may be used as signature creation data. The protection of these keys
and associated security of their attributes and use in cryptographic operations can only be
ensured by the TOE itself. While the TOE environment is intended to protect against physical
attacks, a high level of protection against logical attacks (especially those that might be
carried out remotely) is also necessary, and is therefore addressed by augmenting
vulnerability analysis to deal with High attack potential.
Page 102 of 126

TOE Summary Specification
9 TOE Summary Specification

This chapter describes how the TOE will realise the SFRs which are defined in chapter 7.3.
For that purpose, the TOE Security Functionality (TSF) will be described by means of a set of
security functions (SF.XXX) implemented by the TOE. This detailed description and analysis
of the TSF demonstrates how the defined security functions of the TOE work together and
support each other. Furthermore, it shows that no inconsistencies exist. Each SFR is
implemented by at least one security function. For all SFRs an explanation is given, why and
how the defined security functions of the TOE meet the respective SFRs. The given mapping
of the SFRs and the security functions of the TOE at the end of this chapter should be
considered as an overview and a guidance.
9.1 SF.USER_AUTH: User Authentication

The use of any of the security-relevant services of the TOE is not possible without user
authentication. Only if a defined authentication status has been obtained then the TOE
services can be realised; here the necessary user authentication status depends from the
individual service. Command authentication can only be done by subjects (so-called users)
which have to be registered at the TOE before.
At registration, together with the user’s name (Identity), his permission (Role), authentication
mechanism, the reference authentication data (RAD: public key or password, depending on
the authentication mechanism) and further attributes will be stored in the user database of
the TOE. Only the RAD may be changed later, all other user attributes cannot be changed.
The command for change of a user’s RAD has to be authenticated by the user himself. The
user’s permission decides which of the security-relevant services may be performed by this
user (i. e. which user role the user may assume). The step immediately preceding the user
authentication is the identification of a user. Therefore, the authentication procedure for the
user fulfils directly the SFRs FIA_UID.1 (Timing of identification) and FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth
(Timing of authentication).
The TOE supports the following roles for the different users, thus implementing FMT_SMR.1
(Security roles):
 different administrator roles
o User Administrator (user management tasks like creation of users, deletion of
users)
o Administrator (general administration of the CryptoServer like system time setting,
load, update and deletion of firmware)
o Key Manager (key management tasks necessary for the usage of the
CryptoServer, like unblocking of blocked keys, key generation, key export and
import, key backup and key restore, key deletion)
o SO (Security Officer) (creating, modifying or deleting key group specific
configuration objects and initiating a key group)
 Key User (who uses the CryptoServer for cryptographic operations like signature
creation)
 External Client Application (that uses the CryptoServer for creating a secure channel;
hence, each authenticated user can in addition assume the role External Client
Application)
 Local Client Application:
o Non-internal Local Client Application that connects to the CryptoServer via the
local (external) PCIe interface and which uses the CryptoServer for creating a
Page 103 of 126

secure channel; hence, each authenticated user can in addition assume the role
Non-internal Local Client Application
o Internal SAM: Internal Local Client Application that invokes the internal TOE
interface. It is authenticated by signature verification when initially loaded to the
CryptoServer and integrity protected by the physical boundary of the TOE and
therefore does not need to establish a cryptographically protected secure
channel.
At registration, for every user a dedicated authentication mechanism has to be chosen. The
TOE provides two different user authentication mechanisms:
RSA Signature authentication mechanism: The authentication is performed with an RSA
signature (RSA signature scheme RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 according to the standard
[PKCS#1], chapter 8.2.1, with key lengths of minimum 2048 and maximum 8192 bit modulus
lengths).
HMAC Password authentication mechanism: For this mechanism a password is used.
First the host running the application software demands a 16-byte random value (challenge)
from the TOE. Then the host calculates the HMAC value over this challenge and the
command data block using the user’s authentication password as the HMAC key.
Furthermore, for Internal SAM the following authentication mechanism is provided:
Module Signature authentication mechanism: The authentication is performed with the
help of an RSA signature (PKCS#1 signature according to the standard [PKCS#1],) which
has to be calculated over the firmware module with the dedicated CryptoServer CP5 Module
Signature Key owned by the manufacturer.
After five unsuccessful user authentication attempts the corresponding user is blocked. Any
additional attempt of this user to authenticate towards the TOE will fail. Thus
SF.USER_AUTH supports FIA_AFL.1//UserAuth (Authentication failure handling). A blocked
user can only be unblocked by a User Administrator, hence fulfilling
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User.
For exchanging sensitive data, a Secure Messaging session (trusted channel) has to be set
up between the TOE and the (local non-internal or remote external) client application. Such a
Secure Messaging session is mandatory for each command which requires user
authentication. Here, although they may run in different environments, for local non-internal
client applications and remote external client applications the identically same trusted
communication mechanism is enforced by SF.USER_AUTH, fulfilling the SFRs
FTP_TRP.1/Local (Trusted Path) as well as FTP_TRP.1/External (Trusted Path).
SF.CRYPTO supports the user authentication and secure messaging with RSA signature
generation and verification, hash value calculation, key derivation, HMAC calculation, Diffie-
Hellman key agreement, AES encryption, AES decryption, MAC-calculation and random
number generation by hybrid RNG for the challenge value.
9.2 SF.KEY_AUTH: Key Authorisation

The TOE’s concept of mandatory key authorisation ensures that the signatory has sole
control over the use of his private keys aimed to create digital signatures at a TSP according
to eIDAS. Key authorisation before key usage is required for all secret and private keys.
Page 104 of 126

The key authorisation is not possible without former user authentication. Only if a defined
authentication status (e.g. authentication for the Key User role or the Key Manager role) has
been obtained, the key authorisation can be realised. Thus, this security function is related to
SF.USER_AUTH.
In addition to user authentication, key authorisation to access a secret or private key has to
be performed before a key can be used by a cryptographic function or before a key can be
exported, implementing in particular FDP_ACF.1.2/KeyUsage (2), FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth and
FDP_ACC.1/KeyUsage. A key can be authorised for a defined number of usage access
operations, or for infinite use (until rescinding).
After five unsuccessful key authorisation attempts the corresponding key is blocked. Any
additional attempt for key authorisation for this specific key will fail. Thus, SF.KEY_AUTH
supports FIA_AFL.1//KeyAuth (Authentication failure handling). A blocked key can only be
unblocked by a Key Manager, hence fulfilling FMT.MTD.1/Unblock//Key.
The authorisation for access to a secret or private key stays valid until either the key
authorisation is explicitly rescinded with a dedicated command to end the previous key
authorisation, or until the defined number of access trials has been reached, implementing
FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth (Re-authenticating). Key authorisation is also lost in case of reset or
power-cycle of the TOE.
SF.KEY_AUTH furthermore implements all rules defined in FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage (Security
attribute based Access Control) for the users that shall be able to change key security
attributes.
The SAEK signature interface allows an Internal SAM application to request usage of a
signature key for which the TOE will not check the key authorisation. As a consequence, the
internal SAM calling the SAEK signature interface takes full responsibility on correct
legitimation of this operation, including key authorisation as required by [PP_CMTS]: As
mandated by TOE Guidance, an Internal SAM will only invoke the SAEK signature interface
if it has completely validated key authorisation of the signature key before. Therefore, the
TOE can implicitly derive prior successful key authorisation of the signature key from each
invocation of the SAEK signature interface.
9.3 SF.ADMIN: Administration

Security-relevant administration of the TOE cannot be done without user authentication: Only
if a defined authentication status has been obtained then administration tasks can be
executed. In addition to that, for some administration functions, related to key management,
the key usage has to be authorised before. The administration security function SF.ADMIN is
therefore related to SF.USER_AUTH and SF.KEY_AUTH.
SF.ADMIN provides the following administrative services, in accordance with FMT_SMF.1,

FDP_ACC.1.1/KeyUsage and FMT_SMR.1:
 Backup of keys and users in accordance with the SFRs FDP_ACC.1/Backup and
FDP_ACF.1/Backup (and iterations)
Page 105 of 126

 Unblock of user accounts due to authentication failures in accordance with the SFR
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User
 Unblock of cryptographic keys due to key authorisation failures in accordance with
the SFR FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key
 Export of General (non-Assigned) keys in accordance with FDP_IFC.1 and
FDP_IFF.1 (and iterations)
 Modifications of key attributes by authorised subjects in accordance with FDP_ACF.1
(and iterations)
 System time setting to support FPT_STM.1.
 The export and deletion of the audit log is performed in accordance with
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog.
 Software Update in accordance with the SFR FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdate.
For the user administration typical functions are available. Basically, the service deals with
administration of the user database (creation, deletion, changing). The commands for
creation or deletion of a user have to be authenticated by a user in User Administrator role.
The command for changing the user’s authentication token (password or public key) has to
be authenticated by the respective user himself.
9.4 SF.KEY_MAN: Key Management

Key management cannot be done without user authentication: Only if a defined
authentication status has been obtained then key management tasks can be executed. In
addition to that, for some key management functions the key usage has to be authorised
before. The key management security function SF.KEY_MAN is therefore closely related to
SF.USER_AUTH and SF.KEY_AUTH.
SF.KEY_MAN provides the following services by means of SF.CRYPTO fulfilling

FDP_ACC.1.1, FMT_SMR.1 and parts of FMT_SMF.1:
 Generation and export of the Master Backup Key in accordance with the SFR
FCS_CKM.1//AES and FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics (authenticated by an Administrator)
 Import of the Master Backup Key (authenticated by an Administrator, and under dual
person control)
 Backup and restore of keys (as required by FMT_SMF.1.1 (4), authenticated by a
Key Manager or Internal SAM, secured with the Master Backup Key in order to fulfill
FDP_IFF.1.5/KeyBasics (1); restore only possible under dual person control as
required by FDP_ACF.1.2/Backup)
 Generation of keys (authenticated by a Key Manager or Internal SAM):
o AES Keys in accordance with the SFR FCS_CKM.1//AES
o ECDSA Keys in accordance with the SFR FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA
o RSA Keys in accordance with the SFR FCS_CKM.1//RSA
 Deletion of keys (authenticated by a Key Manager or Internal SAM) in accordance
with the SFR FCS_CKM.4
 Modification of key attributes as required by FMT_SMF.1.1 (2)
 Import and export of keys as required by FMT_SMF.1.1 (4) (authenticated by a Key
Manager):
o Import of keys in accordance with the rules in FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics
o Export of keys in accordance with the rules in FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics
Page 106 of 126

FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage (Security attribute based Access Control) enforces the Key Usage
SFP to authenticated users who are currently authorised to change attributes of secret key.
Management of security attributes of General keys and Assigned keys is performed in
accordance with FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys (Management of security attributes of General keys,
all iterations), FMT_MSA.1/AKeys (Management of security attributes of Assigned keys, all
iterations) and FMT.MSA.3/Keys (Static attribute initialisation)
9.5 SF.CRYPTO: Cryptographic Support

SF.CRYPTO provides cryptographic support for the other TSFs using cryptographic
mechanisms, and it enables cryptographic services like signature generation and verification
for the user of the TOE.
SF.CRYPTO supports the following cryptographic operations:
 AES algorithm in CBC mode with a key length of 16, 24 or 32 bytes used for
encryption or decryption in accordance with the SFRs
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_CBC and FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_CBC
 AES algorithm in OFB mode with a key length of 16, 24 or 32 bytes used for
encryption or decryption in accordance with the SFR
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_OFB and FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_OFB
 AES algorithm in ECB mode with a key length of 16, 24 or 32 bytes used for
encryption or decryption in accordance with the SFR FCS_COP.1//AES_ECB (for
internal use only, to support an internal SAM)
 AES algorithm in GCM mode with a key length of 16, 24 or 32 bytes used for
authenticated encryption or decryption in accordance with the SFR
FCS_COP.1//AES_GCM
 AES algorithm with a key length of 16, 24 or 32 bytes used for CMAC generation and
verification in accordance with the SFR FCS_COP.1//AES_CMAC
 ECDSA algorithm according to the standard [ANSI-X9.62] with key lengths of
minimum 224 bit modulus lengths used for ECDSA signature generation or
verification in accordance with the SFRs FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Sign and
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Verify
 RSA algorithm according to the standard [PKCS#1] with key lengths of minimum
2048 and maximum 8192 bit modulus lengths used for RSA encryption or decryption
in accordance with the SFR FCS_COP.1//RSA_Encryption and
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Decryption
 RSA algorithm according to the standard [PKCS#1] with key lengths of minimum
2048 and maximum of 8192 bit modulus lengths used for RSA signature generation
and verification in accordance with the SFRs FCS_COP.1//RSA_Sign and
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verify
 HMAC calculation in accordance with the SFR FCS_COP.1//HMAC (HMAC key size
shorter than 13 bytes for internal use only to support user authentication, key size 13
bytes and more also as cryptographic service)
 Hash algorithms SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA3-224, SHA3-256,
SHA3-384 and SHA3-512 in accordance with the SFR FCS_COP.1//Hash
 Diffie-Hellmann key agreement in accordance with the SFR FCS_COP.1//Diffie-
Hellman (for internal use only to support the implementation of the trusted channel)
 Key Derivation in accordance with the SFR FCS_COP.1//KeyDerivation (for internal
use only to support the implementation of the trusted channel and the secure backup
of keys)
Page 107 of 126

 Random number generation by a hybrid RNG in accordance with the SFR

FCS_RNG.1.
9.6 SF.REL: Reliability

SF.REL monitors the following events:
 Self-test error,
 Stored data integrity failure,
 Failure of user authentication or of key authorisation attempts,
 Results of services of SF.ADMIN, SF.KEY_MAN, SF.SWUPDATE,
and provides the corresponding audit records in accordance with the SFRs FAU_GEN.1
(Audit data generation), FAU_GEN.2 (User identity association), FPT_STM.1 (Reliable time
stamps) and FAU_STG.2 (Guarantees of audit data availability).
SF.REL provides a service to query the audit records, this service has to be authenticated by
a user in Administrator, User Administrator, Key Manager or Security Officer role, in
accordance with FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog (Management of TSF data). The TOE does not
provide any possibility to modify the audit records except for entire clearance, whereby the
service for the clearance of the audit data has to be authenticated by a user in Administrator
or User Administrator role, in accordance with the SFRs FAU_STG.2 (Guarantees of audit
data availability) and FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog (Management of TSF data).
SF.REL preserves a secure operation state of the TOE when the following types of failures
and attacks occur:
 Power supply too high/too low
 Temperature too high/too low
 Integrity check of cryptographic keys and stored firmware modules
 Self-test fails
The TOE provides an alarm mechanism which detects physical environmental failure attacks
and reacts by destroying all sensitive data. For this mechanism a sensory is implemented
which watches temperature and voltage.
Furthermore, the TOE with its tamper-evident enclosure (the heat sink and the potting
material) implements the following physical security mechanisms against direct physical
attacks:
 The cryptographic module’s hardware components are covered by hard, opaque
potting material or the heat sink, which show evidence of tampering on the enclosure
when a physical attack is attempted. This provides the capability to determine
physical tampering according to FPT_PHP.1 (Passive detection of physical attack).
 The potting material is hard and opaque enough to prevent direct observation and
easy penetration to the depth of the underlying hardware components. It is highly
probable that anyone attempting to penetrate to the depth of the circuitry will break off
large pieces of potting material and tear important hardware components off the
module, causing serious damage to the TOE.
Page 108 of 126

The tamper response and zeroisation circuitry is active while module is in standby mode
(powered down).
The implemented sensory and software part of the TOE react properly to all security relevant
events being generated by the hardware in response to any physical attack attempts. The
resistance of the TOE hardware and sensory to physical and chemical attacks has been
evaluated and successfully certified according to the requirements of FIPS 140-2 standard,
level 3. This is equivalent to the physical security requirements as laid down in ISO/IEC
19790:2012 for Security Level 3, sections 7.7.2 and 7.7.3. Therefore, the security function
SF.REL supplies effective hardware and software based mechanisms satisfying the SFR
FPT_PHP.3 (Resistance to physical attack).
Due to the implemented alarm mechanism the TOE preserves a secure state also if the
power supply or temperature is outside of a well-defined operational range: If extreme power
levels occur to the TOE or if extreme temperature is monitored, an alarm is triggered, all data
is deleted and the TOE will be reset cleanly according to FPT_FLS.1 (Failure with
preservation of secure state). The security function SF.REL realises effective hardware and
software based features to preserve a secure operational state of the TOE in case of induced
hardware or software failures or tampering. It satisfies directly the SFR FPT_FLS.1.
For the protection of data and firmware integrity the security function SF.REL implements
various measures:
During the boot process after power-on or reset the TOE’s boot loader and operating system
SMOS perform further self-tests, like a memory RAM test. SMOS loads and initialises all
remaining firmware modules and performs further self-tests in accordance with
FPT_TST_EXT.1 (Basic TSF self-testing).
a)
It is only possible to execute any cryptographic or other security-relevant service after these
power-on self-tests have been completed successfully. If one of these power-on self-tests
fails, the TOE enters the secure Error State.
The TOE performs the following self-tests at specific conditions in accordance with
FPT_TST_EXT.1 (Basic TSF self-testing):
a) Online Test of the digitised noise data of the PTRNG
b) Continuous DRNG tests (whenever random bytes are requested)
c) ECDSA Key Pair-wise Consistency Test (sign/verify) for any newly generated or
imported ECDSA key pair according to FIPS 140-2 §4.9.2
d) RSA Key Pair-wise Consistency Tests (encrypt/decrypt and sign/verify) for any newly
generated RSA key pair according to FIPS 140-2 §4.9.2
e) Firmware Load Test (via RSA signature verification) for every firmware module when
being loaded
If one of these conditional self-tests fails, the requested action is not performed (e. g.
firmware module to be loaded is not loaded, generated key is not stored etc.), and the
command is aborted with an error code. The successful completion of all self-tests or the
secure Error State is indicated by the “Get State” command.
Secret or private keys are deleted in accordance with the SFR FCS_CKM.4 (Cryptographic
key destruction). SF.REL ensures that any previous information content is not available after
deletion.
Page 109 of 126

SF.REL monitors stored data and prohibits usage of altered data and notifies the user if
integrity errors are detected in accordance to FDP_SDI.2.
The mechanism used for fulfilling FCS_CKM.4 for key destruction, namely overwriting the
key by zeroising in case of secret or private keys, applies to all secret and private keys and
data, and therefore also ensures that any previous information content of a resource is made
unavailable upon the de-allocation of authorisation data and secret keys, which is in
accordance to FDP_RIP.1.
9.7 SF.SWUPDATE: Software Update

SF.SWUPDATE allows to perform a secure software update on the TOE by providing the
“Load File” service.
This service has to be authenticated by a user with the Administrator role, in accordance with
FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdate.
The “Load File” service allows the download of firmware modules only in a dedicated format
which contains also a signature calculated over the executable code (RSA signature
according to [PKCS#1], with a key length of 4096 bit according to FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verify).
The signature has to be calculated with a dedicated Module Signature Key owned by the
manufacturer. If the signature cannot be verified, the download is prohibited and the “Load
File” service will return an error code instead. If the set of loaded firmware modules is
incomplete or in any way not compliant to the software that is released for this project, the
TOE will be set to a secure Error State.
In this Error State no cryptographic operations are available, only status requests can be
performed.
9.8 Coverage of SFRs by Security Functions

The following table shows that all TOE Security Functional Requirements (SFRs) are
realised by the TSF (TOE Security Functionality) described in terms of security functions
(SF.XXX).
SF.USER_AUTH
SF.SWUPDATE
SF.KEY_AUTH
SF.KEY_MAN
SF.CRYPTO
SFR
SF.ADMIN
SF.REL
FCS_CKM.1//AES X X
(Cryptographic key generation)
Page 110 of 126

SF.USER_AUTH
SF.SWUPDATE
SF.KEY_AUTH
SF.KEY_MAN
SF.CRYPTO
SFR
SF.ADMIN
SF.REL
FCS_CKM.1//RSA X X
FCS_CKM.1//ECDSA X X
FCS_CKM.4 X X
(Cryptographic key destruction)
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_CBC X
(Cryptographic operation)
FCS_COP.1//AES_Encryption_OFB X
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_CBC X
FCS_COP.1//AES_Decryption_OFB X
FCS_COP.1//AES_CMAC X
FCS_COP.1//AES_ECB X
FCS_COP.1//AES_GCM X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Sign X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Verify X X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Encryption X
FCS_COP.1//RSA_Decryption X
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Sign X
Page 111 of 126

SF.USER_AUTH
SF.SWUPDATE
SF.KEY_AUTH
SF.KEY_MAN
SF.CRYPTO
SFR
SF.ADMIN
SF.REL
FCS_COP.1//ECDSA_Verify X
FCS_COP.1//HMAC X
FCS_COP.1//Hash X
FCS_COP.1//Diffie-Hellman X
FCS_COP.1//KeyDerivation X
FCS_RNG.1 X
(Generation of random numbers)
FIA_UID.1 X
(Timing of identification)
FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth X
(Timing of Authentication)
FIA_UAU.1//KeyAuth X
(Timing of Authentication)
FIA_AFL.1//UserAuth X
(User Authentication failure handling)
FIA_AFL.1//KeyAuth X
(Key Authorisation failure handling)
FIA_UAU.6/KeyAuth X
(Re-authentication)
FDP_IFC.1/KeyBasics X
(Subset Information Control)
FDP_IFF.1/KeyBasics X X
(Simple security attributes)
FDP_ACC.1/Key_Usage X X X
(Subset access control)
Page 112 of 126

SF.USER_AUTH
SF.SWUPDATE
SF.KEY_AUTH
SF.KEY_MAN
SF.CRYPTO
SFR
SF.ADMIN
SF.REL
FDP_ACF.1/KeyUsage X X X
(Security attrib. based access control)
FDP_ACC.1/Backup X
FDP_ACF.1/Backup X X
FDP_SDI.2 X
(Stored data integrity monitoring/action)
FDP_RIP.1 X
(Subset residual information protection)
FTP_TRP.1/Local X
(Trusted path)
FTP_TRP.1/External X
(Trusted path)
FPT_STM.1 X X
(Reliable time stamps)
FPT_TST_EXT.1 X
(Basic TSF self testing)
FPT_PHP.1
X
(Passive detection of physical attack)
FPT_PHP.3
X
(Resistance to physical attack)
FPT_FLS.1
X
(Failure with preservation of secure state)
FMT_SMR.1
X X X
(Security roles)
FMT_SMF.1
X X
(Security management functions)
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//User
X X
(Management of TSF Data)
Page 113 of 126

SF.USER_AUTH
SF.SWUPDATE
SF.KEY_AUTH
SF.KEY_MAN
SF.CRYPTO
SFR
SF.ADMIN
SF.REL
FMT_MTD.1/Unblock//Key
X X
FMT_MTD.1/AuditLog
X X
FMT_MTD.1//SWUpdate
X X
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//AFlag
X
(Management of security attributes)
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//ExportF
X
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//AuthD
X
FMT_MSA.1/GenKeys//None
X
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//AuthD
X
FMT_MSA.1/AKeys//None
X
FMT_MSA.3/Keys
X
(Static attribute initialisation)
FAU_GEN.1 X
(Audit data generation)
FAU_GEN.2 X
(Identity association)
FAU_STG.2 X
(Guarantees of audit data availability)
Table 9: Mapping SFRs to Security Functions
Page 114 of 126

Annex
10 Annex
This Annex contains the following sections:
Glossary and Acronyms
References
10.1 Glossary and Acronyms

The following glossary includes all used terms of this Security Target regarding to the
Common Criteria and IT technology terms in alphabetical order.
Term Description
Administrator An authenticated user who has been granted the authority to

manage the TOE. These users are expected to use this authority
only in the manner prescribed by the guidance given to them.
Authentication keys General term for keys used for authentication of data (i.e. Data
authentication keys) or the identity of an entity (i.e. Entity
authentication keys)
Authorisation Authorisation as a user of a secret or private key is always

separately required before the key can be used in a cryptographic
function (or exported), regardless of any other user authentication
that may have been established.
Confidentiality The property that sensitive information is not disclosed to

unauthenticated individuals, entities, or processes
Cryptographic A well-defined computational procedure that takes variable inputs

algorithm that usually includes a cryptographic key and produces an output,
e. g. encryption, decryption, a private or a public operation in a
dynamic authentication, signature creation, signature verification,
generation of hash value.
Cryptographic An explicitly defined continuous perimeter that establishes the

boundary physical bounds of a cryptographic module and contains all the
hardware, software, and/or firmware components of a
cryptographic module.
Cryptographic A checksum that is created by performing a cryptographic

checksum algorithm. The cryptographic checksum can be associated with the
original data in order to provide a mechanism to verify that the
original data has not been changed.
Page 115 of 126

Annex
Term Description
Cryptographic TSF implementing cryptographic algorithms and/or protocols for

functions
 encryption and decryption,
 signature creation or verification,
 calculation of Message Authentication Code,
 entity authentication
 user authentication or authorisation for key usage.
Cryptographic key A parameter used in conjunction with a cryptographic algorithm

(key) that determines
 the transformation of plaintext data into ciphertext data,
 the transformation of ciphertext data into plaintext data,
 a digital signature computed from data,
 the verification of a digital signature computed from data,
 a Message Authentication Code computed from data,
 a proof of the knowledge of a secret,
 a verification of the knowledge of a secret or
 an exchange agreement of a shared secret.
Cryptographic key A parameter used in conjunction with other key components in an

component (key Endorsed security function to form a plaintext cryptographic key by
component) a secret sharing algorithm (e.g. the cryptographic plaintext key is
the XOR-sum of two key components)
Cryptographic The set of hardware, software and/or firmware that implements

module Endorsed security functions (including cryptographic algorithms
and key generation) and is contained within the cryptographic
boundary.
Cryptographic A cryptographic algorithm including interaction with an external

protocol entity (e.g. key exchange)
Data path The physical or logical route over which data passes; a physical
data path may be shared by multiple logical data paths.
Decryption algorithm Algorithm of decoding a cipher text into the plaintext using a
decryption key. The decryption algorithm reproduces the plaintext
that is used to calculate the cipher text with the corresponding
encryption algorithm and the corresponding encryption key.
Destruction of data A method of erasing electronically stored data, e. g. cryptographic

keys, by altering or deleting the contents of the data storage to
prevent recovery of the data.
Digital signature The result of an asymmetric cryptographic transformation of data

which, when properly implemented, provides the services of 1.
Origin authentication, 2. Data integrity, and 3. Signer non-
repudiation.
Page 116 of 126

Annex
Term Description
Encrypted key A cryptographic key that has been encrypted using an Endorsed
security function with a key encrypting key, a PIN, or a password
in order to disguise the value of the underlying plaintext key.
Encryption algorithm Algorithm of processing a plaintext into a cipher text using an

encryption key in a way that decoding of the cipher text into the
plain text without knowledge of the corresponding decryption key
is computationally infeasible.
Endorsed For this security target, endorsed by the certification body for the
evaluation of products of an intended type and resistance against
attacks with attack potential addressed by the vulnerability
analysis component in the security target209.
Endorsed security For this security target, a security function (e.g., cryptographic
function algorithm, cryptographic key management technique, or
authentication technique) that is either a) specified in an Endorsed
standard, b) adopted in an Endorsed standard and specified either
in an appendix of the Endorsed standard or in a document
referenced by the Endorsed standard, or c) specified in the list of
Endorsed security functions.
Error detection code A code computed from data and comprised of redundant bits of
(EDC) information designed to detect, but not correct, unintentional
changes in the data.
Error mode Mode of operation when the cryptographic module has

encountered an error condition as defined in FPT_FLS.1.
Error state State related to the Error mode
Firmware The programs and data components of a cryptographic module

that are stored in hardware (e.g., ROM, PROM, EPROM,
EEPROM or FLASH) and cannot be dynamically written or
modified during execution.
Hardware The physical equipment used to process programs and data.
Hash-based A message authentication code that utilises a keyed hash.

message
authentication code
(HMAC)
209 Endorsed algorithms and functions could be similar to the list of cryptographic algorithms and
parameters published for qualified electronic signatures by the notified body Bundesnetzagentur in
Germany, the agreed cryptographic mechanisms from [SOG-IS-Crypto], or the Approved algorithms
published by NIST in the USA.
Page 117 of 126

Annex
Term Description
Information The organisation, manipulation and distribution of information.

processing
Initialisation vector A vector used in defining the starting point of an encryption

(IV) process within a cryptographic algorithm.
Input data Information that is entered into a cryptographic module for the
purposes of transformation or computation using an Endorsed
security function.
Integrity The property that sensitive data has not been modified or deleted
in an unauthorised and undetected manner.
Internal secrets Confidential data inside the cryptographic boundary not intended
for export (e.g. secret or private plaintext keys, authentication
reference data).
Internal TOE Internal interface which is provided by the TOE and which can only
interface be accessed by firmware modules running within the physical
boundary of the TOE. It is intended to be used by an internal SAM.
Internal SAM Signature Activation Module in the sense of [PP_QSCD] which is

implemented as internal firmware module and which is eIDAS
evaluated according to [PP_QSCD] and follows the TOE guidance.
Key establishment The process by which cryptographic keys are securely distributed
among cryptographic modules using manual transport methods
(e.g., key loaders), automated methods (e.g., key transport and/or
key agreement protocols), or a combination of automated and
manual methods (consists of key transport plus key agreement).
Key management The activities involving the handling of cryptographic keys and
other related security parameters (e.g., IVs and passwords) during
the entire life cycle of the keys, including their generation, storage,
establishment, entry and output, and destruction.
Key transport Secure transport of cryptographic keys from one cryptographic

module to another module.
Key usage type Type of cryptographic algorithm a key can be used for (e.g. AES
encryption, RSA signature-creation)
Key User An individual (subject) that accesses a cryptographic module in

order to obtain cryptographic services with a cryptographic key.
Page 118 of 126

Annex
Term Description
Logical external A logical entry or exit point of a cryptographic module that provides
interface access to the module for logical information flows representing
physical signals (see also the term “port” for the physical aspects
of a logical external interface). In the CC terminology it covers all
logical external interfaces of the TOE (direct or indirect interfaces
to the TSF or interfaces to the non-TSF portion of the TOE).
Maintenance mode Mode of operation for maintaining and servicing a cryptographic

module, including physical and logical maintenance testing.
Maintenance state State related to the Maintenance mode .
Message A digital signature scheme which requires the message as input to

authentication with the verification algorithm. The signature is attached to the
appendix message.
Microcode The elementary processor instructions that correspond to an

executable program instruction.
Operating conditions Any environmental condition being accidental or induced outside

of the normal range intended for the TOE may affect the correct
operation or compromise of confidential information. These
conditions include but are not limit to voltage of power supply,
temperature, emanation which TOE environmental conditions.
Output data Data containing information that is produced from a cryptographic

module.
Password A string of characters (letters, numbers, and other symbols) used

to authenticate an identity or to verify access authorisation.
Permanent stored Keys remains stored in the TOE after power off or reset.
keys
Physical protection The safeguarding of a cryptographic module, including its

cryptographic keys and other critical security parameter, using
physical means.
Plaintext key An unencrypted cryptographic key.
Port A physical input or output interface of a cryptographic module that

provides access to the module for physical signals, represented by
logical information flows. Physically separated ports do not share
the same physical pin or wire. In the CC terminology a port is a
physical external interface of the TOE (direct or indirect interface
to the TSF or interface to the non-TSF portion of the TOE).
Power interface/port Interface respective port providing all external electrical power
supply.
Page 119 of 126

Annex
Term Description
Power On/Off mode Mode of operation that indicates whether the cryptographic module
is supplied by a power source. These modes may distinguish
between different power sources (e.g., primary, secondary, backup
power source or none) being applied to a cryptographic module.
Power On/Off state State related to the Power On/Off mode (cf. ADV_ARC.1).
Private key A cryptographic key, used with a public key cryptographic

algorithm, that is uniquely associated with an entity and is not
made public.
Protection Profile An implementation-independent set of security requirements for a

category of Targets of Evaluation (TOEs) that meet specific
consumer needs.
Public key A cryptographic key used with a public key cryptographic algorithm
that is uniquely associated with an entity and that may be made
public.
Public key A cryptographic algorithm that uses two related keys, a public key
(asymmetric) and a private key. The two keys have the property that deriving the
cryptographic private key from the public key is computationally infeasible.
algorithm
Public key certificate A set of data that uniquely identifies an entity, contains the entity’s
public key, and is digitally signed by a trusted party, thereby
binding the public key to the entity.
Random Number Random Number Generators (RNGs) used for cryptographic

Generator applications produce a sequence of zero and one bits that may be
combined into sub-sequences or blocks of random numbers.
There are three basic classes physical true RNG, non-physical
true RNG, and deterministic RNG. A physical true RNG produces
output that dependents on some physical random source inside
the TOE boundary only. A non-deterministic true RNG gets its
entropy from sources from outside the TOE boundary (e.g. by
system data like RAM data or system time of a PC, output of API
functions etc., or human interaction like key strokes, mouse
movement etc.). A deterministic RNG consists of an algorithm that
produces a sequence of bits from an initial random value (seed).
Reference Data known for the claimed identity and used by the TOE to verify
authentication data the verification authentication data provided by an entity in an
authentication attempt to prove their identity.
Reset Action to clear any pending errors or events and to bring a system
to normal condition or initial state (e.g. after power-on).
Page 120 of 126

Annex
Term Description
SAEK signature Part of the internal TOE interface using SAM Authorised External
interface Keys. This interface for signature calculation is intended to be
used by an internal SAM which itself validates key authorisation.
See Application Note 1 (ST).
SAM Signature Activation Module in the sense of [PP_QSCD]
Secret key A cryptographic key, used with a secret key cryptographic

algorithm that is uniquely associated with one or more entities and
should not be made public.
Secret key A cryptographic algorithm the keys of which for both encryption
(symmetric) and decryption respective MAC calculation and MAC verification
cryptographic are the same or can easily be derived from each other and
algorithm therefore must be kept secret.
Seed key A secret value used to initialise a cryptographic function or

operation.
Self-test mode Mode of operation in which the cryptographic module performs

initial start-up self-test, self-test at power-on, self-test at the
request of the authorised user and may perform other self-tests
identified in FPT_TST_EXT.1
Self-test state State related to the Self-test mode (cf. ADV_ARC.1).
Shutdown Shutdown of the TOE initiated by the user (may not include reset
after detection of error or power-off due to loss of power supply)
Signature-creation Private key for the creation of digital signatures

key
Signature-verification Public key for the verification of digital signatures

key
Software The programs and data components, usually stored on erasable

media (e.g., disk), that can be dynamically written and modified
during execution.
Split knowledge A process by which a cryptographic key is split into multiple key
components, individually sharing no knowledge of the original key,
that can be subsequently input into, or output from, a
cryptographic module by separate entities and combined to
recreate the original cryptographic key.
Status information Information that is output from a cryptographic module for the
purposes of indicating certain operational characteristics or modes
of the module.
Page 121 of 126

Annex
Term Description
Status output Interface respective port intended for all input commands, signals,
interface/port and control data (including calls and manual controls such as
switches, buttons, and keyboards) used to control the operation of
the cryptographic module).
System software The special software within the cryptographic boundary (e.g.,
operating system, compilers or utility programs) designed for a
specific computer system or family of computer systems to
facilitate the operation and maintenance of the computer system,
and associated programs, and data.
Tamper detection The automatic determination by a cryptographic module that an

attempt has been made to compromise the physical security of the
module.
Target of Evaluation An information technology product or system and associated

(TOE) administrator and user guidance documentation that is the subject
of an evaluation.
Timing analysis Analysis of timing behaviour of a device, equipment, or system to

gain information about its internal secrets or processes
TOE Security Combined functionality of all hardware, software, and firmware of a

Functionality (TSF) TOE that must be relied upon for the correct enforcement of the
SFRs.
TOE security A set of interfaces, whether interactive (man-machine interface) or

functions interface machine (machine-machine interface), through which TOE
(TSFI) resources are accessed, mediated by the TSF, or information is
obtained from the TSF.
Trusted channel A means by which a TSF and a remote trusted IT product can
communicate with necessary confidence to support the TSF.
Trusted path A means by which a user and a TSF can communicate with
necessary confidence to support the TSF.
Unauthenticated An identified user not being authenticated and having rights as

User identified in the component FIA_UAU.1//UserAuth.
User Any entity (human user or external IT entity) outside the TOE that
interacts with the TOE (includes both authenticated and
unauthenticated entities).
Table 10: Glossary
The following table includes all used acronyms of this Security Target regarding to the
Common Criteria and IT technology terms in alphabetical order.
Page 122 of 126

Annex
Acronym Term
Common Criteria
CC Common Criteria
MBK Master Backup Key
n. a. Not applicable
SAR Security assurance requirement
SFR Security functional requirement
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE security functionality
TSP Trusted Service Provider
Cryptographic Algorithms
AES The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a symmetric

cryptographic algorithm specified for the encryption of electronic data
established by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) in 2001.
ECDSA The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) is a variant of

the asymmetric cryptographic algorithm Digital Signature Algorithm
(DSA) which uses elliptic curve cryptography. The DSA was developed
by the United States government for digital signatures. It can be used
only for signing data and it cannot be used for encryption.
RSA RSA stands for Rivest, Shamir and Adleman. RSA is an asymmetric
cryptographic algorithm for public-key cryptography that is based on
the presumed difficulty of factoring large integers, the factoring
problem.
SHA The term Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) denotes a group of

standardised cryptographic hash functions used for calculation of a
unique check value (digital signature) for arbitrary digital data.
IT technology terms
LAN Local Area Network
PCI Peripheral Component Interconnect
PCIe PCI express
PIN Personal Identification Number
Table 11: Acronyms
Page 123 of 126

Annex
10.2 References
[AIS 20/31] Application Notes and Interpretation of the Scheme (AIS): AIS 20/AIS
31: A proposal for: Functionality classes for random number generators,
Version 2.0 / Wolfgang Killmann (T-Systems GEI GmbH, Bonn), Werner
Schindler (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik/BSI,
Bonn), 18. September 2011
[ANSI-X9.31] ANS X9.31-1998: Digital Signatures Using Reversible Public Key
Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry (rDSA) /
ANSI (American National Standards Institute)
[ANSI-X9.62] ANS X9.62-2005: Public Key Cryptography for the Financial Services
Industry, The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) ANSI
(American National Standards Institute)
[CC1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part
1: Introduction and General Model; CCMB-2012-09-001, Version 3.1,
Revision 4, September 2012
[CC2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Part 2: Security functional components; CCMB-2012-09-002, Version
3.1, Revision 4, September 2012
[CC3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Part 3: Security assurance components; CCMB-2012-09-003, Version
3.1, Revision 4, September 2012
[CEM] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
CCMB-2012-09-004, Version 3.1, Revision 4, September 2012
[ECCBP] ECC Brainpool Standard Curves and Curve Generation, v1.0,
19.10.2005 / ECC Brainpool, http://www.ecc-brainpool.org/ecc-
standard.htm
[FIPS 140-2] FIPS PUB 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules /
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, May 2001
[FIPS 180-4] FIPS PUB 180-4, Secure Hash Standard (SHS) / National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, March 2012
[FIPS 186-4] FIPS PUB 186-4, Digital Signature Standard / National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, July 2013
[FIPS 197] FIPS PUB 197, Advances Encryption Standard (AES) / National
Institute of Standards and Technology (N11IST), USA, 26th November
2001
[FIPS 198] FIPS PUB 198, The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code
(HMAC) / National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST), USA,
6th March 2002
[FIPS 202] FIPS PUB 202 (Federal Information Processing Standards Publication)
– SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash and Extendable-Output
Functions / National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
August 2015
Page 124 of 126

Annex
[ISO ISO/IEC 19790:2012(E): Information Technology — Security

19790:2012] Techniques — Security requirements for cryptographic modules /
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland,
15th August 2012
[ANSSI] ANSSI: "Avis relatif aux paramètres de courbes elliptiques définis par
l'Etat français" in: Journal Officiel de la République Française (JORF),
n° 0241 du 16 octobre 2011 page 17533 text n° 30 (Announcement
about elliptic curve parameters set by the French government). NOR:
PRMD1123151V. Available:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000
024668816
[NIST SP 800- NIST Special Publication 800-38A, Recommendation for Block Cipher
38A] Modes of Operation: Methods and Techniques / National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, December 2001
[NIST SP 800- NIST Special Publication 800-38B, Recommendation for Block Cipher
38B] Modes of Operation: The CMAC Mode for Authentication / National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, May 2005
[NIST SP 800- NIST Special Publication 800-108: Recommendation for Key Derivation
108] Using Pseudorandom Functions (Revised) / National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), USA; October 2009
[PKCS#1] PKCS#1: RSA Cryptography Standard v2.2, 27thOctober 2012 / RSA
Laboratories, http://www.emc.com/emc-plus/rsa-labs/standards-
initiatives/pkcs-rsa-cryptography-standard.htm
[PKCS#3] PKCS#3: Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Standard, v1.4;
1st November 1993 / RSA Laboratories,
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/pkcs
[RFC 2104] RFC 2104: HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication, Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), February 1997
[PP_CMTS] prEN 419 221-5: Protection Profiles for TSP Cryptographic Modules –
Part 5: Cryptographic Module for Trust Services, v0.15, 2016-11-29
(certified version); CEN Technical Committee CEN/TC 224
[PP_CMTS_1.0] prEN 419 221-5: Protection Profiles for TSP Cryptographic Modules –
Part 5: Cryptographic Module for Trust Services, v1.0, 2017-05-02;
CEN Technical Committee CEN/TC 224
[PP_QSCD] prEN 419 241-2: Trustworthy Systems Supporting Server Signing Part
2: Protection Profile for QSCD for Server Signing, 2017-10-19; CEN/TC
224
[Regulation] REGULATION (EU) No 910/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and
repealing Directive 1999/93/EC
[SOG-IS-Crypto] SOG-IS Crypto Evaluation Scheme Agreed Cryptographic Mechanisms,
v1.0, May 2016
[Shamir] A. Shamir, How to share a secret, Communications of the ACM, 22
(1979), 612-613
Page 125 of 126

Annex
[TR03111] Technical Guideline TR-03111, Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Version

1.11, April 2009 / Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
(BSI)
[TS 119 312] ETSI TS 119 312 Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI);
Cryptographic Suites, V1.1.1 (2014-11)
Page 126 of 126

CryptoServerCP5 ST Lite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CryptoServerCP5 ST Lite

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CryptoServerCP5 ST Lite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CryptoServer

Security Target Lite for CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5

7.2.1 SFR Relationships ................................................................................................... 37

1.1 Change History

1.2 Document Introduction

2 Security Target Introduction

2.1 ST and TOE Reference

2.2 Related Documents

 Chapter 3: The ST conformance claims section states conformance to Protection Profiles.

2.4 TOE Overview

The CryptoServer CP5 is designed as a protected cryptographic module provided in form of

Figure 1: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 PCIe security module

Figure 2: CryptoServer LAN v4

Figure 3: CryptoServer LAN v5

2.5 TOE Description

2.5.1 TOE Configuration and TOE Environment

Figure 4: PCIe security module with interfaces

Figure 5: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 physical boundary

External Client Application,

Figure 6: CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 logical boundary

The CryptoServer CP5 supports the following cryptographic algorithms:

Furthermore the CryptoServer CP5 offers key establishment:

 Functions for Key Management:

2.5.2 TOE Boundary

The table of TOE deliverables can therefore be described as follows:

TOE deliverable Type/Form, Name Exact

Hardware HW Hardware of the TOE, PCIe security 5.01.4.0

TOE deliverable Type/Form, Name Exact

TOE deliverable Type/Form, Name Exact

Internal SAM Doc CryptoServer Se-Series Gen2 CP5 - 2018-0013,

Table 1: TOE deliverables

2.6 Required Non-TOE Hardware/Software/Firmware

10 smartcards (for HW/SW Java Card J2E081 - JCOP V2.4.2. R3

The TOE is delivered in three different variants:

Deliverable: CSLAN CSLAN cable product

The TOE is never delivered with any internal SAM loaded.

3.1 CC Conformance Claim

 Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 2: Security

 Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Part 3: Security

has to be taken into account.

3.3 Package Claim

3.4 Conformance Rationale

4 Security Problem Definition

S.Application: a client application, or process acting on behalf of a client application and

T.KeyDisclose Unauthorised disclosure of secret/private key

T.KeyDerive Derivation of secret/private key

T.KeyMod Unauthorised modification of a key

T.KeyMisuse Misuse of a key

T.KeyOveruse Overuse of a key

T.DataDisclose Disclosure of sensitive client application data

T.DataMod Unauthorised modification of client application data

T.Malfunction Malfunction of TOE hardware or software

4.4 Organisational Security Policies

Application Note 1 (PP)

P.KeyControl Support for control of keys

Application Note 2 (PP)

P.RNG Random Number Generation

P.Audit Audit trail generation

Application Note 3 (PP)

A.Env Protected operating environment