.jpg)
10
min reading time
The Common Criteria certification process represents a globally recognized standard for evaluating IT product security. This framework establishes consistent, high-standard security evaluations across different jurisdictions, enabling international acceptance of security certifications. For organizations with legacy systems, understanding these fundamentals becomes critical for successful preparation.
The certification framework operates through systematic evaluation against predefined security requirements. A dedicated management committee oversees standard implementation, ensuring consistency across evaluations. The core objectives include standardizing security evaluations globally, eliminating redundant evaluations, enhancing certification cost-effectiveness, and improving availability of evaluated products.
Becoming Common Criteria certified requires systematic preparation and strategic planning for legacy systems. The evaluation process examines security functions, assurance measures, and documentation quality. Organizations must demonstrate that their systems meet specific security requirements at the chosen evaluation assurance level.
Legacy systems present formidable obstacles when pursuing Common Criteria compliance. Deep infrastructure integration creates complex dependencies that resist straightforward modification. These systems often feature difficult upgrade paths, making security enhancements challenging to implement without disrupting critical operations.
System architecture constraints limit the implementation of modern security controls. Legacy platforms may lack native support for current encryption standards, access control mechanisms, or logging capabilities required for certification. The interconnected nature of these systems means that changes in one component can trigger unexpected consequences throughout the infrastructure.
Operational challenges compound technical difficulties. Many legacy systems operate without vendor support, leaving organizations to manage security updates independently. Missing security patches create vulnerabilities that must be addressed through compensating controls, adding complexity to the certification process.
Monitoring constraints present additional hurdles. Legacy systems often provide limited logging capabilities, insufficient visibility into system operations, and inadequate incident response mechanisms. These limitations make it difficult to demonstrate the continuous monitoring and security assurance required for Common Criteria certification.

Successful preparation begins with thorough system evaluation. Organizations must conduct architecture reviews, dependency mapping, and security gap analyses. This assessment identifies specific areas requiring attention and helps prioritize remediation efforts.
Selecting the appropriate evaluation assurance level depends on your system’s security requirements and risk profile. EAL selection directly impacts the depth and rigor of your security evaluation. Higher EAL levels demand more extensive documentation and testing, while lower levels may be sufficient for systems with limited security requirements.
The Common Criteria certification process demands thorough documentation and evidence preparation. Organizations must document security policies, procedures, and technical implementations. This documentation serves as evidence during the evaluation process and demonstrates compliance with certification requirements.
Strategic modernization options include rehosting, refactoring, rearchitecting, and complete replacement. Each approach offers different benefits and challenges for achieving Common Criteria legacy systems compliance.

Preparing legacy systems for Common Criteria certification requires more than technical adjustments, it also requires an internal operating model that supports clear scoping, structured collaboration, and consistent alignment with CC requirements. Establishing a “CC-readiness” foundation enables organizations to manage complexity effectively, especially when legacy components and modernized elements must coexist.
Effective Common Criteria preparation begins with assigning well-defined responsibilities. Organizations should designate a CC program owner who oversees:
This governance model provides clarity across teams and ensures that every stakeholder understands how their work contributes to the certification effort.
Documentation quality is central to Common Criteria, but readiness is not about producing more documents, it is about embedding traceability and clarity into day-to-day work. A documentation-aligned workflow helps organizations:
This cultural shift ensures that evidence development becomes a natural part of the process, not a last-minute task.
Legacy modernization and certification succeed when development, operations, and security teams operate from a shared understanding of CC constraints. A CC-ready operating model should ensure that:
This alignment reduces inadvertent inconsistencies and helps maintain a coherent security narrative throughout the product.
Before engaging in formal evaluation, organizations benefit from internal readiness checks that provide early visibility into structural or architectural gaps. These assessments help teams:
These recurring checks ensure the project remains aligned with certification requirements as work progresses.
Expert guidance strengthens the internal operating model and helps organizations navigate CC-specific expectations confidently. Engaging with an accredited laboratory early provides clarity on:
CCLab’s consulting support helps organizations streamline preparation, optimize documentation, and avoid costly rework, resulting in a more predictable, efficient certification journey.

The evaluation assurance level framework provides structured approaches to security evaluation. EAL compliance for legacy infrastructure requires careful consideration of system capabilities and security requirements. Organizations must select appropriate EAL levels based on their risk profiles and operational needs.
EAL levels range from basic functionality testing to formal verification methods. Higher levels require more extensive documentation, testing, and analysis. Legacy systems may face challenges meeting higher EAL requirements due to architectural limitations.
For a detailed explanation of the individual Evaluation Assurance Levels, including their structure, objectives, and evaluation depth, explore our earlier article: Common Criteria Assurance Levels: An Overview of the Evaluation Criteria and Methodology.
Organizations should align EAL selection with business requirements and risk tolerance. The chosen level impacts certification timeline, cost, and ongoing compliance obligations. Proper EAL selection balances security assurance with practical implementation considerations.

Organizations must conduct system inventories immediately. Document all legacy components, dependencies, and security controls. This inventory provides the foundation for certification planning and identifies critical areas requiring attention.
Implement basic security controls where possible. Network segmentation, access controls, and monitoring capabilities provide immediate security improvements. These controls demonstrate security commitment and may satisfy some certification requirements.
Establish monitoring protocols for legacy systems. Enhanced logging, security event correlation, and incident response procedures improve security posture. These capabilities support ongoing compliance and provide evidence for certification evaluators.
Develop modernization roadmaps that align with certification timelines. Plan phased implementations that minimize operational disruption while achieving security objectives. Consider how to achieve Common Criteria certification for legacy systems through systematic approaches.
Maintain compliance documentation throughout the process. Regular updates ensure accuracy and completeness when evaluation begins. Proper documentation management reduces certification timeline and demonstrates organizational commitment to security.
Engage with accredited laboratories early in the process. Expert consultation identifies potential issues before they become obstacles. Professional guidance accelerates certification and reduces overall project risk.

The path to Common Criteria certification for legacy systems demands immediate action and strategic planning. Organizations cannot afford to delay preparation as regulatory requirements continue evolving and compliance deadlines approach.
CCLab’s expertise as an independent, accredited CC laboratory provides the guidance organizations need to navigate certification challenges successfully. During our consulting services the experts will guide you through the Common Criteria requirements, so you can:
Legacy system certification is achievable with proper preparation and expert support. The combination of strategic planning, technical implementation, and professional guidance creates a pathway to certification success. Organizations that act decisively position themselves for compliance success while maintaining operational excellence.
If you’re looking for expert guidance to navigate your legacy system certification, you’ve come to the right place. Contact CCLab today, our team will help you prepare and easily overcome the challenges of the certification process.
Time is critical, start your preparation now to meet upcoming compliance deadlines and secure your organization’s future.


This downloadable infographics introduces the Common Criteria Evaluation process to you. Explore now for free.


Download EUCC Study 2024 for the most important and up-to-date information about the new European Union Cybersecurity Certification Scheme


Learn everything you need to know for a successful Common Criteria certification project. Save costs and effort with your checklist.

Legacy systems power critical operations across industries worldwide, yet they present unique challenges when organizations pursue Common Criteria certification. The clock is ticking for manufacturers and enterprises who must navigate complex compliance requirements while maintaining operational continuity. Organizations pursuing Common Criteria certification must address unique challenges when dealing with legacy infrastructure, but with the right approach, success is achievable. The urgency cannot be overstated. Regulatory deadlines approach rapidly, and the cost of non-compliance continues to escalate. Legacy systems that once served as reliable workhorses now require strategic transformation to meet modern security standards. This guide provides actionable strategies to prepare your legacy infrastructure for certification success.
10
min reading time
.jpg)
This article provides an in-depth overview of the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), explaining why the regulation was introduced, its key security requirements, conformity assessment routes such as Module A, the role of harmonized standards, and the lifecycle obligations manufacturers must meet.
10
min reading time

The August 1, 2025 deadline for the Radio Equipment Directive (RED) Delegated Act has passed. You have likely spent the last year scrambling to test devices, freeze software, and secure approvals. But just as the dust settles, a new challenge looms: the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) is now getting in force, with full application expected by December 11, 2027. The immediate worry for many manufacturers is simple: Was the investment for RED wasted? Is the work done for the 2025 deadline just a temporary fix destined to be withdrawn when the CRA takes over? The answer is no, if a strategic approach is taken. The two regulations are "in sync," and the work done for RED-DA is the essential foundation for future CRA compliance.
9
min reading time