Evaluation Activity Detail

[kenji-lightship]

Many EAs are vague (most of the EAs for the new SFRs). This generally leads to large inconsistencies between different labs. For example:

• FDP_CSI_EXT.1 TSS says, “verify that the description of the revocation function meets the requirements.” The TSS activity should provide detail and hints about what level of detail is required in the description, otherwise, many TSSes will just reiterate the SFR.
• FDP_CSIR_EXT.1 Guidance says part of the activity is dependent on TSS information that is not required by the TSS activity (configurable validity period description).
• Test FIA_CMCC_EXT.1:1 says, “the evaluator shall observe that the CMC messages are compliant with the requirements.”
  • Since the SFR references up to three RFCs, some labs will analyze each SHALL of the RFCs while other labs will only verify valid looking CMC messages are observed. It seems like the actual effort should be somewhere in the middle, but the test does not define the level of effort.
  • The SFR allows for the selection of “simple requests” and/or “full requests.” The test activity does not include “for each,” so it is unlikely both methods will be tested if both are selected.

[jfisherbah]

• FDP_CSI_EXT.1 TSS EA updated to add specific checks so that it's not just a reference to the SFR.
• FDP_CSIR_EXT.1 TSS and guidance EAs updated for consistency
• FIA_CMCC_EXT.1 test activity updated to explicitly state "for each" (first sub-bullet currently under investigation)