Update from the “Security Policy” Working Group (U32a) Ryan Thomas, Acumen Security, United States
This was a large group effort, lots of people coming together. The security policy is used by the product vendor, CST laboratory (to validate), the CMVP, and user and auditor (was it configured in the approved fashion?)
The working group started in 2016, to set up a template with the big goals of efficiency and consistency. When they started, were focused on tables of allowed and disallowed algorithms (non-approved), creation of a keys and CSPs table, approved and non-approved services and mapping the difference.
But, the tables were getting unwieldy, and we were told there were changes coming. Then folks started getting ideas on adding it to the automation work. So, the group took a break after helping with the update of IG 9.5.
Fast forwarding to today, many modules leverage previously validated libraries (OpenSSL, Bouncy Castle, NSS) so the documents should be very similar... but not always. Often still very inconsistent. New goal is to target 80% of the validation types, not all.
Creating templates and example security policies will have people coming from a common baseline. This will be less work for everyone, and hopefully get us to the certificate faster!
By Summer 2018, hope to have a level 1 and level 2 security policy. This is not a new requirement, but a guideline. It will point you to the relevant IGs / section and just help you streamline your work and CMVP's work.
Need to harmonize the current tables to the template. It will be distributed on the CMUF website when complete.
While doing this work, discovered a few things were not well understood across the group (like requirements for listing the low level CPU versions.
Got feedback from CMVP about what are the most common comments they send back on security policy - like how does module meet IG A.5 shall statements? How does XTs AEs meet IG A.9? Etc.
"Surprise!" - You know, when I see something like this I can't help but wonder: [image: amylynn%2Bs.ow.surprise%2Bccc.jpg] Exactly which part do they consider the "sur...