Category Archives: interoperability

BSI released version 1.2 of TR-03105 Part 3.3

The German BSI has released a new version 1.2 of TR-03105 Part 3.3 for eIDAS token. This test specification for chip assures conformity and interoperability of eIDAS token like eID cards or residence permits. TR-03105 Part 3.3 contains tests for protocols that are summarized under EACv2 and corresponding data groups.

Front page of German ID card (Personalauswweis) compliant to TR-03105 Part 3.3
Front page of German ID card (Source: Wikipedia)

In TR-03105 Part 3.3 Version 1.2 new test cases are added to verify and assure the correct handling of authorization extensions. Authorization extensions are specified in TR-03110 and they are a special type of certificate extensions. These extensions convey authorizations additional to those in the Certificate Holder Authorization Template (CHAT) contained in the certificate. Additionally, authorization extensions contain exactly one discretionary data object that encodes the relative authorization. The main changes of version 1.2 are:

  • Test cases to verify correct handling of authorization extensions
  • New certificates to perform test cases with authorization extensions
  • The tests for command COMAPRE can now be performed in a more detailed way (see new table in ICS in annex A.1)
  • A new test case to verify the TA migration according to the manufacturer’s implementation conformance statement where the AT trust point are replaced
  • Some minor editorial changes and clarifications

Modified test cases in version 1.2

  • EAC2_7816_L_36: Clarification in Purpose
  • EAC2_7816_N_1: Clarification in purpose
  • EAC2_7816_P_8: Added missing tag ‘7C’ in commands
  • EAC2_ISO7816_P9: Removed tag ‘97’ that is not necessary in command RESET RETRY COUNTER (step 6)
  • EAC2_7816_P_14: Added missing tag ‘7C’ in commands
  • EAC2_7816_P_14: Added missing tag ‘7C’ in commands
  • EAC2_7816_U_13: Expected results: Accept also a checking error in step 3 of preconditions
  • EAC2_7816_U_14: Expected results: Accept also a checking error in step 3 of preconditions
  • EAC2_DATA_B_11: Check a whitelist of SecurityInfos (PACEInfo, PACEDomainParameterInfo, PasswordInfo, ChipAuthenticationInfo, ChipAuthenticationDomainParameterInfo, PSAInfo, TerminalAuthenticationInfo, PSMInfo, CardInfo) and ignore PrivilegedTerminalInfos
  • EAC2_DATA_C_12: Editorial correction in Test-ID
  • EAC2_EIDDATA_B_6: Renamed data type ArtisticName by NomDePlume according to TR-03110

New test cases in version 1.2

  • EAC2_7816_L_38: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate grant access to an eID access function that is reserved for future use (RFU).
  • EAC2_7816_L_39: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate grant access to an eID special function that is reserved for future use (RFU).
  • EAC2_7816_L_40: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate contain a certificate extension (authentication terminals) extended by two empty bytes. The authorization extension in both certificates are extended with leading ‘00 00’ (56 bit instead of 40 bit).
  • EAC2_7816_L_41: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate contain a certificate extension (eID functions) extended by two empty bytes.
  • EAC2_7816_L_42: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate contain a certificate extension (special functions) extended by two empty bytes.
  • EAC2_7816_L_43: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate contain an unknown OID in CHA.
  • EAC2_7816_L_44: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate contain an unknown authorization extension OID in for eID access.
  • EAC2_7816_L_45: Positive test with a valid terminal authentication process. The DV certificate and the terminal certificate contain an unknown authorization extension OID in for special functions.
  • EAC2_ISO7816_M_9: Positive test to verify that a link certificate can activate a feature of the eID card. In this test case the right to read DG1 is used to verify that the eID card supports activation of features by link certificates.
  • EAC2_ISO7816_M_10: Positive test to verify that a link certificate can deactivate a feature of the eID card. In this test case the right to read DG1 is used to verify that the eID card supports deactivation of features by link certificates.
  • EAC2_ISO7816_M_11: Positive test to verify that rights are granted by the last link certificate and not a combination of all rights in the whole certificate chain. In this test case the right to read DG1 is used.
  • EAC2_ISO7816_M_12: Positive test to verify that a link certificate can activate a feature of the eID card. In this test case the right to compare DG8 is used to verify that the eID card supports activation of eID Access features by link certificates.
  • EAC2_ISO7816_M_13:  Positive test to verify that a link certificate can deactivate a feature of the eID card. In this test case the right to compare DG8 is used to verify that the eID card supports deactivation of eID Access features by link certificates.
  • EAC2_ISO7816_M_14: Positive test to verify that eID Access rights are granted by the last link certificate and not a combination of all rights in the whole certificate chain. In this test case the right to compare DG8 is used.
  • EAC2_7816_N_2: Positive test case to verify the TA mechanism migration according to the manufacturer’s implementation statement (replacement of the AT trust point)

As mentioned in my previous blog post describing latest version of TR-03105 Part 5.1, I’ve extended the focus of my blog from ePassports towards eID and eIDAS token. You can find a list of current test specifications here.

Version 1.5 of BSI TR-03105 Part 5.1 available

Introduction

The German BSI has released a new version 1.5 of TR-03105 Part 5.1. This technical guideline specifies conformity test cases for inspection system that are used in context of border control.

Cover of TR-03105 Part 5.1 Version 1.5
Cover of TR-03105 Part 5.1 Version 1.5

This new version replaces previous maintenance version 1.41, that was released in 2016. Most changes of the current release are based on comments of BSI, G+D Mobile Security and secunet Scurity Networks. This blog post decribes the changes, that took effect over the last months and were finalizied in version 1.5.

Important changes in version 1.5 of TR-03105 Part 5.1:

  • Several test cases are moved to ICAO Test Specification Part 4 for inspection systems
  • Removed transfer interface: specification deleted and test cases adopted.
  • Added new configuration for default EAC+PACE passport
  • Added new test suite for EF.CardSecurity (test suite LDS_J)
  • Added new test suite for EF.ATR/INFO (test suite LDS_K)
  • Added new test cases to verify trust anchor updates
  • Certificates:
    • Generic encoding of Certificate Holder Reference (CHR)
    • New certificates: DV_Cert_16, IS_Cert_16, CVCA_Link_Cert_16, CVCA_Link_Cert_17
  • New profile ‘DPRCTD-SHA1‘ for deprecated SHA-1 algorithm, including updated reference documents: several test cases require that an inspection system successfully validates any CSCA and DS certificate as well as SOD signed with RSA / DSA / ECDSA and SHA-1. This includes certificates and SOD signed 2019 or later. Doc9303 6th edition allowed for the usage of SHA-1, but Doc9303-12 7th edition (2015) clause 4.4.4 does not allow for the usage of these algorithms any longer: “SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512, are the only permitted hashing algorithms”. There are plenty of eMRTDs with CSCA and DS certificates in circulation that follow the 6th edition and make use of SHA-1, i.e. an inspection system shall still support SHA-1. But the test specification should not explicitly require that an inspection system successfully validates a CSCA certificate, the corresponding DS certificate and the eMRTD’s SOD issued recently (or later during the life-time of the test specification) which are signed with RSA / DSA / ECDSA and SHA-1.
  • Deprecated algorithm SHA-1 is replaced by alternative hash algorithm if applicable:
    • Modified test cases: LDS_H_74, LDS_H_75, LDS_H_76, LDS_H_77, LDS_I_01, LDS_I_02, LDS_I_03
  • Updated list of abbreviations and reference documentation
  • Consistent wording of OID (ICAO guide lines and BSI guide lines)
  • Clarification concerning the usage of PACE (test suite ISO7816_G)
  • Updated and re-organised list of algorithms to be supported by inspection systems (chapter 7)
  • Updated list of abbreviations and reference documentation
  • Minor editorial changes

Moved test cases

  • ISO7816_A_01: moved to ICAO ISO7816_A_01
  • ISO7816_A_02: moved to ICAO ISO7816_A_02
  • ISO7816_A_03: moved to ICAO ISO7816_A_04 
  • ISO7816_B_01: moved to ICAO ISO7816_B_01
  • ISO7816_B_02: moved to ICAO ISO7816_B_02
  • ISO7816_B_03: moved to ICAO ISO7816_B_03
  • ISO7816_B_04: moved to ICAO ISO7816_D_01
  • ISO7816_B_05: moved to ICAO ISO7816_D_02
  • ISO7816_B_06: moved to ICAO ISO7816_D_03
  • ISO7816_B_07: moved to ICAO ISO7816_D_04
  • ISO7816_B_08: moved to ICAO ISO7816_D_05
  • ISO7816_B_09: moved to ICAO ISO7816_D_06
  • ISO7816_B_10: moved to ICAO LDS_D32
  • ISO7816_C_01: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_01
  • ISO7816_C_02: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_02    
  • ISO7816_C_03: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_03
  • ISO7816_C_04: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_04
  • ISO7816_C_05: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_05
  • ISO7816_C_06: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_06
  • ISO7816_C_07: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_07
  • ISO7816_C_08: moved to ICAO ISO7816_F_08
  • ISO7816_D_01: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_01
  • ISO7816_D_02: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_02
  • ISO7816_D_03: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_03
  • ISO7816_D_04: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_04
  • ISO7816_D_05: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_05
  • ISO7816_D_06: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_06
  • ISO7816_D_07: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_07
  • ISO7816_D_08: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_08
  • ISO7816_D_09: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_09
  • ISO7816_D_10: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_10
  • ISO7816_D_11: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_11
  • ISO7816_D_12: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_12
  • ISO7816_D_13: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_13
  • ISO7816_D_14: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_14
  • ISO7816_D_15: moved to ICAO ISO7816_G_15
  • ISO7816_F_01: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_01
  • ISO7816_F_02: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_02
  • ISO7816_F_04: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_03
  • ISO7816_F_05: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_04
  • ISO7816_F_06: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_05
  • ISO7816_F_07: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_06
  • ISO7816_F_08: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_07
  • ISO7816_F_09: moved to ICAO ISO7816_E_08
  • ISO7816_G_01: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_01
  • ISO7816_G_02: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_02
  • ISO7816_G_03: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_03
  • ISO7816_G_04: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_04
  • ISO7816_G_05: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_05
  • ISO7816_G_06: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_06
  • ISO7816_G_07: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_07
  • ISO7816_G_08: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_08
  • ISO7816_G_09: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_09
  • ISO7816_G_10: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_10
  • ISO7816_G_11: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_11
  • ISO7816_G_12: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_12
  • ISO7816_G_13: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_13
  • ISO7816_G_14: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_14
  • ISO7816_G_15: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_15
  • ISO7816_G_16: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_16
  • ISO7816_G_17: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_17
  • ISO7816_G_18: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_18
  • ISO7816_G_19: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_19
  • ISO7816_G_20: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_20
  • ISO7816_G_21: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_21
  • ISO7816_G_22: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_22
  • ISO7816_G_23: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_23
  • ISO7816_G_24: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_24
  • ISO7816_G_25: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_25
  • ISO7816_G_26: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_26
  • ISO7816_G_27: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_27
  • ISO7816_G_28: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_28
  • ISO7816_G_29: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_29
  • ISO7816_G_30: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_30
  • ISO7816_G_31: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_31
  • ISO7816_G_32: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_32
  • ISO7816_G_33: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_33
  • ISO7816_G_34: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_34
  • ISO7816_G_35: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_35
  • ISO7816_G_38: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_36
  • ISO7816_G_39: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_37
  • ISO7816_G_40: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_38
  • ISO7816_G_41: moved to ICAO ISO7816_C_39
  • LDS_A_01: moved to ICAO LDS_A_01
  • LDS_A_02: moved to ICAO LDS_A_02
  • LDS_A_03: moved to ICAO LDS_A_03
  • LDS_A_04: moved to ICAO LDS_A_04
  • LDS_A_05: moved to ICAO LDS_A_05
  • LDS_A_06: moved to ICAO LDS_A_06
  • LDS_A_07: moved to ICAO LDS_A_07
  • LDS_A_08: moved to ICAO LDS_A_08
  • LDS_A_09: moved to ICAO LDS_A_09
  • LDS_A_10: moved to ICAO LDS_A_10
  • LDS_B_01: moved to ICAO LDS_B_01
  • LDS_B_02: moved to ICAO LDS_B_02
  • LDS_B_03: moved to ICAO LDS_B_03
  • LDS_B_04: moved to ICAO LDS_B_04
  • LDS_B_05: moved to ICAO LDS_B_05
  • LDS_B_06: moved to ICAO LDS_B_06
  • LDS_B_07: moved to ICAO LDS_B_07
  • LDS_B_08: moved to ICAO LDS_B_08
  • LDS_B_09: moved to ICAO LDS_B_09
  • LDS_B_10: moved to ICAO LDS_B_10
  • LDS_B_11: moved to ICAO LDS_B_11
  • LDS_B_12: moved to ICAO LDS_B_12
  • LDS_B_13: moved to ICAO LDS_B_13
  • LDS_B_14: moved to ICAO LDS_B_14
  • LDS_B_15: moved to ICAO LDS_B_15
  • LDS_B_16: moved to ICAO LDS_B_16
  • LDS_B_17: moved to ICAO LDS_B_17
  • LDS_B_18: moved to ICAO LDS_B_18
  • LDS_B_19: moved to ICAO LDS_B_19
  • LDS_B_20: moved to ICAO LDS_B_20
  • LDS_B_21: moved to ICAO LDS_B_21
  • LDS_B_22: moved to ICAO LDS_B_22
  • LDS_B_23: moved to ICAO LDS_B_23
  • LDS_B_24: moved to ICAO LDS_B_24
  • LDS_B_25: moved to ICAO LDS_B_25
  • LDS_B_26: moved to ICAO LDS_B_26
  • LDS_B_27: moved to ICAO LDS_B_27
  • LDS_B_28: moved to ICAO LDS_B_28
  • LDS_C_01: moved to ICAO LDS_C_01
  • LDS_C_02: moved to ICAO LDS_C_02
  • LDS_C_03: moved to ICAO LDS_C_03
  • LDS_C_04: moved to ICAO LDS_C_04
  • LDS_C_05: moved to ICAO LDS_C_05
  • LDS_C_06: moved to ICAO LDS_C_06
  • LDS_C_07: moved to ICAO LDS_C_07
  • LDS_C_08: moved to ICAO LDS_C_08
  • LDS_C_09: moved to ICAO LDS_C_09
  • LDS_C_10: moved to ICAO LDS_C_10
  • LDS_C_11: moved to ICAO LDS_C_11
  • LDS_C_12: moved to ICAO LDS_C_12
  • LDS_C_13: moved to ICAO LDS_C_13
  • LDS_C_14: moved to ICAO LDS_C_14
  • LDS_C_15: moved to ICAO LDS_C_15
  • LDS_C_16: moved to ICAO LDS_C_16
  • LDS_C_17: moved to ICAO LDS_C_17
  • LDS_C_18: moved to ICAO LDS_C_18
  • LDS_C_19: moved to ICAO LDS_C_19
  • LDS_C_20: moved to ICAO LDS_C_20
  • LDS_C_21: moved to ICAO LDS_C_21
  • LDS_C_22: moved to ICAO LDS_C_22
  • LDS_C_23: moved to ICAO LDS_C_23
  • LDS_C_24: moved to ICAO LDS_C_24
  • LDS_C_25: moved to ICAO LDS_C_25
  • LDS_C_26: moved to ICAO LDS_C_26
  • LDS_C_27: moved to ICAO LDS_C_27
  • LDS_C_28: moved to ICAO LDS_C_28
  • LDS_H_17: moved to ICAO LDS_D_02
  • LDS_H_18: moved to ICAO LDS_D_03
  • LDS_H_19: moved to ICAO LDS_D_04
  • LDS_H_20: moved to ICAO LDS_D_05
  • LDS_H_21: moved to ICAO LDS_D_06
  • LDS_H_22: moved to ICAO LDS_D_07
  • LDS_H_23: moved to ICAO LDS_D_08
  • LDS_H_24: moved to ICAO LDS_D_09
  • LDS_H_25: moved to ICAO LDS_D_10
  • LDS_H_26: moved to ICAO LDS_D_11
  • LDS_H_27: moved to ICAO LDS_D_12
  • LDS_H_28: moved to ICAO LDS_D_13
  • LDS_H_29: moved to ICAO LDS_D_14
  • LDS_H_30: moved to ICAO LDS_D_15
  • LDS_H_31: moved to ICAO LDS_D_16
  • LDS_H_32: moved to ICAO LDS_D_17
  • LDS_H_33: moved to ICAO LDS_D_18
  • LDS_H_37: moved to ICAO LDS_D_19
  • LDS_H_38: moved to ICAO LDS_D_20
  • LDS_H_39: moved to ICAO LDS_D_21
  • LDS_H_40: moved to ICAO LDS_D_22
  • LDS_H_41: moved to ICAO LDS_D_23
  • LDS_H_42: moved to ICAO LDS_D_24
  • LDS_H_43: moved to ICAO LDS_D_25
  • LDS_H_44: moved to ICAO LDS_D_26 
  • LDS_H_48: moved to ICAO LDS_D_27 
  • LDS_H_49: moved to ICAO LDS_D_28 
  • LDS_H_53: moved to ICAO LDS_D_29 
  • LDS_H_67: moved to ICAO LDS_D_30 
  • LDS_H_68: moved to ICAO LDS_D_31 
  • LDS_H_86: moved to ICAO LDS_D_35
  • LDS_H_87: moved to ICAO LDS_D_36
  • LDS_H_88: moved to ICAO LDS_D_37
  • LDS_H_89: moved to ICAO LDS_D_38

New test cases

  • ISO7816_E_31: New test case to check dynamic binding between protocols
  • ISO7816_E_32: New test case to check TA including trust anchor update
  • ISO7816_E_33: New test case to check TA with two different trust anchors
  • ISO7816_E_34: New test case to check TA with offered but not needed trust anchor update
  • ISO7816_E_35: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs terminal authentication successfully with id-TA-RSA-v1-5-SHA-512 algorithm
  • ISO7816_E_36: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs terminal authentication successfully with id-TA-RSA-PSS-SHA-512 algorithm
  • ISO7816_E_37: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs terminal authentication successfully with id-TA-ECDSA-SHA-384 algorithm
  • ISO7816_E_38: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs terminal authentication successfully with id-TA-ECDSA-SHA-512 algorithm
  • LDS_H_90: New test case with EF.SOD inconsistent with EF.COM (more data groups)
  • LDS_H_91: New test case with EF.SOD inconsistent with EF.COM (less data groups)
  • LDS_H_92: New test case with EF.SOD inconsistent with EF.COM (different data groups)
  • LDS_H_93: New test case with EF.SOD with missing checksum of EF.CardAccess
  • LDS_H_94: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs correctly if EF.SOD contains RSASSA-PSS with SHA224, SHA224 DG hash, DS stored inside SOD
  • LDS_H_95: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs correctly if EF.SOD contains RSASSA-PSS with SHA384, SHA384 DG hash, DS stored inside SOD
  • LDS_H_96: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs correctly if EF.SOD contains RSASSA-PSS with SHA512, SHA512 DG hash, DS stored inside SOD
  • LDS_H_97: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs correctly if EF.SOD contains DSA with SHA224, SHA224 DG hash, DS stored inside SOD
  • LDS_H_98: New test case to verify that the inspection system performs correctly if EF.SOD contains DSA with SHA256, SHA256 DG hash, DS stored inside SOD
  • LDS_J_01: New test case with CardSecurity inconsistent with EF.CardAccess (more SecurityInfos)
  • LDS_J_02: New test case with CardSecurity inconsistent with EF.CardAccess (less SecurityInfos)
  • LDS_J_03: New test case with CardSecurity inconsistent with EF.CardAccess (different SecurityInfos)
  • LDS_J_03: New test case with an incorrect ChipAuthenticationPublicKeyInfo for PACE-CAM in EF.CardSecurity
  • LDS_J_04: New test case with an incorrect ChipAuthenticationPublicKeyInfo in EF.CardSecurity
  • LDS_K_01: New test case with valid encoding with two bytes length for APDU
  • LDS_K_02: New test case with valid encoding with three bytes length for APDU
  • LDS_K_03: New test case with only one valid value for command length
  • LDS_K_04: New test case with wrong tag 7F66

Modified test cases

  • ISO7816_E_01: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1‘
  • ISO7816_E_03: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1‘
  • ISO7816_E_05: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1‘
  • ISO7816_E_19: Clarification in purpose
  • LDS_H_01: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1 ‘
  • LDS_H_02: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1 ‘
  • LDS_H_08: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1 ‘
  • LDS_H_09: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1 ‘
  • LDS_H_10: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1 ‘
  • LDS_H_15: importance of test case changed form ‘Mandatory’ to ‘Optional’
  • LDS_H_79: Added profile ‚DPRCTD-SHA1‘
  • LDS_I_01: Clarification in purpose of test case

Deleted test cases

  • ISO7816_F_03: Test case deleted in version 1.5
  • LDS_H_16: Test case deleted in version 1.5

Focus extension of this blog to eIDAS token

Until today the focus of this blog was limited to ePassports or eMRTDs specified by BSI and ICAO. From now on this focus will be extended also to eIDAS token.

eIDAS Logo

An eIDAS token is specified also in BSI TR-03110. The technical guideline specifies a set of different algorithms and protocols that can be used in the area of identification and authorisation. One representative for a token like this is for example the German ID card (Personalausweis).

Additionally, a first prototype of an eIDAS token was implemented during a project called PersoSim on behalf of BSI. Goal of this project was to implement the functionality of a German ID card in a simulator including a virtual smart card reader.

Protocols specified in TR-03110 beyond eMRTD are:

  • Restricted Identification (RI)
  • Pseudonymous Signatures (PS)
  • Chip Authentication Version 2
  • Chip Authentication Version 3
  • Terminal Authentication Version 3
  • Enhanced Role Authentication (ERA)
  • Authorization Extension for additional attributes

From now on you can find test specifications for eIDAS token at the overview of test specifications. There are more and more eID documents using the protocols specified in in TR-03110 (e.g. Authorization Extension for LDS2 where entry and exit stamps are stored on the chip) and at the end of the day the corresponding test specifications are getting more and more important. That’s the reason why I decided to blog also about eIDAS token at this blog from now on.

Update of BSI TR-03105 Part 3.2 available

Introduction

The German BSI has released new versions of their test specifications TR-03105 Part 3. These test specifications covers the protocols in the context of chips used in eID documents. Part 3.2 covers security protocols used in common eMRTDs. This blog post describes the changes of this new version 1.5. The last version was released in 2014 and since this time some changes were necessary.

Beside several editorial changes and maintenance the most important changes of TR-03105 Part 3.2 Version 1.5 are the move of both test suites concerning Chip Authentication to the ICAO test specification part 3 and the new test suite for EF.ATR/INFO. The file EF.ATR/INFO is recommended by ICAO to store the buffer sizes that should be used by the terminal to read the chip content in a performant way. Maintenance includes updating the referenced documents and a consistent wording (e.g. ‘Data Group’ or ‘FID’) in the whole specification.

Certificates are specified now in a more comfortable way similar to the way used in TR-03105 Part 3.3: Certificate Holder Reference (CHR) and Certification Authority Reference (CAR) are now specified in the parameter block in a human-readable way and not in hex as before.

The specified security status – described in chapter 3.2.1 – was updated: A Secure Messaging session SHOULD (instead of MUST in the previous version) be aborted if and only if a secure messaging error occurs.

The list of abbreviations in chapter 1.1 was updated (e.g. FID or SFI) and corrected (e.g. CAR).

Profiles were adapted to handle the optional Basic Access Control (BAC) protocol and the optional file EF.ATR/INFO. Additionally all profiles for Chip Authentication (CA_KAT, CA_ATGA and KeyRef) are deleted or rather moved to ICAO part 3.

Note: TR-03105 Part 3.1 Version 1.2.1 contains a new requirement for test laboratories: “During the certification process the test laboratory must ensure that the features quoted by the applicant in his Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) are in fact in coincidence with the features supported and accordingly not supported by the chip”.

New test cases in version 1.5

BSI TR-03105 Part 3.2 contains the following new test cases / test units:

  • 7816_L_15: Test that the chip rejects an additional BAC run or resets extended access rights after successful PACE run (PACE, CA1, TA1, BAC)
  • 7816_L_16: Test that the chip rejects an additional PACE run or resets extended access rights after successful BAC run (BAC, CA1, TA1, PACE)
  • LDS_L: Test suite to verify the conformity of file EF.ATR/INFO

Modified test cases in version 1.5

BSI TR-03105 Part 3.2 contains the following modified test cases / test units / certificates:

  • DV_Cert_10c: Corrected CHR in certificate
  • DV_Cert_10d: Corrected CHR in certificate
  • DV_Cert_11b: Corrected CHR in certificate
  • 7816_H_xx: Used <Lc> instead of fixed encoded length of command in step 1
  • 7816_I and 7816_II: Test suites moved to ICAO Part 3
  • 7816_J_12: Accept also ’90 00′ as valid status word in step 1
  • 7816_K_1a: Added profile BAC
  • 7816_L_13: Added conditional step 10 to verify that access to data group 3 has NOT been granted
  • 7816_L_14: Corrected encoding of SELECT command in step 8
  • 7816_M_xx: Used <Lc> instead of fixed encoded length of command
  • LDS_E: Moved test cases LDS_E_1- LDS_E_4 (Chip Authentication) to ICAO part 3 and renumbering of test cases

It took more than a year to update this test specification in combination with Part 3.3 which handles eIDAS protocols and EACv2 used by eID cards. Several stake holders and members of ‘Deutsches Industrie Forum’ (DIF) commented both versions and at the end this version is a consensus of all participated bodies.

Update of ICAO RF and Protocol Test Specification

Introduction

Simultaneously the ICAO released updated and new versions of their ICAO test specifications for eMRTD and corresponding inspection systems. While the Technical AdvisorICAO Logoy Group (TAG) of ICAO endorsed the update on the ICAO website, from now on these test specifications can be referenced officially and can also be used for certification. Additionally, there is also a new test specification part 5 available focusing on PKI objects like certificates and revocation lists.

 

ICAO Test Specification Part 3 (eMRTD)

Finally version 2.11 of the ICAO test specification for eMRTDs is a result of two ISO SC17 WG3 TF4 meetings 2017 in Paris and 2018 in Tokyo and also a result of the interoperability test in Ispra 2017. First of all there are some interesting modifications compared with the previous version 2.10 released in 2016:

  • Test cases and ICS adoption for Chip Authentication Version 1 (test cases are moved from BSI TR-03105 Part 3.2)
  • Test of command robustness with invalid class bytes are removed
  • Clarifications concerning PACE test cases
  • Clarification concerning ISO execution errors
  • Clarification concerning extended length APDUs used during Active Authentication
  • Some corrections concerning LDS version 1.8
  • Additionally, there are some clarifications and minor editorial changes

New test cases in Version 2.11

Most noteworthy the ICAO test specification part 3 contains the following new test cases:

  • ISO7816_P_79: Negative test case to verify the Secure Messaging handling while PACE access is granted for the SELECT application command (bad send sequence counter)
  • ISO7816_R_07: Positive test case to verify the behavior of a PACE-protected eMRTD in response to the INTERNAL AUTHENTICATE
  • Test suite ISO7816_T: New test cases for Chip Authentication (this tests were moved from BSI TR-03105 Part 3.2 with minor corrections and remove robustness test of invalid class bytes)
  • LDS_E_01: Test the LDS tag of the DG14 object
  • LDS_E_02: Test the ASN.1 encoding of the SecurityInfos for Chip Authentication
  • LDS_E_03: Test the ASN.1 encoding of the ChipAuthenticationPublicKeyInfo
  • LDS_E_04: Test the ASN.1 encoding of the ChipAuthenticationInfo
  • LDS_K_05: Test the ASN.1 encoding of a PCKS#7 signedData object
  • LDS_K_06: Test the value that is encoded into the signedData element
  • LDS_K_07: Test the SignerInfo element of the signedData structure
  • LDS_K_08: Test the signing certificate used to verify the EF.CardSecurity object

Modified test cases in Version 2.11

The ICAO test specification part 3 contains the following modified test cases:

  • ISO7816_A_2: SELECT Application command with CLA byte ‘8F’ is removed
  • ISO7816_C_15: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_C_19: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_D_2: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_E_2: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_F_2: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_G_2: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_P_04: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_P_18: Test case removed
  • ISO7816_P_37: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_P_38: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_P_39: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_P_40: Test case removed (invalid CLA byte)
  • ISO7816_P_66: Hint, that in test scenario step 1 the length encoding of DO ’80’ must be correct
  • ISO7816_P_67: Hint, that in test scenario step 1 the length encoding of DO ’80’ must be correct
  • ISO7816_R_01: Generic length encoding of APDU
  • ISO7816_R_02: Generic use of DO ’97’ and length encoding of APDU
  • ISO7816_R_03: Hint, that INTERNAL AUTHENTICATE command must use Secure Messaging if access control mechanism is supported
  • ISO7816_R_04: Hint, that INTERNAL AUTHENTICATE command must use Secure Messaging if access control mechanism is supported
  • ISO781_S_03: Padding indicator ’01’ in DO ’85’ is removed (odd ins)
  • ISO781_S_04: Padding indicator ’01’ in DO ’85’ is removed (odd ins)
  • LDS_A_03: In EF.COM there is also LDS version 1.8 accepted
  • LDS_A_05: Purpose of test case is corrected
  • LDS_C_04: Check that the number of Biometric Information Group Templates (BIGT) is one
  • LDS_D_04: Check also the LDS security object version in test scenario step 4; a future version of Doc9303 part 10 requires that the signedData certificates field in LDS v1.8
    SHALL include the Document Signer Certificate (CDS)
  • LDS_D_06: Check that LDS Version Info element does not exist in test scenario step 8 and handle also LDS version 1.8 in this test case
  • LDS_D_07: Check that the validity period of the signing certificate MUST be within the validity period of the country signing certificate in test scenario step 4
  • Test suite LDS_E: Numbering of test cases has changed
  • LDS_E_07: Check also the hash algorithm output length of the signatureAlgorithm
  • LDS_J_05: ECDSA is also be handled in test scenario step 3 from now on

ICAO Test Specification Part 4 (Inspection Systems)

Also ICAO test specification part 4 version 2.11 is the result of a typical ISO process finalized by the same meetings in Paris and Tokyo of ISO SC17 WG3 TF4 mentioned above. Finally this specification contains also some interesting changes compared with the previous version 2.10 released in 2016:

  • Configuration of default EAC MRTD specifies EF.DG15
  • Specification of a default PACE-CAM protected eMRTD
  • Clarifications concerning PACE and PACE-CAM
  • Additionally, there are some clarifications and minor editorial changes.
  • Added profile AA.B4 to test signature generation scheme specified in ISO/IEC 9796-2 paragraph B.4.

New test cases in Version 2.11

The ICAO test specification part 4 contains the following new test cases:

  • ISO7816_E_11: Test case verifies that the inspection system performs the Active Authentication with RSA algorithm in the signature function and B.4 method
  • ISO7816_B_04: Positive test with BAC protected eMRTD and three line MRZ
  • ISO7816_G_16: Check correct execution of the Chip Authentication protocol
  • LDS_B_29: Test verifies that the test object can detect a mismatch between MRZ and EF.DG1 where MRZ uses TD2 format and EF.DG1 uses TD1 format
  • LDS_B_30: Test verifies that the test object can detect a mismatch between MRZ and EF.DG1 where MRZ uses TD1 format and EF.DG1 uses TD2 format
  • LDS_D_01: Added test cases for missing algorithm and signature combinations
  • LDS_D_19: Added test cases for DSA with various SHA algorithms
  • LDS_D_39: Test case verifies that the inspection system checks the signature in EF.CardSecurity and detects an invalid signature

Modified test cases in Version 2.11

The ICAO test specification part 4 contains the following modified test cases:

  • ISO7816_C_01: Test case include three line MRZ from now on
  • ISO7816_C_03: Editorial correction of protocol name
  • ISO7816_C_29: Use new configuration for PACE CAM protected eMRTD
  • ISO7816_C_30: Use new configuration for PACE CAM protected eMRTD
  • ISO7816_C_31: Use new configuration for PACE CAM protected eMRTD
  • ISO7816_C_32: Use new configuration for PACE CAM protected eMRTD
  • ISO7816_C_33: Use new configuration for PACE CAM protected eMRTD
  • ISO7816_C_34: Use a special configuration to indicate that the IS performs Passive Authentication
  • ISO7816_C_36: Change context form PACE-CAM to PACE (CAM -> GM)
  • ISO7816_C_39: Use new configuration for PACE CAM protected eMRTD
  • ISO7816_E_01: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_02: Clarification of EF.DG14 and specification of EF.DG15 and using of signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_03: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_04: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_05: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_06: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_07: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_08: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_E_09: Perform Active Authentication with B.6 method of ISO/IEC 9796-2 and use RSA-SHA1; Hint, that the RSA operation during AA must result in a value bigger than n/2 with n being the modulus to ensure that method B6 is really used in this test case
  • ISO7816_E_10: Use signature production function B.6
  • ISO7816_F_03: Test case removed
  • ISO7816_G_07: Correction of key agreement algorithm (id-CA-DH-3DES-CBC-CBC)
  • ISO7816_G_11: Correction of key agreement algorithm (id-CA-DH-3DES-CBC-CBC)
  • ISO7816_G_15: Use default EAC configuration in this test case
  • LDS_A_01: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_02: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_03: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups and correction of increased length)
  • LDS_A_04: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_05: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_06: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_07: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_08: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_09: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_A_10: Correction in EF.COM (removed data groups)
  • LDS_C_14: Access condition of EF.DG2 changed from BAC to PACE
  • LDS_C_17: Corrected ID of configuration
  • LDS_D_26: Access condition of EF.SOD changed from BAC to PACE
  • LDS_D_35: Corrected wording in specification of EF.SOD
  • LDS_D_36: Corrected wording in specification of EF.SOD and corrected title of test case
  • LDS_D_37: Corrected wording in specification of EF.SOD and corrected title of test case
  • LDS_D_38: Test case removed
  • LDS_E_01: Access condition of EF.DG15 changed from BAC to PACE
  • LDS_E_02: Access condition of EF.DG15 changed from BAC to PACE
  • LDS_E_03: Access condition of EF.DG15 changed from BAC to PACE
  • LDS_F_01: Correction in content of EF.DG14 (generic length)
  • LDS_F_02: Correction in content of EF.DG14 (generic length)
  • LDS_F_03: Correction in content of EF.DG14 (generic length)

New and noteworthy ICAO documents and updates

As mentioned in the introduction ICAO has release a new test specification for PKI objects. The new part 5 of ICAO test specifications is focusing on various things used in this context like certificates, certificate revocation lists (CRL) as well as master and deviation lists. Furthermore, there is a new version 1.7 of the technical report Visible Digital Seals for Non-Electronic Documents available.  Technical report Portrait Quality is released in version 1.0 where reference facial images for eMRTD are specified. Concerning LDS2 the technical report LDS2 – PKI specifies the PKI to support the ICAO LDS2 project including travel records, visa records and additional biometrics. Last but not least there is also a new version of technical report Logical Data Structure (LDS) for Storage of Data in the Contactless IC, Doc 9303-10 LDS 2 – New Applications available at the ICAO website.

First results of eMRTD Interoperability Test 2017 in Ispra

The European Commission (EC) organised another eMRTD interoperability test. This time the event took place in Ispra at the Joint Research Center of the European Union. The objective of this interoperability test was to assure that countries and companies have established a stable PACE protocol in their eMRTD, respective ePassports, and ID cards.

Test setup of eMRTD interoperability test

Every participant had the chance to submit up to two different sets of documents with different implementations. Altogether there were 42 different samples available at the beginning of the event. 2 samples didn’t pass the smoke test and one sample was not suitable to be tested by the labs. All remaining samples were tested in two different test procedures: crossover test and conformity test. Twelve document verification system providers with 16 different solutions took part in the crossover test. And 23 document providers threw 42 sets in the ring (28 countries, 14 industries).

In this blog post the conformity test is focused on, because protocols are in foreground in this kind of test. There were three test labs (Keolabs, UL and secunet) taking part in the interoperability test with their test tools to perform a subset of “ICAO TR RF Protocol and Application Test Standard for e-Passports, Part 3” (Version 2.10). The subset includes the following test suites and test cases:

  • ISO7816_O: Security conditions for PACE protected eMRTDs
  • ISO7816_P: Password Authenticated Connection Establishment (PACEv2)
  • ISO7816_Q: Command READ and SELECT for file EF.CardAccess
  • LDS_E: Matching between EF.DG14 and EF.CardAccess
  • LDS_I: Structure of EF.CardAccess
  • LDS_K: Structure of EF.CardSecurity
  • LDS_D_06: Test case to perform Passive Authentication

Information concerning documents

The document providers describe in the implementation conformance statement (ICS) the features of their chips. Not all ICS were fulfilled consistently, so the following information concerning the documents should be read carefully. Concerning the LDS version 16 providers reported version 1.7 to be used in their documents. And three reported version 1.8, while all others don’t deliver any information concerning the version number.

The following diagram describes the relation between DH and ECDH in PACE:

PACE algorithms

PACE algorithms

The following diagram describes the relation of the mapping protocols in PACE:

Mapping protocols in PACE

Mapping protocols

16 documents supported besides the MRZ also a CAN as a password to get access to the stored data.

Again, the number of PACEInfos store in EF.CardAccess varied:

  • 28 documents stored one PACEInfo,
  • Eight documents stored two PACEInfos,
  • One stored each three, seven or ten PACEInfos.

Investigations concerning EF.ATR/INFO in documents

The file EF.ATR/INFO allows storing some information about the chip, that allows the reader to handle the chip optimally. On this way the chip can offer the ideal buffer size used with extended length during reading and writing. In context of the event I had a closer look at EF.ATR/INFO. 26 documents of 42 stored an EF.ATR/INFO but 5 of them don’t offer information concerning extended length and buffer sizes there. So at the end I’ve investigated the reading buffer sizes of 21 documents of the eMRTD interoperability test with the following result:

  • Seven documents support buffer sizes between 1 and 1.5 KByte,
  • Three documents support buffer sizes between 1.5 and 2 KByte,
  • Eleven documents support buffer sizes of ~64 KByte.

Buffer sizes for reading in EF.ATR/INFO

Buffer sizes in EF.ATR/INFO (reading)

With these large buffer sizes data groups like DG2 storing the facial image or DG3 storing the finger prints can be read in only one command. This allows the inspection system to read the content of the chip faster and improves the reading time at eGates.

Results of conformity testing

During the conformity test, all three test labs performed 18.135 test cases altogether. Less than 1 percent of these test cases failed during the conformity test.

Overall results (layer 6 and layer 7):

  • Passed: 11.563
  • Failed: 155 (0,86%)
  • Not applicable: 6.417

Layer 6 (16.614 test cases performed):

  • Passed: 10.885
  • Failed: 124 (0,74%)

Layer 7 (1.521 test cases performed):

  • Passed: 679
  • Failed: 32 (2,10%)

The following diagram shows failed test cases per document during the eMRTD interoperability test:

Number of failures per document

Number of failures per document

The diagram below shows the number of failure per test case during the eMRTD interoperability test:

Failures per test case

Failures per test case

Observations during conformity testing

  • There are minor differences between implementation conformance statement (ICS) and chip.
  • Test results differ between test labs in some test cases.
  • There are differences in handling errors at the test tools and labs (e.g. no CAN causes a failure at the one lab and a ‘not applicable’ at the other lab).
  • Relatively more failures on layer 7 (personalisation) than on layer 6 (COS).
  • Very good quality of chip and personalisation.
  • Improvements during the last interoperability tests in London 2016 and Madrid 2014.
  • Stable specifications (BSI TR-03110, ICAO Doc 9303) and test specifications (BSI TR-03105, ICAO TR Part 3).

Call for Participation: Interoperability Test 2017 in Ispra

The European Commission will organize conformity and interoperability tests for eMRTDs together with a conference on 25th and 26th September 2017. It will be held in the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) premises in Ispra, Italy. The tests will focus on the latest access control specifications (e.g. the operation of the PACE protocol with Chip Authentication Mapping). This security mechanism, known as “Password Authenticated Connection Establishment with Chip Authentication Mapping” (PACE-CAM) is specified in Technical Report BSI TR-03110 “Advanced Security Mechanisms for Machine Readable Travel Documents and eIDAS token” and it combines PACE and Chip Authentication (CA) into one protocol leading to faster ID document verification.

Logo JRC

The conference will take place on the second day (26/09/2017) and will include speakers from the EU Commission, ICAO (requested) and Member States (requested). At its end, the high-level aggregate results of the tests will be presented.

The main beneficiaries of these tests are EU Member States. Depending on the number of EU Member States that will participate in the event, and provided that it is possible from an organisational perspective, a limited number of non-EU ICAO Member States and private sector travel document manufacturers will be allowed to participate in the test (on a first come first serve basis).

The test will focus on the implementation of PACE as specified in the Technical Report “Radio Frequency Protocol and Application Test Standard for eMRTD Part 3 Tests for Application Protocol and Logical Data Structure“, Version: 2.10, July 2016.

You can find the Call for Participation for the interoperability test here with more information concerning preregistration etc. See you in Ispra!

How to assure interoperability?

Motivation

Typically protocols are connecting two different systems. In an open system with several stakeholders interoperability between these systems is a fundamental requirement. To assure this interoperability there are various way. In this blog post I present you two popular approaches in cooperation with my colleague Dr. Guido Frank who works at the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI).

Interoperability

Interoperability is a characteristic of a product or system, whose interfaces are completely understood, to work with other products or systems, present or future, in either implementation or access, without any restrictions (Source: Wikipedia).

puzzle - interoperability test

From a system perspective, this means that all implementations need to comply to the same technical specifications. Interoperability is essential because these systems are open systems with different stakeholders. It refers to the collaboration ability of cross-system protocols.

Crossover Testing vs. Conformity Testing

To ensure interoperability, implementations need to be tested. In general, there are different approaches to test systems or implementations.

Crossover Testing

The scope of a crossover test is to test every system component with all other system components. This procedure allows to detect incompatibilities between existing implementations with a fixed release status.

The efforts to perform this kind of test increases disproportionately with every additional instance of the system. Therefore these kinds of tests can practically be performed only with a small number of involved test partners. The following figure illustrates the interaction between different systems in a crossover test.

Crossover Testing

Crossover Testing

Another problem of crossover testing is maintenance: every new implementation or any new version of existing implementations must be tested with every corresponding system, which again increases the testing efforts significantly. A benefit of crossover testing can be found in the early phase of developing when crossover testing helps the developer to implement their own system and can be used as an indicator to use the right way. On the other side, this kind of testing only indicates a positive test case with two correct systems to test (“smoke test”). The behaviour of the systems in bad cases is not tested. Additionally, with two different systems to be tested in a crossover test it’s difficult to decide which system behaves correctly in case of a failure and which implementation has to be changed.

Conformity Testing

The purpose of conformity tests is to verify that a system implements the specifications correctly (i.e. it “conforms” to the specifications).  These specifications need to be defined by stakeholders and finally implemented e.g. by test labs to run their conformity test tools.

This way these test suites verify the implementation under test with protocol data units which mimic both “correct” and “incorrect” behaviour of the system. The figure below illustrates the interactions between the test suite implementation and the system in a conformity test. The test definitions have to be tested with regard to harmonised interpretation among test participants.

Conformity Testing

Conformity Testing

Conclusion

Both approaches of testing allow assuring interoperability to other systems components to a certain extent. But with increasing complexity of the systems to be tested and the increasing number of systems at all the crossover testing is getting more and more extensive. Only conformity testing scales well with the complexity and the number of systems in an adequate way. The following diagram illustrates the increasing efforts of crossover tests in relation to conformity test.

Compared efforts of crossover testing and conformity testing

Compared efforts of crossover testing and conformity testing

Direct tests between a subset of implementations are be useful during implementation or integration phase of a node.  Such tests could also be performed via bilateral appointment between different stakeholders, e.g. via pilots. Experience from such test could also be used as additional input for conformity tests. Crossover testing or a central coordination of such tests would not be necessary for this purpose. As soon as there are several system components to be tested, conformity testing should be chosen.

The benefits of such an approach of interoperability testing can also be seen in several so called ‘InterOp tests‘ that have been performed for more than a decade in context of eMRTD. Detailed failure analysis allows to improve the stability of the whole eMRTD system. Additionally, the results of ‘InterOp tests’ helps not only to improve the stability of ePassports and inspection systems but also to improve the quality of (test) specifications and test tools.

Another open system with several vendors is banking. All cash cards or credit cards must fulfill international test specifications. This way of interoperability testing allows customers to use their cards worldwide at cash machines of various banks.

To assure systematic interoperability, it is necessary to set up conformity test specifications that systematically test the requirements as defined in the technical specifications. The tests should not only define good cases but also bad cases that mirror the pitfalls typically occurring in a system. Only this way allows to assure real system-wide interoperability.

Setup of test specification

Important components of a conformance test specifications are:

  • Description of general test requirements
  • Test setup / Testing environment
  • Definition of suitable test profiles / implementation profiles
  • Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS)
  • Definition of testing or configuration data
  • Definition of test cases according to a unified data structure
  • Each test case should concentrate on a single feature to be tested

The following structure of a test specification has been established since the beginning of eMRTD testing in 2005. It is based on the ISO/OSI layer model where data is tested on layer 7 and protocols are tested on layer 6.

Typical structure of a test case in this context:

  • Test case ID: unique identifier for each test case
  • Purpose: objective of the test case
  • Version: current version of this test case independent from the test specification
  • Reference: where is this feature / behaviour specified
  • Preconditions: setup of test case
  • Test scenario: description of test case, step by step
  • Postconditions: setdown of test case

Test cases can be combined in test suites to cluster test cases of similar topics or objectives. As the test specifications need to be implemented in suitable testing tools, it is useful to define the test cases already in a way, that eases their implementation, e.g. via XML using a suitable XML scheme.

 

eMRTD Test Specification Overview

Currently I’m preparing a project where an ePassport has to be tested. These tests start with the booklet and end with the chip. During the preparation the need for a test specification overview popped up. This need was the root of a new service here on this blog: an overview of all current specifications in the domains of this blog starting with eMRTDs and their corresponding inspection systems.
Keep calm and continue testingTo list all current specifications I’ve added a new page called ‘test specifications‘ in menu above. I will keep this list up-to-date in the future. Finally with every new version of a test specification I will update this list. Currently the list contains test specification released by ICAO and BSI. Both organisations are in the front of implementing tests in context of eMRTD and the corresponding back-end-systems. These certification schemes of BSI and ANSSI also base on these test specification.

Test specifications are “living documents”, which causes several modifications over the time. You need the test specifications, listed here, to prove conformity and finally certify your passport or inspection system.

With every new protocol you need some more or some modified test cases in the specifications. And also maintenance is an important fact to keep the test cases up-to-date. Additionally, I will list also test specifications of other domains like IoT in the closer future.

So have a look at this page next time when you’re back on this blog.

Update of RF and Protocol Testing Part 4 V2.10 online

Introduction

Simultaneously with Part 3, the ICAO released also version 2.10 of the test specification ‘RF and Protocol Testing Part 4‘ to test the interoperability of inspection systems (IS) in context of eMRTD. While the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of ICAO endorsed the update on the ICAO website, from now on the test specification can be referenced officially. Finally in version 2.10 of the test specification there are some significant modifications compared with the previous version 1.01 released in 2013:

  • Support of protocol PACE-CAM:
    • New test suite ISO7816_G to test Chip Authentication,ICAO Logo
    • New default configuration including Chip Authentication,
    • Updated implementation conformance statement (ICS) to specify IS supporting PACE-CAM,
    • Updated list of abbreviations,
  • Tests for LDS 1.8,
  • Updated references concerning Doc9303 7th edition,
  • Added Advanced Inspection Procedure (AIP),
  • Additionally, there are some clarifications and minor editorial changes.

Furthermore you can find a more detailed list of changes and modifications in version 2.10 to test interoperability of inspection systems.

New test cases in Version 2.10 Update

Basically the new test cases are testing the protocol PACE-CAM or make use of the new LDS 1.8 data structure where the LDS version number is stored in EF.SOD (additionally to EF.COM).

  • ISO7816_C_29: PACE-CAM with missing tag 8Ah but correct ECAD
  • ISO7816_C_30: PACE-CAM with incorrectly encoded ECAD (no octet string)
  • ISO7816_C_31: PACE-CAM with wrong ECAD
  • ISO7816_C_32: PACE-CAM with wrong tag 8Ah (use 8Bh) but correct ECAD
  • ISO7816_C_33: PACE-CAM with correct tag 8Ah but missing ECAD
  • ISO7816_C_34: PACE-CAM with Passive Authentication
  • ISO7816_C_35: Return additional tag 8Ah during PACE-GM
  • ISO7816_C_36: Use DG14 without SecurityInfo during PACE-CAM
  • ISO7816_C_37: Use EF.CardSecurity with wrong ChipAuthenticationPublicKey during PACE-CAM
  • ISO7816_C_38: Use EF.CardSecurity without ChipAuthenticationPublicKeyInfo during PACE-CAM
  • ISO7816_C_39: Check supported standardized Domain Parameters with Chip Authentication Mapping
  • ISO7816_G_01: Chip Authentication with DH
  • ISO7816_G_02: Chip Authentication with ECDH
  • ISO7816_G_03: DG14 with one key reference
  • ISO7816_G_04: DG14 with two key references
  • ISO7816_G_05: DG14 with three key references
  • ISO7816_G_06: DG14 with invalid key reference
  • ISO7816_G_07: DG14 with corrupted DH public key
  • ISO7816_G_08: DG14 with corrupted ECDH public key
  • ISO7816_G_09: Use old session keys after Chip Authentication
  • ISO7816_G_10: Verify lifetime of ephemeral keys
  • ISO7816_G_11: DG14 with invalid DH public key specification
  • ISO7816_G_12: DG14 with invalid ECDH public key specification
  • ISO7816_G_13: ChipAuthenticationPublicKeyInfo: key reference does not match key reference in ChipAuthenticationInfo
  • ISO7816_G_14: Chip Authentication with Extended Length
  • ISO7816_G_15: Use various status words for invalid key reference
  • LDS_A_10: EF.COM with LDS version 1.8
  • LDS_D_35: EF.SOD with LDS Version 1.8
  • LDS_D_36: Security Object with LDS Version 1.8 but Version wrong number
  • LDS_D_37: Security Object with LDS Version 1.7 but Version number 1
  • LDS_D_38: EF.SOD with future LDS Version 1.9

Modified test cases in Version 2.10 Update

Due to the new document structure of version 2.10, it’s difficult to detect all modifications. Therefore please be aware that the list of modified test cases may not be complete and there might be more changes compared to previous version 1.01.

  • ISO7816_C_04: Added new OID for PACE-CAM in table corresponding to test case
  • ISO7816_D_07: Test case deleted

With the release of this test specification, version 2.10 is relevant for certification. So from now on, your inspection system must fulfill these conformity tests to achieve a certificate.

Update of RF and Protocol Testing Part 3 V2.10 online

Introduction

There is an update of ICAO’s test specification ‘RF and Protocol Testing Part 3‘ available. The specification is focusing on conformity testing and protocol testing for eMRTDs implementing protocols like BAC and PACE.ICAO Part 3 Cover

The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of ICAO endorsed the updated release on the ICAO website, so from now on the test specification can be referenced officially. In version 2.10 of the test specification there are some major modifications:

  • Additional test cases for PACE-CAM (this includes modifications of existing test cases and also new test cases especially for PACE-CAM).
    • New test suite 7816_S to verify access rights (read and select) of EF.CardSecurity.
    • New test suite LDS_K to test presence and coding of SecurityInfo structures in EF.CardSecurity
  • The referenced documents are updated to Doc 9303 Edition 7 and old specifications including supplements are replaced.
  • With 7th edition of Doc 9303 the wording is changed from ‘PACEv2’ and ‘SAC’ to ‘PACE’.
  • And of course there are some minor editorial corrections.

The interim version 2.08 of this test specification was used during the interoperability test in London 2016 (first results of this event can be found in a previous post). This version was prepared at the meeting of ISO WG3 TF4R in Berlin to establish a valid version for the test event. Version 2.10 includes all the updates and some minor changes. In the following the update of version 2.10 is listed more detailed.

New test cases in layer 6

  • ISO7816_O_55: Accessing the EF.CardSecurity file with explicit file selection.
  • ISO7816_O_56: Accessing the EF.CardSecurity file with implicit file selection (ReadBinary with SFI).
  • ISO7816_O_57: Accessing the EF.CardSecurity file with ReadBinary. The test verifies the enforcement of SM after the PACE-CAM protocol has been performed successfully.
  • ISO7816_O_58: Accessing the EF.CardSecurity file with ReadBinary. The test verifies the enforcement of SM after a PACE protocol different from PACE-CAM has been performed successfully.
  • ISO7816_P_78: Positive test with a complete sequence of PACE without Chip Authentication Mapping commands and with MRZ password. The tag 0x8A during PACE-GM and PACE-IM MUST NOT be returned.
  • ISO7816_S_01: Accessing EF.CardSecurity with explicit file selection and Read Binary.
  • ISO7816_S_02: Accessing EF.CardSecurity with implicit file selection (ReadBinary with SFI).
  • ISO7816_S_03: Accessing EF.CardSecurity with explicit file selection and Read Binary OddIns.
  • ISO7816_S_04: Accessing EF.CardSecurity with implicit file selection (ReadBinary OddIns with SFI).

Modified test cases in layer 6

  • ISO7816_P_01: New step 6 and step 7 added for PACE-CAM, Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_02: New step 6 and step 7 added for PACE-CAM, Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_03: Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_14: Step 6 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_25: Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_26: Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_27: Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_28: Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_41: Adopted profile to handle PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_42: Adopted profile to handle PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_43: Adopted profile, step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_44: Adopted profile, Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_45: Adopted profile, step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_46: Adopted profile, step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_49: Adopted profile to handle PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_50: Adopted profile to handle PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_68: Adopted purpose.
  • ISO7816_P_73: Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_P_74: Step 5 return new data object 0x8A used in PACE-CAM.
  • ISO7816_R_05: Correction in referenced RFC.
  • ISO7816_R_06: Correction in referenced RFC.

New test cases in layer 7

  • LDS_E_09: Test that EF.DG14 contains at least one valid set of SecurityInfos for Chip Authentication. A chip supporting PACE-CAM must also support CA.
  • LDS_I_05: Verify that EF.CardAccess contains at least one valid PACEInfo for PACE-GM or PACE-IM as an additional mapping procedure if PACE-CAM is supported.
  • LDS_K_01: Test the ASN.1 encoding of the SecurityInfos.
  • LDS_K_02: Verify the ASN.1 encoding of the ChipAuthenticationPublicKey.
  • LDS_K_03: Test the coherency between the EF.CardSecurity and EF.CardAccess.
  • LDS_K_04: Verify that the parameterID also denotes the ID of the Chip Authentication key used, i.e. the chip MUST provide a ChipAuthenticationPublicKeyInfo with keyID equal to parameterID.

Modified test cases in layer 7

  • LDS_I_02: Added OIDs for PACE-CAM and new step 3 (to check that a valid OID is present for each declared configuration).
  • LDS_I_03: Added OID for PACE-CAM.
  • LDS_I_04: Test case deleted.
  • LDS_J_04: Correction in referenced RFC.

Previous ideas to migrate this test specification to an ISO document are canceled due to political reasons. Part 3 (eMRTD) and Part 4 (inspection systems) will be ICAO documents furthermore whereas Part 1 (durability of ePassports) and Part 2 (contactless interface) are still migrated to ISO documents (ISO 18745-1 and ISO 18745-2).

Eclipse IoT overview

Introduction

A few days before the Eclipse Neon release, the Eclipse Foundation has released several projects in context of IoT (Internet of things). The Eclipse IoT working group is engaged in projects like SmartHome, Kura, Paho and OM2M.

Logo Eclipse IoTThe Internet of Things is all about connecting devices (sensors and actuators) to the internet. You can find these devices in automobiles, wearables, industrial factories, homes, etc. A key challenge is the complexity of implementing an IoT solution where you need to deal with various hardware platforms, manage the IoT gateways to connect the devices to the internet, manage the connectivity and interoperability, and integrate the data in the existing systems and databases.

An important way to reduce this complexity is to create reusable libraries and frameworks. As a result these frameworks are abstract and implement key features. Consequently right here is the approach of Eclipse IoT delivering several technologies combined in an open source stack with all key features and standards that you need to develop your own IoT solution. Furthermore the Eclipse Foundation set up a community with more than 200 contributors to assure the enhancement of the IoT stack.

The current release includes Eclipse SmartHome Version 0.8 and Eclipse Paho Version 1.2. The projects Eclipse Kura and Eclipse OM2M will be available later this month. Additionally, the foundation starts a new project proposal called Eclipse Kapua. Goal is to create a modular integration platform for IoT devices and smart sensors. On this way there will be a bridge between Operation Technology and Information Technology.

Eclipse IoT

The Eclipse IoT ecosystem contains standards, gateways and of course frameworks. The following paragraphs will describe these modules. In addition you can find a reference to an Eclipse project that is relevant in this domain. Please keep in mind that this list is not complete, there are currently 24 different projects available in context of Eclipse IoT.

IoT stack

The following graphic describes the structure of Eclipse IoT stack. The stack includes frameworks, open communication standards and a gateway to assure management services. Consequently most modules based on Java and OSGi. OSGi describes a modular system and service platform for Java that implements a complete and dynamic component model. Finally the Eclipse IoT stack with its components addresses all key requirements in IoT: interoperability, security and connectivity.

Eclipse Open IoT Stack

Eclipse Open IoT Stack

Open communication standards

It’s an elementary feature in context of IoT to provide several mechanisms for protocols used in this domain. All devices must be connected, secured and managed. On this way the Eclipse projects in the IoT ecosystem supports the relevant protocols and standards:

  • MQTT: Eclipse Paho delivers a MQTT client implementation (Java, C/C++, JavaScript). The corresponding MQTT broker is implemented in Eclipse Mosquito (implementation in C). MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) is a light-weight publish and subscribe messaging protocol specified in ISO/IEC 20922. Almost the new version 1.2 of Paho includes for example WebSocket support for Java and Pythons clients.
  • CoAP: Eclipse Californium delivers the CoAP standard in Java, including DTLS support.
  • Lightweight M2M: The server side of LwM2M is delivered by Eclipse Wakaama (C/C++) and the client side by Eclipse Leshan (Java). Wakaama provides an API for server applications to send commands to registered LwM2M clients. Leshan relies on the Eclipse IoT Californium project for the CoAP and DTLS implementation.
  • DNSSEC: Eclipse Tiaki provides a DNSSEC implementation in Java. Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) is specified by IETF for securing certain kinds of information provided by the Domain Name System (DNS).
  • DTLS: Eclipse TinyDTLS implements the Data Transport Layer Security (DTLS) standard in C. The implementation covers both the client and the server state machine. DTLS in general is a communication protocol that provides security also for datagram protocols like UDP.

Gateways

A gateway manages the connectivity between devices and provides a platform for the upper applications. Eclipse Kura offers a set of services that helps to manage the devices and applications deployed onto IoT gateways. Same to other Eclipse projects the gateway is based on Java and OSGi services. Kura manages the cloud connectivity, supports different protocols and configures the network.

Frameworks

Eclipse IoT provides a set of frameworks:

  • Eclipse SmartHome is a set of Java and OSGi services for building and running Smart Homes. It is designed to run on “simple” devices like Raspberry Pi, BeagleBone Black or Intel Edison. Additionally, this framework supports typical protocols with their diversity used in Smart Homes like EnOcean, KNX or ZigBee. Most of all this way allows the devices and systems to communicate with each other. Almost the new version 0.8 of Eclipse Smart Home contains now a new REST interface that allows easier interaction with the clients. Furthermore, new bindings are supported, e.g. for DigitalStrom.
  • Eclipse SCADA is a set of Java and OSGi services that implements nearly all of the services required to run a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system. As one type of an Industrial Control System (ICS) Eclipse SCADA delivers functions for data acquisition, monitoring, visualization, etc. Additionally, the framework supports typical industrial automation standards like ModBus, Siemens PLC, SNMP and OPC.
  • Eclipse OM2M is one implementation of ETSI’s MSM standard. This implementation provides a horizontal Service Capability Layer (SCL) to be deployed in a M2M network.

Summary

In conclusion Eclipse IoT provides an open source stack including all relevant frameworks, protocols and standards to develop your own IoT application. The stack allows you to develop new devices but also to modernise existing ‘legacy’ devices.

Author: .