Re: SFRs - Requirement Specification or Implementation Description?

["Dirk-Jan Out" <out@itsef.com>]

On Thursday 30 November 2006 21:18, Squires, Alicia wrote:
> "The validator, however, insists that the ST must explicitly state its
> audit requirement because it clearly does not audit startup and shutdown
> of the audit function (because the TOE does not provide a capability to
> turn the audit function on and off)."
>
> I've had an issue with some evaluations not being able to meet FAU_SEL.1
> because they could not turn specific audit functionality on and off, but
> I've never heard of this being a requirement for FAU_GEN.1.
>
> The assertion that a requirement to generate audit events also requires
> the ability NOT to generate them is contradictory.

The real problem is with FAU_GEN.1 making the recording of start-up and 
shutdown mandatory. While this is a nice thing to have for an OS, other TOEs 
have problems with it. 

In the "alternate" Part 2 drafts for CC 3.0 FAU_GEN was "parametrized" by 
making these items (and others) part of selections.

Heavily summarized "The TSF shall audit [selection: TSF startup, TSF shutdown, 
[assignment: other events]]"
 
A PP author was thereby forced to *consider* including startup and shutdown 
(and others) when making the selections, but not forced to actually include 
them. 

Dirk-Jan