Security/QA/TestPlans/Web Authentication

Approvals Required / Received

The following individuals are required to/have approved this Test Plan:

Name	Title	Department	Approval Date	Method
	QA Manager	Product Integrity	Date	Email
JC Jones	Software Engineer	Engineering	Date	Email
	EPM	Product Management	Date	Email

Revision History

This section describes the modifications that have been made to this wiki page. A new row has been completed each time the content of this document is updated (small corrections for typographical errors do not need to be recorded). The description of the modification contains the differences from the prior version, in terms of what sections were updated and to what extent.

Date	Version	Author	Description
2017-08-16	1.0	Matt Wobensmith	Created first draft

Overview

Purpose

Detail the purpose of this document. For example:

• The test scope, focus areas and objectives
• The test responsibilities
• The test strategy for the levels and types of test for this release
• The entry and exit criteria
• The basis of the test estimates
• Any risks, issues, assumptions and test dependencies
• The test schedule and major milestones
• The test deliverables

Scope

This wiki details the testing that will be performed by the project team for the <project name> project. It defines the overall testing requirements and provides an integrated view of the project test activities. Its purpose is to document:

• What will be tested
• How testing will be performed

Ownership

This feature is being tested by both Mozilla and one or more third parties.

• Yubico is performing smoke tests using hardware keys across a range of hardware and software
• JC Jones and Tim Taubert have created unit tests for both JS API and hardware interaction
• The Fuzzing team has been enlisted, initially to test USB interaction, time frame unknown
• The PI Security team has been requested to perform a security review between now and mid-September 2017.
• Matt Wobensmith (QA) is responsible for the entire process, as well as creating manual scenario tests
• Mozilla's QA - most likely SoftVision - will use the manual tests for ongoing build certification post-feature-signoff

Testing summary

Scope of Testing

In Scope

• Web Authentication, as well as U2F (both soft token and hardware) if we decide to ship it
• All JS APIs
• Fuzzing wherever possible
• A range of scenario tests that mirror user interaction, including boundary and error cases

Out of Scope

• Yubico has provided us with some USB keys to test with, but the full range of keys plus hardware is not something we have available to us. We are relying on their help but will not be able to replicate their coverage, and will run passes using existing hardware in our possession.
• This feature is not currently supported on Fennec.

Requirements for testing

Environments

We support the same OS and hardware configurations that Firefox supports on desktop only.

Channel dependent settings (configs) and environment setups

The feature is controlled by prefs that are gated to channels at the moment. To control this feature, set the following prefs to true:

security.webauth.u2f;
security.webauth.u2f_enable_softtoken;
security.webauth.u2f_enable_usbtoken;
security.webauth.webauthn;
security.webauth.webauthn_enable_softtoken;
security.webauth.webauthn_enable_usbtoken;

Nightly

Currently set to false.

Beta

Currently set to false.

Post Beta / Release

Depending on ship decisions, will be set to true.

Test Strategy

Risk Assessment and Coverage

ID	Description / Threat Description	Covered by Test Objective	Magnitude	Probability	Priority	Impact Score
RAC-1	Incorrect authentication allows security bypass	TO-1, TO-2, TO-3	3-High	1-Unlikely	2-Moderate	6
RAC-2	XSS/information leak	TO-1, TO-3	3-High	1-Almost Certain	1-Low	3
RAC-3	Confined to secure context	TO-1, TO-3	2-Moderate	2-Possible	1-Low	4
RAC-4	Incorrectly functioning JS API	TO-1	3-High	2-Possible	2-Moderate	12
RAC-5	Stability for entire feature	TO-1, TO-2	3-High	2-Possible	3-High	18
RAC-6	Interaction with other aspects of normal Firefox usage	TO-1, TO-2	3-Moderate	3-Almost Certain	3-High	27
RAC-7	Memory issues in JS API and hardware support code	TO-3	3-High	1-Unlikely	2-Moderate	6
RAC-8	Incorrectly functioning hardware	TO-2	2-Moderate	1-Unlikely	1-Low	2

Values:

• Magnitude: 1- Low , 2-Moderate, 3-High

• Probability: 1-Unlikely, 2-Possible, 3-Almost Certain

• Priority: 1 - Low, 2-Medium, 3-High

Impact Score Breakdown:

• An impact value of 1, 2, 3, 4 would describe an area which although should be covered there aren't expected any discoveries of critical issues.
• An impact value of 6, 8, 9, 12 would describe an area in which we expect to find issues but those issues are not expected to be critical.
• An impact value of 18 or 27 would describe an area on which it is likely to find issues and those issues to be critical or blockers.

Test Objectives

This section details the progression test objectives that will be covered. Please note that this is at a high level. For large projects, a suite of test cases would be created which would reference directly back to this master. This could be documented in bullet form or in a table similar to the one below.

Ref	Function	Test Objective	Evaluation Criteria	Test Type	RAC	Owners
TO1	JS API	Verify functionality	All tests indicate stable, functional API for using Web Authentication and/or U2F with both hardware and software tokens	Manual/ Automation / Usability	RAC-1, RAC-2, RAC-3, RAC-4, RAC-5, RAC-6	Eng Team, QA
TO2	Hardware support via USB token	Verify functionality	All tests indicate stable, functional support of USB hardware keys, as above	Manual/ Automation / Usability	RAC-1, RAC-5, RAC-6, RAC-8	Eng Team, QA
TO3	Stable, secure code	Fuzzing and security review	All testing and inspection surfaces known security issues	Manual/ Security	RAC-1, RAC-2, RAC-3, RAC-7	Eng Team, QA, PI Fuzzing + Sec Review

Builds

This section should contain links for builds with the feature -

• Links for Nightly builds
• Links for Beta builds

Test Execution Schedule

The following table identifies the anticipated testing period available for test execution.

Project phase	Start Date	End Date
Start project	2017-08-01
Study documentation/specs received from developers	2017-08-01
QA - Test plan creation	2017-08-01
QA - Test cases/Env preparation	2017-08-01
QA - Nightly Testing
QA - Beta Testing
Release Date

Testing Tools

Detail the tools to be used for testing, for example see the following table:

Process	Tool
Test plan creation	Mozilla wiki
Test case creation	TestRail/ Google docs
Test case execution	TestRail
Bugs management	Bugzilla

Status

Overview

Track the dates and build number where feature was released to Nightly
Track the dates and build number where feature was merged to Release/Beta

References

• Web Authentication W3C spec
• Meta bug link
• Product Integrity Security Assessment link

Testcases

Test Areas

Test Areas	Covered	Details
Private Window	yes	Test case
Multi-Process Enabled	yes
Multi-process Disabled	yes
Theme (high contrast)	no	n/a
UI
Mouse-only operation	no	n/a
Keyboard-only operation	no	n/a
Display (HiDPI)	no	n/a
Interaction (scroll, zoom)	no	n/a
Usable with a screen reader	no	n/a
Usability and/or discoverability testing	no	n/a
RTL build testing	no	n/a
Help/Support
Help/support interface required	no
Support documents planned(written)	no
Install/Upgrade
Feature upgrades/downgrades data as expected	no	n/a
Does sync work across upgrades	no	n/a
Requires install testing	no	n/a
Affects first-run or onboarding	no	n/a
Does this affect partner builds? Partner build testing	no	n/a
Enterprise		Raise up the topic to developers to see if they are expecting to work different on ESR builds
Enterprise administration	no
Network proxies/autoconfig	no
ESR behavior changes	no
Locked preferences	no
Data Monitoring
Temporary or permanent telemetry monitoring	no
Telemetry correctness testing	no
Server integration testing	yes	If provided by third parties, yes, otherwise no
Offline and server failure testing	no
Load testing	no
Add-ons		If add-ons are available for testing feature, or is current feature will affect some add-ons, then API testing should be done for the add-on.
Addon API required?	no
Comprehensive API testing	no
Permissions	no
Testing with existing/popular addons	no
Security		Security is in charge of Matt Wobensmith. We should contact his team to see if security testing is necessary for current feature.
3rd-party security review	no	In-house security review, yes
Privilege escalation testing	yes	QA + PI security review
Fuzzing	yes	Engineering + PI fuzzing team
Web Compatibility		depends on the feature
Testing against target sites	yes	Sample sites are available
Survey of many sites for compatibility	yes	If we support U2F, we can try to find U2F-enabled sites
Interoperability		depends on the feature
Common protocol/data format with other software: specification available. Interop testing with other common clients or servers.	yes	This is inherent in the feature, w/r/t hardware keys
Coordinated testing/interop across the Firefoxes: Desktop, Android, iOS	yes	Fennec and Focus support TBD
Interaction of this feature with other browser features	yes	Largest area of targeted testing by QA

Test suite

Full Test suite - Link to test rail - testcases should be added under Firefox Desktop project link
Smoke Test suite - Link with the tests - if available/needed.
Regression Test suite - Link with the tests - if available/needed.

Bug Work

Logged bugs ( blocking 1294514 )

Full Query

ID	Priority	Component	Assigned to	Summary	Status	Target milestone
1245527	P3	DOM: Device Interfaces	J.C. Jones [:jcj] (he/they)	Integrate the FIDO U2F JS API with the u2f-hid-rs library	RESOLVED	mozilla57

1 Total; 0 Open (0%); 1 Resolved (100%); 0 Verified (0%);

Bug fix verification

Full Query

ID	Priority	Component	Assigned to	Summary	Status	Resolution	Target milestone
1245527	P3	DOM: Device Interfaces	J.C. Jones [:jcj] (he/they)	Integrate the FIDO U2F JS API with the u2f-hid-rs library	RESOLVED	FIXED	mozilla57

1 Total; 0 Open (0%); 1 Resolved (100%); 0 Verified (0%);

Sign off

Criteria

Checklist

• All test cases should be executed
• Has sufficient automated test coverage (as measured by code coverage tools) - coordinate with RelMan
• All blockers, criticals must be fixed and verified or have an agreed-upon timeline for being fixed (as determined by engineering/RelMan/QA)

Results

Nightly testing

List of OSes that will be covered by testing

• Link for the tests run
  • Full Test suite, link to TestRail - Tests Runs and Results link
  • Daily Smoke, if needed/available
  • Regression Test suite, if needed/available

Merge to Beta Sign-off
List of OSes that will be covered by testing

• Link for the tests run
  • Full Test suite

Checklist

Exit Criteria	Status	Notes/Details
Testing Prerequisites (specs, use cases)
Testing Infrastructure setup
Test Plan Creation
Test Cases Creation
Automation Coverage
Performance Testing
All Defects Logged
Critical/Blockers Fixed and Verified
Metrics/Telemetry
Basic/Core functionality Nightly testing
QA mid-Nightly Signoff		Email to be sent
QA Nightly - Full Testing
QA pre-Beta Signoff		Email to be sent
QA Beta - Full Testing
QA pre-Release Signoff		Email to be sent