National Information Assurance Partnership Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme Validation Report for the Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 Report Number: CCEVS-VR-11136-2021 Dated: 06/02/2021 Version: 1.0 National Institute of Standards and Technology Department of Defense Information Technology Laboratory ATTN: NIAP, Suite 6982 100 Bureau Drive 9800 Savage Road Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Fort Meade, MD 20755-6982 ® TM 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Validation Team Marybeth Panock Swapna Katikaneni Ken Elliott Jerome Myers Aerospace Corporation Common Criteria Testing Laboratory Kenneth Lasoski Rahul Joshi Aruna Shaju K Riya Thomas Acumen Security, LLC 3 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 4 2 Identification.......................................................................................................................... 6 3 Architectural Information .................................................................................................... 8 4 Security Policy........................................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Cryptographic Support..................................................................................................................................9 4.2 User Data Protection ....................................................................................................................................10 4.3 Identification and Authentication ...............................................................................................................10 4.4 Security Management ..................................................................................................................................10 4.5 Privacy...........................................................................................................................................................10 4.6 Protection of the TSF ...................................................................................................................................11 4.7 Trusted Path/Channels ................................................................................................................................11 5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope ............................................................... 12 5.1 Assumptions..................................................................................................................................................12 5.2 Threats...........................................................................................................................................................12 5.3 Clarification of Scope...................................................................................................................................13 6 Documentation..................................................................................................................... 14 7 TOE Evaluated Configuration ........................................................................................... 15 7.1 Evaluated Configuration..............................................................................................................................15 7.2 Excluded Functionality ................................................................................................................................15 8 IT Product Testing............................................................................................................... 16 8.1 Developer Testing .........................................................................................................................................16 8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing.......................................................................................................16 9 Results of the Evaluation .................................................................................................... 17 9.1 Evaluation of Security Target .....................................................................................................................17 9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation...............................................................................................17 9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents............................................................................................................17 9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities...............................................................................................18 9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity .........................................................................18 9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity ..............................................................................................................18 9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results..................................................................................................................19 10 Validator Comments & Recommendations ...................................................................... 20 11 Annexes................................................................................................................................. 21 12 Security Target .................................................................................................................... 22 13 Glossary................................................................................................................................ 23 14 Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 24 4 1 Executive Summary This Validation Report (VR) is intended to assist the end user of this product and any security certification Agent for that end user in determining the suitability of this Information Technology (IT) product for their environment. End users should review the Security Target (ST), which is where specific security claims are made, in conjunction with this VR, which describes how those security claims were tested and evaluated and any restrictions on the evaluated configuration. Prospective users should carefully read the Assumptions and Clarification of Scope in Section 5 and the Validator Comments in Section 10, where any restrictions on the evaluated configuration are highlighted. This report documents the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) assessment of the evaluation of the Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 Target of Evaluation (TOE). It presents the evaluation results, their justifications, and the conformance results. This VR is not an endorsement of the TOE by any agency of the U.S. Government and no warranty of the TOE is either expressed or implied. This VR applies only to the specific version and configuration of the product as evaluated and documented in the ST. The ZeroReveal Compute Fabric Client [TOE] Component resides within the enterprise and is responsible for encrypting ZeroReveal Compute Fabric operations and decrypting results. The ZeroReveal Server Component, which is outside the scope of this evaluation and is evaluated separately, resides within the environment of a data repository and is responsible for processing encrypted operations over the data. The TOE is evaluated as a software application only. Enveil ZeroReveal™ Compute Fabric Client contains functionality that is not covered by Protection Profile for Application Software. As with all evaluations claiming conformance to a NIAP-approved protection profile, only the functionality specified in the profile is evaluated. The TOE’s homomorphic encryption techniques and the associated databases, including accessing, retrieving, storing, or operations on databases, are outside the scope of this evaluation. This evaluation makes no security claims about these features. The evaluation was completed by Acumen Security in May 2021. The information in this report is largely derived from the Assurance Activities Report (AAR) and associated test reports authored by Acumen Security. The evaluation determined that the product is both Common Criteria Part 2 Extended and Part 3 Extended and meets the assurance requirements defined in the Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP] and Functional Package for Transport Layer Security (TLS), Version 1.1, dated 12 February 2019 [TLS- PKG]. The TOE identified in this VR has been evaluated at a NIAP approved Common Criteria Testing Laboratory using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 5) for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (Version 3.1, Rev. 5), as interpreted by the Assurance Activities(AAs) contained in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG]. This VR applies only to the specific version of the TOE as evaluated. The evaluation has been conducted 5 in accordance with the provisions of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme and the conclusions of the testing laboratory in the ETR are consistent with the evidence provided. The validation team provided guidance on technical issues and evaluation processes and reviewed the individual work units documented in the ETR and the Assurance Activities Report (AAR). The validation team found that the evaluation showed that the product satisfies all of the functional requirements and assurance requirements stated in the ST. Based on these findings, the validation team concludes that the testing laboratory's findings are accurate, the conclusions justified, and the conformance results are correct. The conclusions of the testing laboratory in the ETR are consistent with the evidence produced. 6 2 Identification The CCEVS is a joint National Security Agency (NSA) and National Institute of Standards effort to establish commercial facilities to perform trusted product evaluations. Under this program, security evaluations are conducted by commercial testing laboratories called Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs). CCTLs evaluate products against Protection Profile containing Assurance Activities, which are interpretation of CEM work units specific to the technology described by the PP. The NIAP Validation Body assigns Validators to monitor the CCTLs to ensure quality and consistency across evaluations. Developers of IT products desiring a security evaluation contract with a CCTL and pay a fee for their product's evaluation. Upon successful completion of the evaluation, the product is added to NIAP's Product Compliance List. Table 1 provides information needed to completely identify the product, including: • The Target of Evaluation (TOE): the fully qualified identifier of the product as evaluated. • The Security Target (ST), describing the security features, claims, and assurances of the product. • The conformance result of the evaluation. • The Protection Profile(s) to which the product is conformant. • The organizations and individuals participating in the evaluation. Table 1: Evaluation Identifiers Item Identifier Evaluation Scheme United States NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme TOE Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 Protection Profile Protection Profile for Application Software, Version 1.3, dated 01 March 2019 [SWAPP] and Functional Package for Transport Layer Security (TLS), Version 1.1, dated 12 February 2019 [TLS-PKG] Security Target Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client Security Target Evaluation Technical Report Evaluation Technical Report for Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 CC Version Version 3.1, Revision 5 Conformance Result CC Part 2 Extended and CC Part 3 Extended Sponsor Enveil, Inc. Developer Enveil, Inc Common Criteria Testing Lab (CCTL) Acumen Security 2400 Research Blvd. #395 Rockville, MD 20850 CCEVS Validators Marybeth Panock Swapna Katikaneni Ken Elliott 7 Jerry Myers 8 3 Architectural Information Enveil’s ZeroReveal™ Compute Fabric ecosystem consists of one ZeroReveal Client Component (the TOE) and one ZeroReveal Server Component (evaluated separately). The ZeroReveal Client Component resides within the enterprise and is responsible for encrypting ZeroReveal Compute Fabric operations and decrypting results. The ZeroReveal Server Component resides within the environment of a data repository and is responsible for processing encrypted operations over the data. The ZeroReveal Compute Fabric encrypted data operations and the decrypting of the results are outside the scope of the [SWAPP] and therefore not included in the evaluation. The diagram below shows the parts of the TOE application, and how the evaluation security boundary is identified. The Server application is evaluated separately and is not part of this evaluation. Figure 1 TOE and its Operational Environment 9 4 Security Policy The TOE provides the security functionality required by [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG]. 4.1 Cryptographic Support The TOE performs two kinds of cryptographic functions: those necessary to the operation of the TOEs homomorphic encrypted search function, and those necessary to the operation of the trusted path and trusted channels. Because the homomorphic encryption functionality is outside the scope of this evaluation, only those cryptographic functions necessary to support the trusted path and trusted channels are described below: Cryptographic Method Use within the TOE AES-GCM TLS encryption ECDSA TLS key generation, signature generation and verification RSA TLS key generation, signature generation and verification HMAC Message integrity and authentication for TLS AES-CCM Storage of credentials DRBG Random bit generation for all cryptographic functions Table 2 TOE Provided Cryptography Each of these cryptographic algorithms have been validated for conformance to the requirements specified in their respective standards, as identified below: Algorithm Standard Mode/Keysize CAVP Cert. # HMAC_DRBG NIST SP 800-90A HMAC-SHA2-512 with 256 bits of entropy seeded by the platform DRBG C1874 ECDSA KeyGen ECDH Key Establishment ECDSA SigGen/SigVer FIPS Pub 186-4, Appendix B.4 NIST SP 800-56Arev3 FIPS Pub 186-4, Section 5 Curves P-256 and P-384 C1874 RSA KeyGen RSA SigGen/SigVer FIPS Pub 186-4, Appendix B.3 FIPS Pub 186-4, Section 4 2048 bits C1874 AES-GCM NIST SP 800-38D 256 bits C1874 AES-CCM NIST SP 800-38C 256 bits C1874 SHA2-256 SHA2-384 FIPS Pub 180-4 Digest size 256 bits Digest size 384 bits C1874 10 Algorithm Standard Mode/Keysize CAVP Cert. # SHA2-512 Digest size 512 bits HMAC-SHA2- 256 HMAC-SHA2- 384 HMAC-SHA- 512 FIPS Pub 198-1 Key size 256 bits, block size 512 bits, digest size 256 bits Key size 384 bits, block size 1024 bits, digest size 384 bits Key size 512 bits, block size 1024 bits, digest size 512 bits C1874 Table 3 CAVP Algorithm Testing References 4.2 User Data Protection The ZeroReveal Client network communication is restricted to user-initiated communication for authentication via LDAP directory, responses to API requests, and initiation of communications with the ZeroReveal Server. 4.3 Identification and Authentication The ZeroReveal client relies on X.509v3 certificate validation functions provided by the platform to authenticate the certificate(s) during the establishment of the TLS trusted channel. All trusted paths and channels are first authenticated using X.509v3 certificates. Individual users are authenticated to the TOE by X.509v3 certificate during TLS with mutual authentication trusted channel establishment and by authentication via LDAP server (the first shows that the user is authorized to communicate with the TOE at all, the second shows that the user is authorized to run queries using the TOE). 4.4 Security Management An enterprise administrator manages the TOE via configuration files on each installation workstation or platform in the Operational Environment. There is no management GUI, CLI, or interface to manage the TOE over the network. The TOE does not include any predefined or default credentials, and utilizes the platform recommended storage process for configured credentials in the TOE’s configuration files. 4.5 Privacy The TOE does not collect or transmit Personally Identifiable Information (PII) over the network. 11 4.6 Protection of the TSF The TOE leverages platform provided package management for secure installation and updates. The TOE installation package includes only those third-party libraries necessary for its intended operation. The TOE utilizes compiler-provided anti-exploitation capabilities. 4.7 Trusted Path/Channels The TOE communicates to the ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Server via REST API over mutually authenticated TLS. The TOE communicates to the LDAP server via mutually authenticated TLS. Users communicate with the TOE through the REST API over HTTPS/TLS. 12 5 Assumptions, Threats & Clarification of Scope 5.1 Assumptions The specific conditions listed in the following subsections are assumed to exist in the TOE’s environment. These assumptions include both practical realities in the development of the TOE security requirements and the essential environmental conditions on the use of the TOE. The following assumptions are drawn directly from the [SWAPP]: ID Assumption A.PLATFORM1 The TOE relies upon a trustworthy computing platform with a reliable time clock for its execution. This includes the underlying platform and whatever runtime environment it provides to the TOE. A.PROPER_USER The user of the application software is not willfully negligent or hostile, and uses the software in compliance with the applied enterprise security policy. A.PROPER_ADMIN The administrator of the application software is not careless, willfully negligent or hostile, and administers the software in compliance with the applied enterprise security policy. Table 4 Assumptions 5.2 Threats The following table lists the threats addressed by the TOE and the IT Environment. The assumed level of expertise of the attacker for all the threats identified below is Enhanced-Basic. The following threats are drawn directly from the [SWAPP]: ID Threat T.NETWORK_ATTACK An attacker is positioned on a communications channel or elsewhere on the network infrastructure. Attackers may engage in communications with the application software or alter communications between the application software and other endpoints in order to compromise it. T.NETWORK_EAVESDROP An attacker is positioned on a communications channel or elsewhere on the network infrastructure. Attackers may monitor and gain access to data exchanged between the application and other endpoints. T.LOCAL_ATTACK An attacker can act through unprivileged software on the same computing platform on which the application executes. Attackers may provide maliciously formatted input to the application in the form of files or other local communications. T.PHYSICAL_ACCESS An attacker may try to access sensitive data at rest. Table 5 Threats 1 This Assumption is modified by TD0427. 13 5.3 Clarification of Scope All evaluations (and all products) have limitations, as well as potential misconceptions that need clarifying. This text covers some of the more important limitations and clarifications of this evaluation. Note that: • As with any evaluation, this evaluation only shows that the evaluated configuration meets the security claims made, with a certain level of assurance. The level of assurance for this evaluation is defined within the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG]. • This evaluation covers only the specific software version identified in this document, and not any earlier or later versions released or in process. • Consistent with the expectations of the Protection Profile, this evaluation did not specifically search for, nor seriously attempt to counter, vulnerabilities that were not “obvious” or vulnerabilities to objectives not claimed in the ST. The CEM defines an “obvious” vulnerability as one that is easily exploited with a minimum of understanding of the TOE, technical sophistication and resources. • The evaluation of security functionality of the product was limited to the functionality specified in the claimed PPs. Any additional security related functional capabilities included in the product were not covered by this evaluation. This includes: o Databases, including accessing, retrieving, storing, or operations on databases. o The homomorphic encryption process, including the algorithms, uses and the security strength of the resultant ciphertext. 14 6 Documentation The following document was provided by the vendor with the TOE for evaluation: • Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Configuration Guide for Common Criteria v3.1 Version 2.5.4 The above document and the specific portions of other documents referenced by it are the only documents that should be trusted to install, administer, or use the TOE in its evaluated configuration. 15 7 TOE Evaluated Configuration 7.1 Evaluated Configuration The TOE consists of the Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client software installed and configured in accordance with the documentation listed in Section 6 of this report. It has been evaluated on the following host platforms: • CentOS 8.1 on Intel Core i7-10710U Note: The TOE is the application software and required libraries only. The host platforms are not part of the evaluation. The TOE supports secure connectivity with several other IT environment devices as described below: Component Required Usage/Purpose Description Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Server Yes The TOE is a ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client, which communicates with a server to process data queries in a way that does not disclose the nature of the query to any observer. The TOE does not serve a useful function without the ZeroReveal® server. Enveil ZeroReveal Compute Fabric Client platform Yes This is the platform on which the TOE is installed; the client application which communicates with the ZeroReveal server to process data queries in a way that does not disclose the nature of the query to any observer. The Client workstation must include the Java Runtime as shown in Figure 1 and the CentOS 8.1 OS as defined above. LDAP Server Yes LDAP is used for external authentication and identification of users. User Workstation Yes The TOE executes on a user workstation which must support the REST APIs used to communicate with the TOE. Table 6 IT Environment Components 7.2 Excluded Functionality The TOE is a software application, and as such many of the functions of the application itself are out of scope of a Common Criteria Evaluation. The following functionality is explicitly excluded from the scope of evaluation; it was not evaluated during the common criteria evaluation, and no claims are made regarding the applicability, suitability, or functionality of the following TOE functions: • Databases, including accessing, retrieving, storing, or operations on databases. • The homomorphic encryption process, including the algorithms, uses and the security strength of the resultant ciphertext. 16 8 IT Product Testing This section describes the testing efforts of the developer and the evaluation team. It is derived from information contained in Evaluation Test Report for Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4, which is not publicly available. The AAR provides an overview of testing and the prescribed Assurance Activities. 8.1 Developer Testing No evidence of developer testing is required in the Assurance Activities for this product. 8.2 Evaluation Team Independent Testing The evaluation team verified the product according the vendor-provided guidance documentation and ran the tests specified in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG]. The Independent Testing activity is documented in the AAR, which is publicly available, and is not duplicated here. A description of the test tools and test configurations may be found in Section 4 of the AAR. 17 9 Results of the Evaluation The results of the assurance requirements are generally described in this section and are presented in detail in the proprietary documents: the Detailed Test Report (DTR) and the ETR. The reader of this document can assume that activities and work units received a passing verdict. A verdict for an assurance component is determined by the resulting verdicts assigned to the corresponding evaluator action elements. The evaluation was conducted based upon CC version 3.1 rev 5 and CEM version 3.1 rev 5. The evaluation determined the Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 to be Part 2 extended, and meets the SARs contained in the PP. Additionally the evaluator performed the Assurance Activities specified in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG]. 9.1 Evaluation of Security Target The evaluation team applied each ASE CEM work unit. The ST evaluation ensured the ST contains a description of the environment in terms of policies and assumptions, a statement of security requirements claimed to be met by the Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 that are consistent with the Common Criteria, and product security function descriptions that support the requirements. Additionally, the evaluator performed an assessment of the Assurance Activities specified in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG]. The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified. 9.2 Evaluation of Development Documentation The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ADV CEM work unit. The evaluation team assessed the design documentation and found it adequate to aid in understanding how the TSF provides the security functions. The design documentation consists of a functional specification contained in the ST's TOE Summary Specification. Additionally, the evaluator performed the Assurance Activities specified in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG] related to the examination of the information contained in the TOE Summary Specification. The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified. 9.3 Evaluation of Guidance Documents The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AGD CEM work unit. The evaluation team ensured the 18 adequacy of the user guidance in describing how to use the operational TOE. Additionally, the evaluation team ensured the adequacy of the administrator guidance in describing how to securely administer the TOE. The guides were assessed during the design and testing phases of the evaluation to ensure they were complete. Additionally, the evaluator performed the Assurance Activities specified in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG] related to the examination of the information contained in the operational guidance documents. The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Assurance Activities, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified. 9.4 Evaluation of Life Cycle Support Activities The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ALC CEM work unit. The evaluation team found that the TOE was identified. The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the CEM, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified. 9.5 Evaluation of Test Documentation and the Test Activity The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 ATE CEM work unit. The evaluation team ran the set of tests specified by the Assurance Activities in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG] and recorded the results in a Test Report, summarized in the ETR and AAR. The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence was provided by the evaluation team to show that the evaluation activities addressed the test activities in the PP_APP_v1.3 and PKG_TLS_V1.1, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified. 9.6 Vulnerability Assessment Activity The evaluation team applied each EAL 1 AVA CEM work unit. The evaluation team performed a public search for vulnerabilities, performed vulnerability testing and did not discover any issues with the TOE. The potential vulnerabilities considered in the analysis are characterized by the date of the search (May 10, 2021), the search terms used, and the databases that were searched. This information is detailed in Section 7.5 of the AAR. The validator reviewed the work of the evaluation team, and found that sufficient evidence and justification was provided by the evaluation team to confirm that the evaluation addressed the vulnerability analysis Assurance Activities in the PP_APP_v1.3 and PKG_TLS_V1.1, and that the conclusion reached by the evaluation team was justified. 19 9.7 Summary of Evaluation Results The evaluation team's assessment of the evaluation evidence demonstrates that the claims in the ST are met. Additionally, the evaluation team's test activities also demonstrated the accuracy of the claims in the ST. The validation team's assessment of the evidence provided by the evaluation team is that it demonstrates that the evaluation team performed the Assurance Activities in the [SWAPP] and [TLS-PKG], and correctly verified that the product meets the claims in the ST. 20 10 Validator Comments & Recommendations All the validators’ comments are covered in the Clarification of Scope section (5.3) of this report. There are no additional validator comments or recommendations. 21 11 Annexes Not applicable. 22 12 Security Target Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client Security Target Version 1.4. 23 13 Glossary The following definitions are used throughout this document: • Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL). An IT security evaluation facility accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and approved by the CCEVS Validation Body to conduct Common Criteria-based evaluations. • Conformance. The ability to demonstrate in an unambiguous way that a given implementation is correct with respect to the formal model. • Evaluation. The assessment of an IT product against the Common Criteria using the Common Criteria Evaluation Methodology to determine whether or not the claims made are justified; or the assessment of a protection profile against the Common Criteria using the Common Evaluation Methodology to determine if the Profile is complete, consistent, technically sound and hence suitable for use as a statement of requirements for one or more TOEs that may be evaluated. • Evaluation Evidence. Any tangible resource (information) required from the sponsor or developer by the evaluator to perform one or more evaluation activities. • Feature. Part of a product that is either included with the product or can be ordered separately. • Target of Evaluation (TOE). A group of IT products configured as an IT system, or an IT product, and associated documentation that is the subject of a security evaluation under the CC. • Validation. The process carried out by the CCEVS Validation Body leading to the issue of a Common Criteria certificate. • Validation Body. A governmental organization responsible for carrying out validation and for overseeing the day-to-day operation of the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme. 24 14 Bibliography The Validation Team used the following documents to produce this VR: [1] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017. Part 1: Introduction and general model. [2] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1, Revision 5, April 2017. Part 2: Security functional components. [3] Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 5, April 2017. Part 3: Security assurance components. [4] Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1, 5, April 2017. Evaluation methodology. [5] Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Guidance to CCEVS Approved Common Criteria Testing Laboratories, Version 2.0, 8 Sep 2008. [6] Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client Security Target Version 1.4 [7] Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Configuration Guide for Common Criteria v3.1, Version 2.5.4 [8] Assurance Activity Report for Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 Version 1.3, May 27, 2021 [9] Evaluation Technical Report for Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 Version 1.3, May 27, 2021 [10] Test Plan for Enveil ZeroReveal® Compute Fabric Client v2.5.4 Version 1.4, May 27, 2021