Hi,

I see that 5.2.3 has finally been certified for FIPS 140-2
(http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/140-1/1401val2005.htm). I also noticed that
5.2.1 was recently formally released (7/21/05). When do you expect 5.2.3
will be formally released?

Thanks, -David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Hauck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:30 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: FIPS 140-2/.NET2003
>
>
> Thanks. Has 5.2.3 been released? I see that this appears to be the CVS tip
> (latest changes are at least 6 weeks old. Thanks, -David
>
> > The testing lab has finished testing version 5.2.3 for FIPS 140-2
> > compliance, and has submitted its report to NIST/CSE. Now we
> > have to wait
> > for NIST/CSE to review the report and issue a certificate, or
> > come back with
> > questions/issues.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:46 AM
> > Subject: FIPS 140-2/.NET2003
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the lack of subject heading. Re-posting with relevant
> > > subject...
> > >
> > > Thanks, -David
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I came across the following comments in the list archives (date Nov
> > >> 1/04).
> > >> Did Crypto++ ever get FIPS 140-2 certified with .NET2003?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks in advance,
> > >> -David
> > >>
> > >> > Crypto++ is undergoing another FIPS 140-2 validation right now.
> > >> This will
> > >> > result in another Windows DLL, but it will be compiled with
> > >> MSVC .NET 2003
> > >> > instead of 6.0. No plans for other platforms yet (won't happen
> > >> > until someone volunteers to pay for it).
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 05:37:58AM -0700, Murata, Rick wrote:
> > >> > > "In the future there will probably be more."  - Is there any
> > >> > > current
> > >> effort
> > >> > > to receive FIPS approval on a more current version and/or for
> > >> platforms
> > >> > > other than Windows?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks...
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Rick
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to