This helps a lot. Thanks for the clarification. 

-Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Marquess
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:48 PM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: RSA Key exchange and FIPS compliance

Gatfield, Geoffrey wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We use OpenSSL for encryption within our application. I am now 
> enhancing our application to become FIPS compliant. The OpenSSL FIPS 
> Security Policy lists RSA key wrapping and key establishment as 
> non-approved. But the policy states that it is included when 80 to 150

> bits of encryption strength are used. So how do I provide a key 
> exchange if I want FIPS compliance?
>
>  
>
> Any help is appreciated.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Geoff
>

If you look at the list of CMVP approved RSA implementations
(http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/dss/rsaval.html) you will note that the
OpenSSL FIPS Object Module, RSA cert #177, has as many or more "merit
badges" than almost any other product.  The FIPS 140-2 terminology is
confusing to the uninitiated, among whom I include myself even after
working this validation for five years.  RSA encryption/decryption/key
wrapping is not "Approved", instead it is classified as "Non-Approved,
but allowed for use in FIPS 140-2 mode".

RSA sign/verify is "Approved", and hence is listed with the Approved
algorithms.  You may use either in FIPS 140-2 mode.


-Steve M.


-- 
Steve Marquess
Open Source Software Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List                    openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List                    openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to