These are questions better asked of a FIPS lab since they are the experts and we are not.
I expect that your alternative installation process’s validity will depend on the security policy and what it says needs to be done. This hasn’t been written yet so there is no answer at this point. Skipping the self tests is definitely not permitted. The full suite of self tests *must* be run before the module can be used. You question prompts the possibility of making fipsinstall a standalone executable, this is something we could look into if we get time. I expect we’d look favourably on a pull request that allowed either or both options. Pauli -- Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations Phone +61 7 3031 7217 Oracle Australia > On 28 Jul 2020, at 6:19 am, Thomas Dwyer III <tom...@tomiii.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm replacing OpenSSL 1.0.2 with OpenSSL 3.0 in an embedded environment with > very limited flash space. We need and use libcrypto and libssl but we have no > need for the openssl binary. To date it was never necessary to ship this > utility in our product. Now with OpenSSL 3.0 it appears the only way to get > FIPS support is to run "openssl fipsinstall ..." to create a FIPS config file > to be included by the main config file. However, at nearly 1MB in size this > binary is prohibitively large. > > I am able to reproduce the output of "openssl fipsinstall ..." with a > (considerably smaller) standalone tool that links with libcrypto and > generates HMAC-SHA256 (using FIPS_KEY_STRING from fipskey.h) but I'm unclear > on what the actual FIPS requirements are for this. Would I still be > considered FIPS compliant if I use my own standalone tool instead of the > openssl binary to generate the FIPS config? I presume I don't need to bother > with the self-test callback and that it only matters whether or not > OSSL_PROVIDER_load(NULL, "fips") succeeds? > > > Thanks, > Tom.III >
