Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL FOM 2.0.12 - Windows Compliance

[Imran Ali]

Thanks Steve,

I cannot find any certificate that can use 2.0.12 under Windows Operating 
System which suggests to me that we will have to revert back to 2.0.10 which is 
listed under #1747 and use G.5 (user affirmation) to leverage new platforms.

Is there no plans to include Windows platforms for 2.0.12 and newer version?

Regards,
Imran

-Original Message-
From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of 
Steve Marquess
Sent: 19 August 2016 14:31
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL FOM 2.0.12 - Windows Compliance

On 08/19/2016 07:20 AM, Imran Ali wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
>  
> 
> I need some help. I am looking for some evidence which I can provide 
> to my auditor for FOM 2.0.12 is FIPS-140 compliance when compiled and 
> used in Windows environment. When I look at the NIST web site under
> http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/140val-all.htm#17
> 47
> I cannot see 2.0.12 version.
> 
>  
> 
> Is there something I am missing?

Yes, it's rather confusing.

The one and only OpenSSL FIPS module ("OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 2.0") is -- 
for perverse bureaucratic reasons[*] -- covered by three separate[**] FIPS-140 
validations:

  #1747 (revisions 2.0, 2.0.1, ..., 2.0.10)
  #2389 (revisions 2.0.9, ..., 2.0.13)
  #2473 (revisions 2.0.9, 2.0.10)

As always the latest revision (for a given validation) subsumes all tested 
platforms listed for that validation. So for instance, 2.0.13 can be used for 
all 33 platforms currently listed for validation #2398.
There are about 200 distinct platforms now across all validations.

So you need to look at the listed platforms for all validations[**], and find 
which of them cover your platform (possibly more than one). Then use the latest 
revision of the module for that validation.

If you only find your platform(s) of interest on a validation ending at 
revision 2.0.10 (#1747, #2473), then you're forced to use revision
2.0.10 even though 2.0.13 (and future revisions) are completely backward 
compatible. From a technical perspective 2.0.N is completely functionally 
equivalent to all previous revisions < N, but down in the
FIPS-140 rabbit hole you're limited to the latest revision for the relevant 
validation(s)[***].

The easy way to remember it is "one real-world module, multiple FIPS-land 
validations". Or as one of my colleagues would put it, "...multiple flavors of 
FIPS-140 magical pixie dust". The choice of validation certificate number is a 
paper-chase exercise.

-Steve M.

[*] Obscenely perverse, I'm not even going to try and explain it. In fact IMHO 
no rational explanation is possible.

[**] Technically speaking more than three; validations #2391, #2422, #2454, 
#2575, #2631, #2676, and possibly others are "copycat" clones done by third 
parties that introduce yet more platforms. Since these validations are for the 
same OpenSSL FIPS module they are also accessible to all under the OpenSSL 
license.

[***] OTOH note the later revisions aren't "better" than the earlier ones in 
any meaningful sense, as we're not allowed to do feature enhancements or 
bug-fixes (not even vulnerability mitigations). With most software it's prudent 
to always use the latest revision to pick up bugfixes and refinements; for the 
FIPS module it doesn't matter.

--
Steve Marquess
OpenSSL Validation Services, Inc.
1829 Mount Ephraim Road
Adamstown, MD  21710
USA
+1 877 673 6775 s/b
+1 301 874 2571 direct
marqu...@openssl.com
gpg/pgp key: http://openssl.com/docs/0x6D1892F5.asc
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
-- 
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL FOM 2.0.12 - Windows Compliance

[Steve Marquess]

On 08/19/2016 07:20 AM, Imran Ali wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
>  
> 
> I need some help. I am looking for some evidence which I can provide to
> my auditor for FOM 2.0.12 is FIPS-140 compliance when compiled and used
> in Windows environment. When I look at the NIST web site under
> http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/140val-all.htm#1747
> I cannot see 2.0.12 version.
> 
>  
> 
> Is there something I am missing?

Yes, it's rather confusing.

The one and only OpenSSL FIPS module ("OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 2.0")
is -- for perverse bureaucratic reasons[*] -- covered by three
separate[**] FIPS-140 validations:

  #1747 (revisions 2.0, 2.0.1, ..., 2.0.10)
  #2389 (revisions 2.0.9, ..., 2.0.13)
  #2473 (revisions 2.0.9, 2.0.10)

As always the latest revision (for a given validation) subsumes all
tested platforms listed for that validation. So for instance, 2.0.13 can
be used for all 33 platforms currently listed for validation #2398.
There are about 200 distinct platforms now across all validations.

So you need to look at the listed platforms for all validations[**], and
find which of them cover your platform (possibly more than one). Then
use the latest revision of the module for that validation.

If you only find your platform(s) of interest on a validation ending at
revision 2.0.10 (#1747, #2473), then you're forced to use revision
2.0.10 even though 2.0.13 (and future revisions) are completely backward
compatible. From a technical perspective 2.0.N is completely
functionally equivalent to all previous revisions < N, but down in the
FIPS-140 rabbit hole you're limited to the latest revision for the
relevant validation(s)[***].

The easy way to remember it is "one real-world module, multiple
FIPS-land validations". Or as one of my colleagues would put it,
"...multiple flavors of FIPS-140 magical pixie dust". The choice of
validation certificate number is a paper-chase exercise.

-Steve M.

[*] Obscenely perverse, I'm not even going to try and explain it. In
fact IMHO no rational explanation is possible.

[**] Technically speaking more than three; validations #2391, #2422,
#2454, #2575, #2631, #2676, and possibly others are "copycat" clones
done by third parties that introduce yet more platforms. Since these
validations are for the same OpenSSL FIPS module they are also
accessible to all under the OpenSSL license.

[***] OTOH note the later revisions aren't "better" than the earlier
ones in any meaningful sense, as we're not allowed to do feature
enhancements or bug-fixes (not even vulnerability mitigations). With
most software it's prudent to always use the latest revision to pick up
bugfixes and refinements; for the FIPS module it doesn't matter.

-- 
Steve Marquess
OpenSSL Validation Services, Inc.
1829 Mount Ephraim Road
Adamstown, MD  21710
USA
+1 877 673 6775 s/b
+1 301 874 2571 direct
marqu...@openssl.com
gpg/pgp key: http://openssl.com/docs/0x6D1892F5.asc
-- 
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users

[openssl-users] OpenSSL FOM 2.0.12 - Windows Compliance

[Imran Ali]

Hi Guys,

I need some help. I am looking for some evidence which I can provide to my 
auditor for FOM 2.0.12 is FIPS-140 compliance when compiled and used in Windows 
environment. When I look at the NIST web site under 
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/140val-all.htm#1747 I 
cannot see 2.0.12 version.

Is there something I am missing?


Regards,

Imran Ali

Engineering Product Lead

[cid:image001.gif@01CE15D3.C9808950]

t: +44 (0) 118 943 0485

m: +44 (0) 780 113 7865

w: www.enghouseinteractive.com

e: imran@enghouse.com

[cid:image002.gif@01CE15D3.C9808950]
Enghouse Interactive (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales. 
Registered number: 04230977. Registered office: Imperium, Imperial Way, 
Reading, Berkshire, RG2 0TD.

-- 
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users