Search every question across sub-FAQs

A CAVP algorithm certificate supports the algorithm part of a FIPS 140-3 evidence package. The CMVP implementation guidance says cryptographic algorithm implementations are tested and validated under CAVP, while cryptographic modules are tested and validated under CMVP.

That distinction matters in public claims. A product team should not describe a product as FIPS 140-3 validated merely because one embedded algorithm has a CAVP certificate. The module still needs its own CMVP validation record and Security Policy for the claimed module boundary.

Check the certificate number, algorithm name, implementation version, and tested operational environment, then compare those details with the module configuration that will rely on the algorithm. The CMVP guidance says the certificate serves as a benchmark for the configuration and operational environment used during validation.

For software, firmware, and hybrid modules, the tested operational environment matters. If the algorithm was tested on a different operating system, processor, platform, or hypervisor arrangement, do not assume the certificate automatically covers the module under test.

Keep enough evidence to show why the certificate supports the current module claim. The record should connect the CAVP entry to the module boundary, the Security Policy table or service row where the algorithm is used, and the operational environment tested for the module.

Do not use stale certificate screenshots as the only evidence. Keep the public CAVP URL, certificate number, algorithm and implementation identifiers, module certificate or submission reference, Security Policy excerpt, and the date the evidence was checked.

Treat the CMVP certificate entry as living evidence. Before using it in procurement, customer trust, audit, or product-security material, verify the current validation status, certificate number, module name, vendor, version, tested configuration, caveats, Security Policy, and validation history on the official NIST CMVP site.

Do not rely on a downloaded certificate image or a vendor slide as the only proof. The CMVP Management Manual says the database entry includes the version number and benchmark configuration from the original validation, and that users should refer to the NIST website for the latest validation information.

Review the certificate whenever the module, product packaging, embedded validated module, operational environment, algorithm set, Security Policy wording, vendor evidence, or vulnerability status changes. The review question is whether the current certificate still describes the module and configuration being claimed.

For validated modules, the maintenance path is not an internal memo. The CMVP Management Manual states that after validation the vendor manages post-module validation through a new validation or revalidation process submitted by a CSTL, and that changes outside validation or revalidation invalidate the module.

Keep a compact evidence record that lets a reviewer repeat the check. It should show the official CMVP entry, the Security Policy used, the exact product or module version in scope, the claim being made, and any change or revalidation question that remains open.

Separate active validation evidence from work-in-progress evidence. The CMVP Management Manual says IUT and MIP lists are informational, voluntary, and do not imply or guarantee FIPS 140 validation. They can support tracking, but they should not be used as proof that a module is already validated.

Start with the entropy path, not the product claim. The evidence should identify whether the module generates entropy itself, calls a well-defined source through a GetEntropy() interface, passively receives externally supplied entropy, or combines active and passive inputs. CMVP Implementation Guidance 9.3.A treats those cases differently because the laboratory may be able to corroborate some entropy-strength estimates directly while other deployments require warning caveats.

The core record should therefore include the module boundary, TOEPP or physical perimeter, source location, interface type, DRBG seeding path, and the minimum bits of entropy generated, requested, accepted, or believed to have been loaded for SSP generation. A statement that the product uses a DRBG is not enough; the question is whether the seeding evidence supports the strength claim being made for generated SSPs.

When an entropy evaluation is required, CMVP guidance points teams to SP 800-90B and IG D.K. The evidence package should include raw noise-source access details, statistical-test results, the entropy assessment tool version, and the laboratory's heuristic analysis of how the noise source works and why the claimed entropy rate is supported.

The Security Policy should document the overall generated entropy and the estimated entropy per source output bit when SP 800-90B testing applies. If the vendor claims IID behavior, the support needs to be rigorous and should address independence and identical distribution separately; the guidance warns that most noise sources do not produce IID events.

Review the Security Policy and certificate together. CMVP guidance requires different public statements depending on whether the module uses an internal source, a known source inside the TOEPP, an external source, a passive load, or a hybrid design. If entropy is externally loaded or cannot be directly verified for all deployments, the certificate may need a no-assurance caveat rather than a broad strength claim.

For multiple entropy sources, do not add entropy by intuition. CMVP guidance allows concatenating outputs from multiple independent SP 800-90B-compliant sources for a DRBG seed, but the Security Policy should explain which sources are creditable, whether they are physical or non-physical, and which method is used for entropy calculation. If sources are mutually dependent, at most one of those dependent sources may be credited.

FIPS 140-3 applies to cryptographic modules and covers security requirement areas such as module specification, module interfaces, roles and services, software and firmware security, operating environment, physical security, sensitive security parameter management, self-tests, and lifecycle assurance.

For a boundary question, start with the module embodiment: hardware, software, firmware, or hybrid. Then identify which executable code, firmware, circuitry, interfaces, services, and operational environment assumptions are inside the cryptographic module and which supporting platform or application elements are outside it.

CMVP implementation guidance treats binding and embedding from the perspective of the module under validation, called the Implementation Under Test. An embedded existing validated module is wholly contained within the IUT module boundary and provides services solely to the IUT.

A bound module is different: the IUT has a separate, disjoint cryptographic boundary and depends on an existing validated module. In binding cases, application services can be available from either cryptographic module, so the documentation needs to distinguish what each module provides.

Boundary documentation should be specific enough for a customer, assessor, or procurement reviewer to understand the module being claimed without confusing product packaging with the validated cryptographic module.

The safest public-facing wording is narrow: name the module, certificate context if one exists, module type, tested operational environment where relevant, interfaces, services, and any bound or embedded existing validated module. Avoid implying that an entire product, cloud service, platform, or dependency is FIPS 140-3 validated when only a defined module is in scope.

FIPS 140-3 names operating environment as one of the security requirement areas for cryptographic modules. That matters because the validated security level is chosen for the application, environment, and services where the module will be used.

The CMVP implementation guidance defines operational environment for software, firmware, and hybrid modules as the management of the software, firmware, and hardware needed for the module to operate. At minimum, that includes the module components, the computing platform, and the operating system that controls or allows the software or firmware to execute.

Start with the certificate, security policy, and algorithm validation evidence for the exact module and version. CMVP guidance says cryptographic module validation certificates state the module name, version, and tested operational environment; CAVP algorithm certificates also state the tested operational environment for the algorithm implementation.

For software modules, each listed operational environment must include the operating system, platform, and processor used for testing. If a hypervisor was used, it must be listed too. Do not treat a different processor bit size, a different operating system, or a different platform as covered unless the evidence actually lists or includes that environment.

The main mistake is stretching a validation claim beyond the environment that was tested. CMVP guidance says a claim cannot be made for a different processor bit size when an implementation was tested on one bit size, and a claim cannot be made for another operating system when the implementation was tested on one operating system for module testing.

For Level 1 software in a general-purpose operational environment, the CMVP guidance also points to operating-system capabilities that protect critical and sensitive security parameters: each module instance must control its own SSPs, the environment must separate application processes, and spawned processes must be owned by the module rather than external processes or operators.

FIPS 140-3 defines four increasing qualitative security levels, Level 1 through Level 4, for cryptographic modules. The standard applies the levels across requirement areas such as module specification, interfaces, roles and authentication, software and firmware security, operating environment, physical security, non-invasive security, sensitive security parameter management, self-tests, life-cycle assurance, and mitigation of other attacks.

A security-level statement should therefore identify the cryptographic module and the requirement areas or certificate evidence behind the statement. It should not be written as a broad claim that an entire product, platform, tenant, or organization is "FIPS Level 3" unless the public CMVP evidence supports exactly that scope.

Start from the module's intended use, not from a desired marketing label. FIPS 140-3 says the security level must be appropriate for the application and environment in which the module will be used and for the security services it will provide.

For procurement or architecture work, record the use case, exposed environment, cryptographic services, selected module, expected security level, and whether the module is already listed by CMVP for that scope. If the answer depends on a supplier certificate, verify the certificate status and security policy before repeating the level in customer-facing material.

A strong evidence packet links the claim to the CMVP certificate, the module security policy, module version, tested operating environment, cryptographic boundary, approved services, and any CAVP algorithm certificates used by the module. The evidence should also show whether the module is active for the intended procurement or use case.

If the implementation depends on another validated module, document whether the relationship is bound or embedded. CMVP guidance treats those cases differently: a bound existing validated module must be at the same or higher security level as the module under test for all FIPS 140-3 sections except mitigation of other attacks, while an embedded module may be lower only when the submission demonstrates that the higher-level requirements are still met.

The most common mistake is changing the scope of the claim: a validated cryptographic module becomes a validated product, a product becomes a validated service, or an algorithm certificate becomes a module certificate. FIPS 140-3 evidence should keep those layers separate.

Another mistake is copying a supplier's security-level language without checking the exact certificate, module version, operational environment, and validation status. If those details do not match the deployed module, the public claim can be materially misleading even when the supplier has a real validation elsewhere.

Vendor affirmation is available only for specific cases described in CMVP Implementation Guidance. The clearest HSS example is IG C.O for SP 800-208: HSS can be vendor-affirmed when the implementation performs the required cryptographic algorithm self-tests, the underlying LMS operations have the required CAVP certificates, and the CSTL verifies each supported HSS operation through source-code review.

Do not describe vendor affirmation as a general validation status. The FIPS 140-3 standard says cryptographic modules are validated through CMVP, with testing by accredited CST laboratories, while CAVP addresses approved security function and sensitive security parameter generation and establishment method testing.