Search every question across sub-FAQs

A CAVP algorithm certificate supports the algorithm part of a FIPS 140-3 evidence package. It shows that the named implementation was tested for the algorithm capabilities and operational environments recorded by CAVP. An accredited CST laboratory separately tests the cryptographic module that integrates and uses that implementation, and CMVP reviews and validates the submission.

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 capabilities and parameters, implementation version, and tested operational environment, then compare those details with the module configuration that will rely on the algorithm. IG 2.3.A requires the validated implementation to remain unmodified after integration and its CAVP environment to be identical to, or fully included in, the module's tested environment.

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. Connect the CAVP entry to the module boundary, the Security Policy table or service row where the algorithm is used, required self-tests, and the operational environment tested for the module. A certificate for an approved algorithm does not make every parameter, mode, protocol use, or service approved.

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 public CMVP certificate entry as the current reference for the validation claim. Before using it in procurement, customer trust, audit, or product-security material, verify the status, certificate number, module name, vendor, version, tested configuration, caveats, Security Policy, and validation history on the official NIST CMVP site. Record the date of that check because the public status and supporting documents can change.

Do not rely on a downloaded certificate image or a vendor slide as the only proof. FIPS 140-3 treats CMVP validation as a module-level decision after accredited-laboratory testing and CMVP review, so the public claim must continue to identify the module that was actually validated rather than the surrounding product by implication.

Review the certificate whenever the module, product packaging, embedded validated module, operational environment, algorithm set, Security Policy wording, vendor evidence, or vulnerability status changes. First decide whether the change is outside the validated boundary, changes only documentation, or changes security-relevant code, hardware, configuration, or dependencies. Then ask the vendor and CST laboratory which CMVP submission or revalidation path, if any, applies; a customer cannot extend a certificate by its own assessment.

A maintenance review does not extend the original validation. CMVP guidance makes this concrete for bound or embedded modules, operational environments, algorithm implementations, software or firmware loading, and security-relevant vulnerabilities. After validation, a security-relevant CVE may require design changes, implementation changes, updated guidance, or a CST-laboratory submission; the vendor must address the module's continued validated-list status with CMVP.

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 completed validation evidence from engineering, vendor, or laboratory work in progress. FIPS 140-3 says that modules validated under CMVP are considered conforming; planned testing, internal readiness, CAVP algorithm certificates, or an unpublished submission do not establish that completed module-validation claim.

Start with the entropy path. The evidence should identify whether the module generates entropy itself, directly 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 assigns different evidence and certificate caveats to those cases because the laboratory can corroborate some entropy estimates but cannot guarantee the quality of entropy supplied by an uncontrolled external source.

The core record should 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. The DRBG name alone cannot support a generated-SSP strength claim; the seeding evidence must support that claim.

When an entropy source validation is required, CMVP guidance points to SP 800-90B, IG D.J, and IG D.K. A source within a software, firmware, or hybrid module's TOEPP that supports an available-entropy claim requires an ESV certificate and a direct path from the module to the source's GetEntropy() interface. The evidence package must 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 must 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 must be rigorous and must substantiate independence and identical distribution separately; the guidance warns that most noise sources do not produce IID events.

Review the Security Policy, ESV evidence, and module 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. An ESV certificate supports the evaluated entropy source; it does not replace the module's CMVP certificate. If entropy is externally loaded or cannot be corroborated for the deployed configuration, the module 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 must 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 the executable code, firmware, circuitry, physical enclosure or perimeter, interfaces, and services that form the module. Keep the cryptographic boundary distinct from the tested operational environment: a software module can execute inside a platform's physical perimeter while the operating system, processor, and other applications remain outside its cryptographic boundary.

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

A bound arrangement has two separate, disjoint cryptographic boundaries: the IUT depends on an EVM, and application services can be available from either module. Sensitive security parameters that move or are established between those boundaries are subject to the applicable entry, output, and establishment requirements; calling the modules bound does not merge their validated scopes.

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. The environment is part of the validation evidence, but it is not automatically inside the cryptographic boundary. For a software module, the operating system, processor, platform, and other applications can sit outside the boundary while remaining inside the tested operational environment's physical perimeter.

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. IG 2.3.A does not allow an algorithm implementation tested on one processor bit size to be claimed for another bit size, or one tested operating system to be claimed for another during module testing. Memory size and processor frequency do not create that same distinction under the cited rule.

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.