--- title: "FIPS 140-3 Validation Checklist (CMVP Lab Readiness, Approved Mode, Transition)" canonical_url: "https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/global/fips-140-3/fips-140-3-validation-checklist" source_url: "https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/global/fips-140-3/fips-140-3-validation-checklist" author: "Sorena AI" description: "A practical FIPS 140-3 validation checklist for CMVP lab readiness: boundary, services, approved mode, documentation, self-tests, SSP management." published_at: "2026-03-04" updated_at: "2026-03-04" keywords: - "FIPS 140-3 validation checklist" - "FIPS 140-3 compliance checklist" - "CMVP readiness checklist" - "cryptographic module validation checklist" - "NVLAP CSTL readiness" - "FIPS 140-3 Security Policy checklist" - "approved mode checklist" - "cryptographic module boundary checklist" - "GLOBAL compliance" - "FIPS 140-3" - "CMVP" - "Validation checklist" --- **[SORENA](https://www.sorena.io/)** - AI-Powered GRC Platform [Home](https://www.sorena.io/) | [Solutions](https://www.sorena.io/solutions) | [Artifacts](https://www.sorena.io/artifacts) | [About Us](https://www.sorena.io/about-us) | [Contact](https://www.sorena.io/contact) | [Portal](https://app.sorena.io) --- # FIPS 140-3 Validation Checklist (CMVP Lab Readiness, Approved Mode, Transition) A practical FIPS 140-3 validation checklist for CMVP lab readiness: boundary, services, approved mode, documentation, self-tests, SSP management. *Checklist* *GLOBAL* ## FIPS 140-3 Validation checklist A pre-validation checklist for engineering and CMVP lab readiness, optimized to reduce rework. Use this before you engage a CST laboratory or before you freeze your validation scope. This checklist is designed to catch the usual FIPS 140-3 validation failures early: boundary ambiguity, inconsistent approved-mode claims, incomplete services mapping, weak SSP evidence, and documentation that does not match what is tested. Use it as an internal gate before lab submission, and record the exact CMVP guidance baseline you are using. ## 1) Scope and boundary If the cryptographic boundary is unclear, interfaces, roles, services, SSP handling, self-tests, and documentation all become unstable. Freeze the boundary early and treat scope changes as architecture changes. - Boundary diagram is complete, versioned, and explicit about what is inside and outside the module - All interfaces crossing the boundary are enumerated, including admin paths and debug paths - Operational environments, platforms, firmware, and toolchain assumptions are pinned - Embedded or bound modules are identified with exact certificate and version information - Any remaining FIPS 140-2 dependency or transition assumption is explicitly recorded ## 2) Roles, services, and authentication Your services list is a key input to the lab test plan. Every security-relevant service should be complete, stable, and linked to SSP access and approved-mode behavior. - Roles are clearly defined and least-privilege oriented - Authentication behavior is documented and testable, including reset and replacement flows - Every service includes inputs, outputs, SSP access, approved-mode behavior, and error behavior - There is a reviewed services-to-approved-security-functions map - Non-approved services are clearly identified and cannot be confused with approved services ## 3) Approved mode of operation Approved mode is a proof problem. The implementation, documentation, and tests all need to show the same approved-mode story. - Approved mode entry and exit conditions are explicit and testable - Service indicator behavior is defined and matches runtime behavior - Approved and non-approved algorithms are separated in code paths and docs - The Security Policy, service map, and tests describe the same approved-mode scope - The current CMVP Implementation Guidance revision is named in the evidence pack ## 4) Algorithms and dependencies Teams often fail here by assuming an algorithm is approved without proving validation coverage or dependency control. Keep one authoritative source of truth for algorithm use per build and environment. - Approved security functions are enumerated and tied to concrete implementations - Build flags and configuration controls for cryptographic functions are auditable - Crypto dependencies are pinned and their provenance is recorded - Embedded or bound crypto components are documented precisely where used - Supporting certificates or dependency evidence are retained where the submission relies on them ## 5) Self-tests Self-tests are operational requirements, not theory. They must run in the right state, fail safely, and generate evidence a lab can inspect. - Pre-operational self-tests are implemented and evidenced - Conditional self-tests and error states are documented and tested - Failure behavior blocks cryptographic operation where required - Logs or indicators for self-test status are defined - Self-tests are exercised for each validated build and environment ## 6) SSP management and zeroization Sensitive Security Parameter handling is usually evidence-heavy. Plan the evidence before lab work, not after. - SSP lifecycle is documented from generation or establishment through storage, use, and destruction - Zeroization methods are defined per storage type and are testable - Entropy and SSP-establishment assumptions are documented against the applicable SP 800-140 and IG rules - SSP access is mapped by service and role - Backup and recovery flows do not create shadow SSP stores outside the boundary ## 7) Documentation pack The CSTL works from your documentation. If those artifacts do not line up with implementation reality, the project slows down. - Security Policy matches boundary, services, approved mode, SSP handling, and self-tests - Supporting documents reflect the SP 800-140 documentation and policy expectations the lab is using - Module and interface descriptions match the current code and hardware reality - Configuration-management and release-governance evidence exists for validated builds - Test scripts, configs, logs, and expected outputs are packaged and repeatable ## 8) Post-validation maintenance controls Validation is not the end of the problem. Protect the validated state with strict but lightweight change control. - Validated versions and tested environments are pinned internally - There is a change gate for boundary, algorithm, SSP, and platform changes - Dependency updates are classified for validation impact - Evidence refresh has an owner and cadence - Customer-facing claims are reviewed so validated, compliant, and embedded-module language stays accurate *Recommended next step* *Placement: after the checklist block* ## Turn FIPS 140-3 Validation checklist into an operational assessment Assessment Autopilot can take FIPS 140-3 Validation checklist from turning this checklist into an operational workflow to a reusable workflow inside Sorena. Teams working on FIPS 140-3 can keep owners, evidence, and next steps aligned without copying this guide into separate documents. - [Open Assessment Autopilot for FIPS 140-3 Validation checklist](/solutions/assessment.md): Start from FIPS 140-3 Validation checklist and turn the guidance into owned tasks, evidence requests, and review checkpoints. - [Talk through FIPS 140-3](/contact.md): Review your current process, evidence gaps, and next steps for FIPS 140-3 Validation checklist. ## Primary sources - [FIPS PUB 140-3 (Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules)](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.140-3.pdf?ref=sorena.io) - Primary standard driving the checklist. - [CMVP FAQ](https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/faqs?ref=sorena.io) - Useful for checking claims around validated versus compliant status and embedded modules. - [FIPS 140-3 CMVP Management Manual](https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/fips%20140-3/FIPS-140-3-CMVP%20Management%20Manual.pdf?ref=sorena.io) - Current operational manual that should inform readiness assumptions and submission planning. - [Implementation Guidance for FIPS 140-3 and the CMVP](https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/fips%20140-3/FIPS%20140-3%20IG.pdf?ref=sorena.io) - Current guidance set used for readiness decisions; pin the exact revision in your evidence pack. ## Related Topic Guides - [FIPS 140-3 Compliance (CMVP Validation Playbook, Approved Mode, Transition)](/artifacts/global/fips-140-3/compliance.md): A practical FIPS 140-3 compliance and validation playbook for CMVP cryptographic module validation: boundary, security level selection, approved mode. - [FIPS 140-3 FAQ (CMVP Validation, Approved Mode, Embedded Modules, Transition)](/artifacts/global/fips-140-3/faq.md): FIPS 140-3 FAQ for cryptographic module teams: what FIPS 140-3 covers, how CMVP validation works, what approved mode means. - [FIPS 140-3 Module Boundary and Services Mapping (Approved Mode, Embedded Modules)](/artifacts/global/fips-140-3/module-boundary-and-service-mapping.md): Advanced guide to FIPS 140-3 cryptographic module boundary definition and services mapping: boundary diagrams, approved-mode indicators, SSP access. - [FIPS 140-3 Security Levels (Level 1 to Level 4) Explained](/artifacts/global/fips-140-3/security-levels-explained.md): FIPS 140-3 security levels explained: what Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 mean, how they affect boundary and deployment assumptions. --- [Privacy Policy](https://www.sorena.io/privacy) | [Terms of Use](https://www.sorena.io/terms-of-use) | [DMCA](https://www.sorena.io/dmca) | [About Us](https://www.sorena.io/about-us) (c) 2026 Sorena AB (559573-7338). All rights reserved. Source: https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/global/fips-140-3/fips-140-3-validation-checklist