Artifact GuideGLOBALFIPS 140-3

FIPS 140-3 vs ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

A source-grounded comparison of the FIPS 140-3 validation layer with the ISO/IEC cryptographic module requirements and test standards it incorporates.

Use it to separate CMVP validation work from underlying ISO requirements and test-method references without inventing clause mappings.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
May 9, 2026
Sections
4

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
4

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated May 9, 2026
Overview

Use this comparison when a procurement response, security policy, module validation plan, or customer questionnaire names FIPS 140-3 alongside ISO/IEC 19790 or ISO/IEC 24759. FIPS 140-3 is the federal cryptographic module validation standard used by CMVP; ISO/IEC 19790 supplies the international security requirements reference; ISO/IEC 24759 supplies the test-requirements reference. Treat them as related layers, not interchangeable labels.

Side-by-side comparison

FIPS 140-3 vs ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759: practical differences

Use this side-by-side view to distinguish CMVP validation claims from the ISO/IEC requirements and test standards referenced by FIPS 140-3.

Review all sources
First framework
FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

The validation and federal-use side: use it for CMVP certificate scope, federal procurement claims, security levels, approved algorithms, module evidence, and program guidance.

Second framework
ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

The international standard-reference side: use it for cryptographic module security requirements and test-requirements framing, not as a standalone CMVP certificate.

Comparison row 1

Scope and covered activity

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

FIPS 140-3 covers cryptographic modules used in security systems and CMVP validation of those modules, including the defined module boundary, security level, interfaces, roles, services, and operational environment.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

ISO/IEC 19790 covers security requirements for cryptographic modules; ISO/IEC 24759 covers test requirements for cryptographic modules. The public ISO grounding supports this scope-level distinction, not a detailed clause mapping.

Comparison row 2

Who uses the result

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

Vendors, CST laboratories, CMVP reviewers, federal buyers, and Canadian federal users rely on the FIPS/CMVP result to evaluate validated cryptographic modules.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

Standards, assurance, procurement, and lab teams may cite ISO/IEC 19790 or ISO/IEC 24759 to describe the requirement or test basis behind cryptographic module assessment work.

Comparison row 3

When the comparison matters

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

The FIPS side matters when a product claim, federal procurement response, system authorization, customer contract, or module release depends on FIPS 140-3 validation or approved cryptography evidence.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

The ISO side matters when a customer, lab, or policy asks which international cryptographic module requirements or test requirements sit behind the FIPS 140-3 work.

Comparison row 4

Work products

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

FIPS/CMVP work products include module specification, security policy, service and approved-mode descriptions, operational-environment details, algorithm validation evidence, test reports, entropy and self-test support, and change-impact records.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759 references support the requirements and test-method vocabulary, but this page does not assert unsupported one-to-one ISO clause deliverables.

Operational implication

Build the deliverable list from CMVP guidance for a FIPS claim, then use ISO references only where the source material or customer request actually cites them.

Comparison row 5

Evidence and records

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

Keep certificate scope, module version, boundary diagrams, security levels, service tables, approved algorithm certificates, security policy text, lab test evidence, and CMVP change decisions together.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

Keep ISO references as standards support: the ISO/IEC 19790 requirements citation, the ISO/IEC 24759 test-requirements citation, and any separately reviewed ISO text or procurement crosswalk.

Comparison row 6

Timing and updates

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

FIPS 140-3 superseded FIPS 140-2, became effective after approval, and is supported by CMVP guidance that changes over time; validation evidence should track the guidance version used for the submission or change review.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759 edition references should be recorded exactly as cited by FIPS, CMVP guidance, the lab, or the customer request.

Operational implication

Do not update public claims just because a comparison was rewritten; update claims when the module, certificate, standard edition, or CMVP guidance basis changes.

Comparison row 7

Assurance route

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

FIPS 140-3 assurance runs through CMVP validation, with testing by accredited CST laboratories and acceptance by U.S. and Canadian federal agencies for protected information uses described in the source material.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759 provide standards references; the cited public sources do not show an independent enforcement or certificate route equivalent to CMVP validation.

Operational implication

When a buyer asks for validated cryptography, confirm whether they mean a CMVP-listed FIPS 140-3 module rather than a general ISO standards citation.

Comparison row 8

Overlap and reuse

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

FIPS 140-3 incorporates ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759 references and adds FIPS/CMVP-specific validation context, NIST SP 800-140 modifications, and implementation guidance.

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

ISO references can explain the underlying security and test framework, but they should not absorb FIPS-specific certificate, approved-mode, CAVP, or CMVP evidence requirements.

Comparison row 9

Practical decision rule

FIPS 140-3 and CMVP

Use FIPS 140-3 and CMVP as controlling when the question is "Is this cryptographic module validated for the claimed use?"

ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

Use ISO/IEC 19790 or ISO/IEC 24759 as controlling only when the question is about the international requirements or test-requirements standard named in the request.

Operational implication

A defensible answer usually names both layers: the ISO standard family for requirements or tests, and the FIPS/CMVP evidence for validation status.

Practical decision rule

How to choose between FIPS 140-3 and ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759

  • Choose FIPS 140-3 and CMVP when the visitor needs validation status, certificate scope, or a yes-or-no answer about whether the module is accepted as validated for the claimed use.
  • Choose ISO/IEC 19790 or ISO/IEC 24759 when the visitor needs the underlying requirements or test standard that the FIPS 140-3 submission references.
  • When the request mixes compliance language and validation language, name both layers: ISO for the requirement/test basis and FIPS/CMVP for the validation evidence.
Section 1

What is actually being compared?

FIPS 140-3 is the published Federal Information Processing Standard for security requirements for cryptographic modules. It applies to federal agencies using cryptography-based security systems and is the basis for CMVP validation of modules used to protect sensitive information.

ISO/IEC 19790 is the international cryptographic module security requirements standard referenced by FIPS 140-3. ISO/IEC 24759 is the related test requirements standard. The cited public sources support that relationship, but they do not support a detailed public clause-by-clause equivalence table for this page.

  • Use FIPS 140-3 when the claim is about CMVP validation, federal-agency acceptance, certificate scope, or a FIPS-labeled procurement requirement.
  • Use ISO/IEC 19790 when the claim is about the underlying international security requirements for cryptographic modules.
  • Use ISO/IEC 24759 when the claim is about the test-requirements frame referenced by FIPS 140-3 and CMVP guidance.
  • Do not describe ISO/IEC 19790 or ISO/IEC 24759 as a substitute for CMVP validation unless the procurement or assurance document explicitly allows that.
Section 2

Where FIPS 140-3 adds operational work

The FIPS side is not just a standards citation. FIPS 140-3 names four qualitative security levels and covers module specification, interfaces, roles, services and authentication, software and firmware security, operational environment, physical security, non-invasive security, sensitive security parameter management, self-tests, life-cycle assurance, and mitigation of other attacks.

CMVP guidance turns those requirements into validation operations: module boundary and service descriptions, algorithm certificate handling, approved security service indicators, operational-environment records, entropy and SSP evidence, self-test expectations, CVE management, and change-impact decisions.

  • Start FIPS evidence with the module boundary, version, operating environment, security level claims, roles, services, and approved versus non-approved services.
  • Attach algorithm claims to CAVP certificate evidence where CMVP guidance requires it.
  • Keep approved-mode indicators, security policy text, test reports, entropy support, self-test behavior, and change records together with the certificate scope.
  • Rerun the comparison when the module boundary, implementation, operational environment, validated algorithms, or public claim changes.
Section 3

Where ISO/IEC 19790 and ISO/IEC 24759 fit

For this page, the supported ISO claim is deliberately narrow: ISO/IEC 19790 is the cryptographic module security requirements standard, and ISO/IEC 24759 is the cryptographic module test requirements standard. FIPS 140-3 and the CMVP guidance reference those standards, with the FIPS and CMVP material adding U.S./Canadian validation program context and NIST-specific modifications or guidance.

That means ISO references are useful for understanding the source standard family, but the evidence package for a FIPS 140-3 claim still needs CMVP-specific artifacts and current CMVP guidance.

  • Use ISO citations to explain the standards lineage and requirement/test framing.
  • Use FIPS and CMVP citations to support validation status, certificate scope, submission evidence, and U.S./Canadian federal acceptance claims.
  • Keep any deeper ISO clause mapping outside this page unless the source text is available and reviewed directly.
  • Flag customer requests that ask for "ISO 19790 compliant" evidence when they actually require a FIPS 140-3 validated module.
Section 4

Procurement and audit evidence to keep separate

A clean comparison keeps three evidence sets separate: the FIPS 140-3 validation claim, the ISO/IEC 19790 requirements reference, and the ISO/IEC 24759 test-requirements reference. The overlap is real, but the labels answer different procurement and assurance questions.

For customer-facing claims, avoid broad wording such as "ISO/FIPS compliant" unless the statement identifies the module, version, boundary, certificate status, operational environment, and the source that supports the claim.

  • FIPS claim record: module name, version, boundary, security level, certificate identifier or status, operational environment, validated algorithms, and security policy link or artifact.
  • ISO requirements record: the cited ISO/IEC 19790 edition or procurement language, plus the exact requirement family being discussed.
  • Test-method record: the ISO/IEC 24759 or CMVP/DTR test reference named by the lab, assessor, or customer.
  • Gap record: unsupported equivalence assumptions, missing certificate scope, expired or changed operational environments, and evidence reused from a different module.
Primary sources

References and citations

csrc.nist.gov
Referenced sections
  • Program guidance for FIPS 140-3 validation evidence, binding/embedding, approved service indicators, CAVP certificates, change impact, and CMVP operating expectations.
"CAVP addresses the testing of Approved Security Functions"
Related guides

Explore more topics

FIPS 140-3 algorithm certificate mapping: ACVTS certificates to module boundary
Map CAVP algorithm certificates to FIPS 140-3 module services, approved security functions, security policy tables, and validation evidence.
FIPS 140-3 Algorithm Certificates FAQ
How CAVP algorithm certificates support, but do not replace, FIPS 140-3 cryptographic module validation evidence.
FIPS 140-3 Applicability Test
Check whether FIPS 140-3 applies to a cryptographic module claim by testing agency use, module boundary, security level, approved functions, CMVP status, and procurement evidence.
FIPS 140-3 Approved and Non-Approved Mode Workflow
Classify FIPS 140-3 module services by approved security service, allowed no-security-claimed use, and non-approved service evidence.
FIPS 140-3 approved-mode evidence workflow
A grounded workflow for collecting FIPS 140-3 approved-mode evidence: module boundary, approved services, service indicators, CAVP certificates, Security Policy entries, and change review.
FIPS 140-3 Certificate Maintenance FAQ
How to maintain FIPS 140-3 certificate evidence after validation by checking module status, version, caveats, Security Policy, and revalidation records.
FIPS 140-3 Change Impact Review
Review FIPS 140-3 module changes against boundary, version, operational environment, embedded module, software loading, CVE, and certificate evidence.
FIPS 140-3 compliance guide
A grounded FIPS 140-3 compliance guide for cryptographic module scope, security-level claims, CMVP validation evidence, and procurement review.
FIPS 140-3 Entropy and DRBG Evidence
FIPS 140-3 entropy and DRBG guidance for module boundary decisions, entropy caveats, Security Policy evidence, ESV references, and DRBG CSP handling.
FIPS 140-3 Entropy Evidence FAQ
How FIPS 140-3 entropy evidence should document entropy source location, GetEntropy access, SP 800-90B testing, Security Policy text, and certificate caveats.
FIPS 140-3 FAQ for Cryptographic Modules
Answers to common FIPS 140-3 questions about scope, CMVP validation, algorithm certificates, module boundaries, approved mode, and validation evidence.
FIPS 140-3 Module Boundaries FAQ
Understand how FIPS 140-3 module boundaries affect cryptographic module scope, interfaces, software and firmware components, and bound or embedded validated modules.
FIPS 140-3 Module Boundary Selector Workflow
A FIPS 140-3 workflow for selecting a cryptographic module boundary, separating embedded and bound modules, and collecting CMVP validation evidence.
FIPS 140-3 operational environments FAQ
Learn what a FIPS 140-3 operational environment means for software, firmware, and hybrid cryptographic modules, and what evidence to check before relying on a validation claim.
FIPS 140-3 security levels: how to choose and evidence them
A practical FAQ on FIPS 140-3 security levels, module scope, CMVP evidence, bound or embedded modules, and common claim mistakes.
FIPS 140-3 Security Policy Template
Build a FIPS 140-3 module Security Policy with sections for boundary, roles, services, approved algorithms, SSP handling, self-tests, and CMVP evidence.
FIPS 140-3 Validation Checklist
Checklist for preparing a cryptographic module for FIPS 140-3 validation: boundary, levels, services, approved algorithms, entropy, tests, security policy, and change evidence.
FIPS 140-3 Validation Maintenance
Maintain FIPS 140-3 validation claims by checking module identity, certificate status, boundary changes, operational environments, and CAVP evidence.
FIPS 140-3 Validation Maintenance Change Workflow
A FIPS 140-3 workflow for triaging module changes against CMVP validation scope, Security Policy evidence, CAVP certificates, software loading, and CVE records.
FIPS 140-3 Vendor Affirmation FAQ
When vendor affirmation can support a FIPS 140-3 module claim, what it does not supersede, and which Security Policy, CAVP, CSTL, and test-report evidence to keep.
FIPS 140-3: CMVP Lifecycle Timeline
Practical FIPS 140-3 guidance for CMVP Lifecycle Timeline: scope, controls, evidence, source-linked decisions, and implementation checkpoints.
FIPS 140-3: FIPS 140-2 vs FIPS 140-3
Compare FIPS 140-2 legacy references with FIPS 140-3 requirements, ISO/IEC 19790 alignment, CMVP testing evidence, and guidance mappings.
FIPS 140-3: Module Boundary and Service Mapping
Map a FIPS 140-3 cryptographic module boundary to services, approved algorithms, operational environments, and CMVP validation evidence.
FIPS 140-3: Module Boundary Selector
Select and document a FIPS 140-3 cryptographic module boundary across hardware, software, firmware, operational environment, services, and validation evidence.
FIPS 140-3: Operational Environment
FIPS 140-3 operational environment guidance for software, firmware, hybrid, CAVP certificate, EVM, and PAA/PAI validation claims.
FIPS 140-3: Security Levels Explained
Explain FIPS 140-3 Security Levels 1 through 4, what they cover, and how to document level claims for cryptographic module validation.
FIPS 140-3: step-by-step workflow for mapping algorithm certificates to CMVP modules
Map CAVP algorithm certificates to a FIPS 140-3 module by matching implementation identity, operational environment, module services, and security policy evidence.
How should teams handle approved mode under FIPS 140-3?
Answer the FIPS 140-3 approved-mode question with service-level indicators, Security Policy evidence, and limits on non-approved functions.