We use privacy-by-default, cookieless analytics.

Optional analytics cookies are used only if you accept them.

Read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

FIPS Crypto AlgorithmsFree Resource

FIPS Cryptographic Algorithms Claims and Evidence Hub

Choose the standard for the cryptographic service you need, then separate the algorithm, tested implementation, validated module, and deployed product claims.

Start with the algorithm selector
Seven algorithm standards consolidatedCAVP, ACVP/ACVTS, and CMVP distinguishedNo signup required
Who needs which evidence?
Decision path
Architect or product owner
Records the required cryptographic service, exact algorithm, mode or parameter set, protocol use, and migration assumptions.
Implementer, vendor, or test lab
Connects source code or hardware, version, platform, tested capabilities, record, and change history.
Buyer, operator, or assessor
Checks the CMVP certificate and Security Policy against the delivered release, module boundary, environment, approved service, and procurement requirement.

Decision order: identify the requirement source, covered system, information type, and claim layer; select the cryptographic service and algorithm; verify implementation evidence; verify the module boundary and approved service; then approve wording for the delivered configuration. Reopen the record when the algorithm, parameters, library, module boundary, operating environment, certificate status, protocol profile, supplier, or governing requirement changes.

Key dates
20
Guides
6
FAQs
3
Comparisons
7
Algorithm FIPS
Separate these three claim layers
1. Algorithm standard
Name the service, FIPS publication, algorithm, mode or parameter set, supporting functions, and allowed use. A standard specifies the primitive; it does not decide whether a protocol use is suitable or validate a product.
2. CAVP-tested implementation
Match the public algorithm-validation record to the implementation name, version, tested parameters, and operational environment. ACVP is the testing protocol and ACVTS is the test system; neither is a separate product certificate.
3. CMVP-validated module and use
Confirm the module certificate, Security Policy, boundary, approved services, service indicators, operational environment, certificate status, and delivered configuration before making a FIPS 140-3 claim.
AES
SHA
PQC
Publication details
Editorial metadata for this artifact
Author
Sorena AI
Published
Mar 4, 2026
Updated
Jul 16, 2026

Each publication's applicability clause controls. FIPS requirements can cover US federal agency systems and systems operated for an agency under contract; national-security and statute-specific exclusions differ by publication. Contracts, procurement rules, and organizational policies can adopt the same standards elsewhere. Using AES, SHA, RSA, or a does not make a product FIPS 140-3 validated.

Recommended decision path

Choose the FIPS algorithm question you need to answer

New to the topic? Start by identifying the cryptographic service and claim type. If those are already known, jump to the algorithm family, validation evidence, procurement, transition, or comparison guide you need.

1

Start here: service, scope, and claim type

Decide what cryptographic service is needed, whether the requirement comes from federal scope, contract, procurement, or internal policy, and whether the intended claim concerns an algorithm, implementation, module, or deployment.

FIPS cryptographic algorithm selector
Choose between FIPS algorithm standards for AES, SHA-2, SHA-3, digital signatures, ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA without overstating validation scope.
Read guide
FIPS approved algorithm selector workflow
A cited workflow for selecting FIPS and NIST-approved cryptographic algorithms without overstating module validation, CAVP evidence, or approved-mode claims.
Read guide
FIPS-approved cryptographic algorithms FAQ
Answers to common FIPS algorithm questions: approved security functions, CAVP validation, CMVP module scope, AES modes, SHA-2, SHA-3, signatures, and post-quantum algorithms.
Read guide
2

Algorithm standards and implementation decisions

Choose the exact AES, hash, signature, KEM, KDF, MAC, or key-management path and record the mode, parameter set, supporting functions, and usage limits.

AES FIPS 197 requirements and evidence
AES FIPS 197 guidance for identifying supported key sizes, separating the block cipher from modes of operation, and avoiding unsupported FIPS validation claims.
Read guide
FIPS 180-4 and FIPS 202 secure hash guidance
Choose and evidence SHA-2, SHA-3, and SHAKE use under FIPS 180-4, FIPS 202, CAVP validation, and FIPS 140-3 module claims.
Read guide
FIPS 186-5 and FIPS 204 digital signatures
Compare FIPS 186-5 classical digital signatures with FIPS 204 ML-DSA, including scope, algorithm choices, key-use limits, and validation evidence boundaries.
Read guide
Post-quantum FIPS 203, 204, and 205: ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA
An official source guide to the three NIST post-quantum FIPS standards: when ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA apply, what evidence to keep, and how CAVP and CMVP claims differ.
Read guide
FIPS KDF and MAC coverage for validated modules
Map FIPS 140-3 KDF and MAC coverage to approved security functions, CAVP evidence, self-tests, service indicators, and module security policy entries.
Read guide
FIPS Key Management Mapping for Algorithms and SSP Evidence
Map FIPS 140-3 key management requirements to approved algorithms, SSP establishment methods, CAVP evidence, module boundaries, and key-use records.
Read guide
3

Validation, approved services, and procurement evidence

Keep CAVP algorithm testing, ACVP/ACVTS test mechanics, CMVP module validation, approved-service operation, protocol configuration, and supplier claims at their correct evidence boundaries.

CAVP Algorithm Validation and ACVP Testing
How CAVP algorithm validation, the ACVP protocol, the ACVTS test system, and CMVP module validation fit together without overstating a FIPS claim.
Read guide
CAVP Validation Evidence Workflow for FIPS Algorithms
Workflow for collecting CAVP validation evidence and ACVP/ACVTS test records: implementation identity, tested parameters, environments, and CMVP handoff records.
Read guide
FIPS approved mode procurement: certificates, boundaries, and evidence
Procurement guidance for FIPS approved mode claims: how to check CMVP certificates, CAVP evidence, module boundaries, tested environments, and supplier evidence before purchase.
Read guide
FIPS Procurement Evidence Review Workflow: CAVP, CMVP, Approved Mode
Review FIPS crypto procurement evidence by separating CAVP algorithm certificates from CMVP module certificates, Security Policy scope, approved mode, operating environment, change impact, and retention records.
Read guide
TLS use-case mapping for FIPS algorithm evidence
Map TLS uses to FIPS algorithm, CAVP, CMVP, approved-mode, certificate-authority, and evidence checks without overstating protocol validation claims.
Read guide
4

Transitions, legacy use, and post-quantum migration

Track approved, disallowed, deprecated, withdrawn, and legacy-use decisions at the algorithm, validation-program, module, procurement, and deployed-use layers without inventing a single universal status.

FIPS crypto transition and deprecation tracker
Track FIPS algorithm transitions, withdrawn guidance, CAVP evidence, CMVP module impact, procurement triggers, and approved-mode caveats without overstating validation status.
Read guide
Post-Quantum Migration for FIPS Cryptography
Plan post-quantum migration for FIPS cryptography by separating ML-KEM key establishment, ML-DSA and SLH-DSA signatures, CAVP algorithm evidence, and CMVP module validation boundaries.
Read guide
Post-Quantum Migration Tracker for FIPS 203, 204, and 205
Track post-quantum cryptography migration evidence for FIPS 203 ML-KEM, FIPS 204 ML-DSA, FIPS 205 SLH-DSA, CAVP algorithm certificates, and CMVP module boundaries.
Read guide
5

Compare algorithm families

Compare primitives by cryptographic service, parameter and integration constraints, interoperability, evidence availability, and migration impact. A newer algorithm is not necessarily a drop-in replacement.

SHA-2 vs SHA-3 under FIPS 180-4 and FIPS 202
Compare SHA-2 and SHA-3 for FIPS use: approved functions, validation evidence, compatibility, procurement checks, and when migration is not required.
Read guide
ML-DSA vs ECDSA under FIPS 204 and FIPS 186-5
Compare ML-DSA and ECDSA for FIPS-aligned digital signature designs, including parameter choices, key handling, CAVP algorithm evidence, and CMVP module boundaries.
Read guide
FIPS 203 ML-KEM vs RSA and ECDH key establishment
Compare FIPS 203 ML-KEM with RSA and ECDH key-establishment schemes using NIST SP 800-56A, SP 800-56B, CAVP, and CMVP evidence.
Read guide
Next step

Map FIPS algorithm choices to validation evidence

This hub is the starting point for an algorithm inventory that distinguishes AES, hash, signature, KEM, and module-validation evidence instead of treating every cryptographic claim as one undifferentiated FIPS requirement.

What this unlocks
  • Identify where products use AES, SHA-2, SHA-3, DSS, ML-KEM, ML-DSA, or SLH-DSA and which FIPS publication supports each claim.
  • Separate algorithm implementation evidence from FIPS 140-3 cryptographic module validation evidence.
  • Record or CMVP certificate references only when they match the implementation, operational environment, and module boundary being claimed.
  • Track post-quantum migration questions without implying that every legacy RSA, ECDSA, or ECDH use case has the same replacement path.
Recommended route
Open Research Copilot
Research FIPS algorithm, validation, and transition questions with cited NIST-source outputs.
Supporting route
Open SSOT
Keep algorithm inventories, certificate references, module-boundary notes, and review records in one governed system.
Talk to Sorena
Talk through implementation
Review your algorithm inventory, validation evidence model, and post-quantum migration questions.
Discuss your setup