Hello,

I have two questions regarding support for FIPS in 3.0.  We're currently 
working on early planning for our migration to OpenSSL 3.0 and we're
trying to size the effort for our team.  We're also beginning to put together 
contingency plans in the event that dates on either side change
dramatically.  I suspect I already know the answers to these questions, but I 
wanted to ask just to be sure so that we plan correctly.

Over the years we have had requirements to include additional functionality 
within our FIPS boundary beyond what was in the OpenSSL
based FOM.  We would start with the existing OpenSSL FOM, add in the additional 
functionality, and then go through a full validation with the
test lab on this slightly modified FOM.  We had the impression that there are 
other groups that do the same.  An example of additional
functionality, especially for the 3.0 FOM, might be something like the SSH KDF. 
 If this KDF were to not be included in the 3.0 FOM and we
needed a FIPS validated version of it in our solutions, we would need to move 
this into the FIPS provider and then take this altered FOM through
a complete FIPS validation.  If however, we were to create a 3rd party provider 
that only contains this supplemental FIPS functionality, we
could go through an abbreviated FIPS validation of just that functionality and 
then have both the OpenSSL 3.0 FOM and this
supplemental FOM active at the same time in our solution.  So the question is, 
will the OpenSSL 3.0 design allow for more than one active
FIPS provider?

I've made a pass through the 3.0 design specification looking specifically at 
FIPS provider related content but did not see an
explicit statement that there can only be one FIPS provider, although, I 
suspect this is the case and wanted to confirm this.  If it's at all
possible to have two active FIPS provider, it could make subsequent FIPS 
validations simpler.  On the other hand, am I completely missing some
fundamental aspect of FIPS provider functionality in 3.0 and this need to add 
additional support into the FOM will not be as involved as it
used to be?

The second question is somewhat related.  Has there been a decision yet whether 
the FOM 3.0 will go through a 140-2 or a 140-3 validation?

Thanks,
Pete

Reply via email to