3 ms·

> FIPS compliance is a great idea that makes the entire software supply chain safer Yes, gotta implement that Dual_EC_DRBG compatibility. FIPS compliance is n

> FIPS compliance is a great idea that makes the entire software supply chain safer Yes, gotta implement that Dual_EC_DRBG compatibility. FIPS compliance is not a great idea, the benefits are questionable and possibly nonexistent. It's also significantly worse advice than simple "implement decent modern crypto", you can do all kinds of really bizarre stuff and still be FIPS compliant.

pixl97 9mo ago
>FIPS compliance is not a great idea, the benefits are questionable and possibly nonexistent. I counter about the benefits of FIPS. If you don't do it, you don't get paid by the government for whatever contract you have. Many people find getting paid to be beneficial. Now, it's not the vast majority of applications, but I'm sure there are a significant number of developers on HN that are working on applications that need to meet FedRamp requirements and posts like this point out potential pitfalls on what needs enabled. Not much different when dealing with stuff like STIGs. A large number of them are highly questionable and may only apply to very specific applications, yet you see barely trained button pushers saying you need to follow them. If you're aware of them when writing your application it will save a bunch of implementation headaches when it ends up in the field.
- firesteelrain 9mo ago
  You can always waiver STIGs based on business or mission critical needs. You add it to your POA&M and/or SSP. Not the entire RHEL STIG mind you but parts of it
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    Oh yeah, I know, but God getting exceptions is a pain in the ass.
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  >I counter about the benefits of FIPS. If you don't do it, you don't get paid by the government for whatever contract you have. Many people find getting paid to be beneficial. I absolutely agree, but the OP does speak about making "the entire software supply chain safer" which is far from true.
tptacek 9mo ago
I don't like FIPS and think people should avoid FIPS-compliance projects but FIPS doesn't require you to implement Dual EC.
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  Yeah, the first line was intended as a joke. I didn't communicate it very well though. I think the problem with FIPS can be summed up very well as "it doesn't require you to implement good crypto", which makes it pointless and almost certainly harmful.
  - firesteelrain 9mo ago
    FIPS validates the crypto library, not your app design. It can still be a security upgrade for the crypto boundary, but you can build insecure stuff on top of it. The harm is when people treat “FIPS mode” as a magic security badge.
    - JasonADrury 9mo ago
      You can have an utterly broken crypto library that's FIPS compliant. FIPS would be great if it actually explicitly required you to do things correctly, it does not.
      - firesteelrain 9mo ago
        FIPS 140 doesn’t prove ‘no bugs’, but it’s not meaningless either. It enforces a baseline around approved algorithms, RNG, key handling, self-tests, and module integrity. You can still misuse crypto or have non-crypto bugs, but ‘utterly broken and still FIPS’ is mostly rhetoric.
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
        akerl_ 9mo ago

pixl97 9mo ago

>FIPS compliance is not a great idea, the benefits are questionable and possibly nonexistent. I counter about the benefits of FIPS. If you don't do it, you don't get paid by the government for whatever contract you have. Many people find getting paid to be beneficial. Now, it's not the vast majority of applications, but I'm sure there are a significant number of developers on HN that are working on applications that need to meet FedRamp requirements and posts like this point out potential pitfalls on what needs enabled. Not much different when dealing with stuff like STIGs. A large number of them are highly questionable and may only apply to very specific applications, yet you see barely trained button pushers saying you need to follow them. If you're aware of them when writing your application it will save a bunch of implementation headaches when it ends up in the field.

firesteelrain 9mo ago
You can always waiver STIGs based on business or mission critical needs. You add it to your POA&M and/or SSP. Not the entire RHEL STIG mind you but parts of it
- pixl97 9mo ago
  Oh yeah, I know, but God getting exceptions is a pain in the ass.
JasonADrury 9mo ago
>I counter about the benefits of FIPS. If you don't do it, you don't get paid by the government for whatever contract you have. Many people find getting paid to be beneficial. I absolutely agree, but the OP does speak about making "the entire software supply chain safer" which is far from true.

tptacek 9mo ago

I don't like FIPS and think people should avoid FIPS-compliance projects but FIPS doesn't require you to implement Dual EC.

JasonADrury 9mo ago
Yeah, the first line was intended as a joke. I didn't communicate it very well though. I think the problem with FIPS can be summed up very well as "it doesn't require you to implement good crypto", which makes it pointless and almost certainly harmful.
- firesteelrain 9mo ago
  FIPS validates the crypto library, not your app design. It can still be a security upgrade for the crypto boundary, but you can build insecure stuff on top of it. The harm is when people treat “FIPS mode” as a magic security badge.
  - JasonADrury 9mo ago
    You can have an utterly broken crypto library that's FIPS compliant. FIPS would be great if it actually explicitly required you to do things correctly, it does not.
    - firesteelrain 9mo ago
      FIPS 140 doesn’t prove ‘no bugs’, but it’s not meaningless either. It enforces a baseline around approved algorithms, RNG, key handling, self-tests, and module integrity. You can still misuse crypto or have non-crypto bugs, but ‘utterly broken and still FIPS’ is mostly rhetoric.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - akerl_ 9mo ago