Re: [Cryptography Team] Squeak Cryptography Team Code CommercialAcceptance

Yes... that certification is out of reach. It is generally believed that one must possess a clearance even to be told the details of algorithms algorithms used at that level. So... in general... these people have a general aversion to open source crypto.

The other thing to consider talking about is other types of certifications / validations. FIPS140-2 (and be careful not to call it FIPS 140, level 2, that's something completely different) certifies your crypto and only your crypto. There's no discussion about more general "security" features. Common Criteria continues to be simultaneously gain traction in the federal government and cause federal IT managers to pull their hair out. I don't believe there's a Common Criteria Protection Profile for virtual machines, but it would make a very interesting problem / project (speaking as someone who would love to receive funding to develop such a profile.)

On Jan 11, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:

I see that FIPS140-2 states that the certification is intended for sensitive, not classified information. Is it possible for us to be certified for classified information, or is that certification out of reach?

Ron

From: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Ron Teitelbaum Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:35 PM To: 'Cryptography Team Development List' Subject: RE: [Cryptography Team] Squeak Cryptography Team Code CommercialAcceptance

Matt,

Thanks for the information, I will review the process. I would think we could come up with the money you suggested to get certified.

So to update our goals:

5. Get external US Government certification of Security for

external package and image components.

Should be changed to:

5. Complete Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) through

the OpenSSL Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Certification Process.

        5.1) Identify Experts in Group (recruit new members?)

        5.2) Find repository and define structure for  

documentation.

        5.3) Document current frameworks

        5.4) Develop new designs, following design goals (tbd  

through open discussions) and document new framework.

        5.5) Expert Design Review and Implementation  

recursively until code complete

        5.6) Identify Team Leaders to walk our project through  

OpenSSL FIPS Cert Process

        5.7) Raise Money for Cert Process

        5.8) Complete Certification, Publicize results

        5.9) Offer Reward for anyone that breaks code

        5.10) Set up review committee that reviews  

implementations (for a fee) and helps others get certified using our code.

Does anyone have any comments on the change?

Ron Teitelbaum

Squeak Cryptography Team Leader

Ron@USMedRec.com

From: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hamrick Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:22 PM To: Ron@USMedRec.com; Cryptography Team Development List Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] Squeak Cryptography Team Code CommercialAcceptance

On Jan 10, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:

Does anyone have a suggestion for how to certify our code?

In general... when talking about Security, you want to have the design reviewed prior to having the code reviewed... but I guess we can be agile about it. Maybe the thing to do would be to document what we have in terms of architecture, find someone to do an independent review of the architecture, incorporate architecture changes recommended by the reviewer, then make code changes, then have the code reviewed.

The word "certify" has a lot of different meanings to different people. If you're looking for FIPS certification, that's a long process... and it costs money. The OpenSSL FIPS certification process has been going on for at least a year or two with the bill being footed by OSSI, HP, DoD and a couple other people whose names escape me at the moment.

The motivation there was that HP and DoD believed the certification was an investment... pay a little up front so they can benefit from the cost savings of using an open implementation of various crypto algorithms. The last time I was involved in a CMVP effort, the total bill to the independent lab was something on the order of about $12k US. With the recent devaluation of the US peso, I'm guessing it would probably run at least $18k US these days.

I think it would be helpful if what we have done to prove our work (testing documentation ...), the qualifications of the person writing the code, and any reference materials were all kept in a single place. It would be helpful as a reference for others, and some proof that may be needed before someone considers adoption. What do you all think?

I definitely agree with this!

---

Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography