Blog

We’ve had a change in the stakeholder aspect of this new FIPS 140 validation effort. The original sponsor, SafeLogic, with whom we jump-started this effort a year ago and who has worked with us since then, is taking a well-deserved bow due to a change in circumstances. Supporting this effort has been quite a strain for a relatively small company, but SafeLogic has left us in a fairly good position. Without SafeLogic we wouldn’t have made it this far, and while I don’t anticipate any future SafeLogic involvement with this effort from this point on, I remain enormously grateful to SafeLogic and CEO Ray Potter for taking on such a bold and ambitious venture.

It’s been almost a year since plans for a new FIPS 140 validation were first announced. Several factors have led to this long delay. For one, we chose to focus our limited manpower resources on higher priority objectives such as the TLS 1.3 implementation. SafeLogic has also experienced difficulties in obtaining the funding for their intended sponsorship; potential sponsors can contact them directly.

The following is a press release that we just released, with the cooperation and financial support of the Core Infrastructure Initiative and the Linux Foundation.

In the next few days we’ll start sending out email to all contributors asking them to approve the change. In the meantime, you can visit the licensing website and search for your name and request the email. If you have changed email addresses, or want to raise other issues about the license change, please email license@openssl.org. You can also post general issues to openssl-users@openssl.org.

We are grateful to all the contributors who have contributed to OpenSSL and look forward to their help and support in this effort.

The official press release can be found at the CII website. The rest of this post is a copy:

Last October, the OpenSSL Project team had a face to face meeting. We talked about many topics but one of them was that, in recent years, we have seen much more involvement from the community and that we would like to encourage that further. For example, there are a number of people in the community who we know and trust. We would like those people to get involved more and make it easier for them to contribute. We decided to introduce the concept of a “committer” (borrowed from the Apache concept): someone who has the ability to commit code to our source code repository but without necessarily having to become a full team member. This might be seen as a stepping-stone for someone who aspires to full team membership, or simply as an easier way of contributing for those that don’t. Those people could help with our review process (i.e., their reviews would count towards approval) - which might help us keep on top of the github issues and pull request queues.

The audit took place during 2015 in two phases while the OpenSSL project was working on the development of the (now released) 1.1.0 version. We chose to audit the “master” branch of the code as it stood at the time. OpenSSL 1.1.0 has made some extensive internal changes, most notably in libssl with the new state machine code, as well as the new packet parsing code. We wanted the audit team to review that code to give us confidence that what we were delivering was sound.

This is another in the series of posts about decisions we made at our face-to-face meeting a couple of weeks ago.

We updated the project roadmap.

I think the most important news here, is that our next release will include TLS 1.3. Our current plan is that this will be 1.1.1, which means that it is API-compatible with the current 1.1.0 release. This is really only possible because of the work we did on making most of the structure internals opaque. Also, since we are doing all of our work in public on our GitHub repository, we hope that the entire community will be able to “follow along at home” and help us improve the code. There will be more, much more, to say about this later.

The last post on this topic sounded a skeptical note on the prospects for a new FIPS 140 validated module for OpenSSL 1.1 and beyond. That post noted a rather improbable set of prerequisites for a new validation attempt; ones I thought only a governmental sponsor could meet (as was the case for the five previous open source based validations).

Multiple commercial vendors have offered to fund (very generously in some cases) a new validation effort under terms that would guarantee them a proprietary validation, while not guaranteeing an open source based validation. At one point we actually came close to closing a deal that would have funded an open source based validation attempt in exchange for a limited period of exclusivity; a reasonable trade-off in my opinion. But, I eventually concluded that was too risky given an uncertain reception by the FIPS validation bureaucracy, and we decided to wait for a “white knight” sponsor that might never materialize.

We’ve just added a new severity level called “critical severity” to our security policy. When we first introduced the policy, over a year ago, we just had three levels, “Low”, “Moderate”, and “High”. So why did we add “Critical” and why are we not using someone else’s standard definitions?