Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Lots of loose language in your post.

Show me a FIPS140-2 Wireguard implementation.

Unfortunately, if you sell crypto software to the defence sector in the US or Europe, FIPS is still a thing.

As someone in the infosec space, it still boggles my mind that anyone gives a flying feck about FIPS, especially after the Snowden/NIST revelations, and after even Microsoft has recommended to disable FIPS mode in Windows.

Thankfully I think it's on it's last legs - people are realising it's more a curse than a blessing. Single data point and all that, but I've had far fewer FIPS-related queries in recent years - and for the first time, some of those I have had are from defence sector companies asking how to ensure FIPS mode is not activated!

I'd encourage the WireGuard devs to not waste any time and money on FIPS validation.

I mean this seriously and have chosen these words carefully: FIPS can shove its entire self up its own ass.

There is maybe nothing in the industry that has done more damage to cryptographic security than government cryptography standards.

I could be wrong, but it’s superseded by FIPS140-3.

Anyway, compliance doesn’t necessarily imply security.

Unless you are purposely trying to pedantic, one should know that FIPS140-3 just came out. You can't even search the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) tool for FIPS140-3 standard level yet. FIPS140-2 for all practical purposes is the current standard to measure against.

And if you really are negating FIPS140-X and what it means to large organizations and government entities... you should do some reading to understand why it exists. It isn't standards hand-waving. It is fairly in-depth and aims to ensure your cryptographic primitives and low level operations are not totally fucked out of the box.

It doesn't solve most security issues by a long shot, but it does try to give you some minimum levels of assurance that it doesn't totally suck crypto operations-wise.

Anyways - I up-voted your reply regardless because I wanted to engage in some meaningful dialogue, and I believe we have. Cheers!

That post yesterday : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21147865 shows a side channel attack on smartcards. In the links we can see the FIPS140-compliant affected hardwares. Maybe it contributes to show that FIPS140-02 is not as much a reference than it used to be?

It is great that FIPS140-3 has finally become effective. The previous standard, was getting long in the tooth (FIPS140-2)...

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact