> On 24 Sep 2020, at 18:21, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2020 17:21, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> If we really want to support it (which would require more evidence of it being
>> a problem IMO), using the non-OpenSSL sha256 code would be one option I guess?
>
> That would technically work, but wouldn't it make the product as whole not FIPS compliant? I'm not a FIPS lawyer, but
asI understand it the point of FIPS is that all the crypto code is encapsulated in a certified module. Having your own
SHA-256implementation would defeat that.
Doh, of course, I blame a lack of caffeine this afternoon. Having a private
local sha256 implementation using the EVP_* API inside scram-common would
maintain FIPS compliance and ABI compatibility, but would also be rather ugly.
cheers ./daniel
