Most security standards, including government standards, require cryptography. We are generally familiar with implementing a cryptographic algorithm that meets these requirements and calling it a day. However, to ensure security, NIST also publishes standards for validating encryption modules to ensure they serve their purpose under federal standards.
Here, we’re discussing the Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program and its relationship to closely related standards and programs, such as Federal Information Processing Standards and the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program.
What Is the Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program?
NIST controls and manages the Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program (CAVP), a project to validate cryptographic modules and algorithms for use in various government systems, other organizations, and individuals who require assurance of cryptographic implementations’ security and effectiveness.
Under the CAVP, cryptographic algorithms and modules undergo rigorous testing and evaluation to meet specific security standards and criteria NIST establishes. This process involves testing for compliance with NIST’s Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS), which define cryptographic algorithms and requirements for federal agencies.
The validation process typically includes tests to verify cryptographic implementations’ correctness, security, and performance. Once a cryptographic module or algorithm successfully passes the validation process, it is listed on the NIST website as a validated cryptographic module or algorithm, assuring users that it meets the necessary security requirements.
Overall, the CAVP is critical in ensuring the security and reliability of cryptography used in various applications, including government, finance, healthcare, and telecommunications.
What Are FIPS Requirements for Encryption?
The Federal Information Processing Standards specify various requirements for encryption algorithms and implementations to protect sensitive government information. Specifically, FIPS Publication 140-2 (Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules) outlines the standards for cryptographic modules, including encryption.
Some essential requirements for encryption under FIPS 140-2 include:
- Cryptographic Algorithm Validation: Encryption algorithms used in FIPS-compliant systems must be validated through the CAVP or other approved validation programs. These algorithms include symmetric encryption algorithms like AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) and Triple DES (Data Encryption Standard) and asymmetric algorithms like RSA and DSA.
- Key Management: FIPS-compliant encryption systems must have robust fundamental management mechanisms. This includes securely generating, storing, and handling cryptographic keys. Key management practices should adhere to best practices for key generation, distribution, storage, and destruction.
- Encryption Strength: FIPS requires encryption algorithms to be sufficiently robust against cryptographic attacks. For example, AES must support key sizes of 128, 192, and 256 bits, and Triple DES must use at least two independent keys.
- Random Number Generation: Cryptographic modules must use approved methods for generating random numbers, which is essential for generating cryptographic keys and initialization vectors used in encryption.
- Data Integrity: Encryption mechanisms should include measures to ensure data integrity, such as using cryptographic hash functions to create message digests or digital signatures.
- Secure Communication Protocols: When encryption is used to protect data during transmission over networks, FIPS requires using secure communication protocols, such as TLS (Transport Layer Security) or IPsec (Internet Protocol Security).
- Security Policy Enforcement: FIPS-compliant systems must enforce security policies defining how encryption protects sensitive data. This may include access control policies, data classification, and encryption requirements for data at rest and in transit.
These are just some key encryption requirements outlined in FIPS 140-2. Compliance with FIPS standards is mandatory for cryptographic modules used in U.S. federal government systems and is widely adopted in other industries and sectors where data security is critical.
What’s the Relationship Between CVAP and FIPS?
CAVP and FIPS are closely related programs administered by NIST. While they serve distinct purposes, they are interconnected and complementary in ensuring the security of cryptographic systems used in various applications:
Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
- CAVP validates cryptographic algorithms and modules against specific security standards and criteria established by NIST.
- CAVP validates cryptographic algorithms’ correctness, security, and performance through rigorous testing and evaluation.
- The validated algorithms and modules are listed on the NIST website, ensuring users meet security requirements.
Federal Information Processing Standards
- FIPS are standards and guidelines developed by NIST for various information processing systems used by U.S. federal government agencies and contractors.
- FIPS specifies security requirements for cryptographic modules, including encryption algorithms, key management, random number generation, and other security features.
- Compliance with FIPS standards is mandatory for cryptographic modules used in U.S. federal government systems, and it is recommended for use in other sensitive applications where data security is critical.
The relationship between the two includes a few requirements and expectations for encryption module security:
- CAVP validates cryptographic algorithms and modules to ensure they meet the security requirements specified in FIPS standards.
- CAVP’s validation process ensures that cryptographic algorithms implemented in cryptographic modules comply with the encryption, key management, and other security requirements outlined in FIPS publications, particularly FIPS 140-2 for cryptographic modules.
Therefore, CAVP serves as a mechanism for demonstrating compliance with FIPS standards by providing independent validation of cryptography and related modules used in cryptographic systems.
What Is the Relationship Between CAVP and NVLAP?
The relationship between CAVP and the NVLAP lies in their roles within the broader framework of ensuring the security and reliability of cryptographic systems:
Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
- As mentioned above, CAVP validates cryptographic algorithms and modules against specific security standards and criteria established by NIST.
- CAVP conducts testing and evaluation to ensure that cryptographic algorithms and modules meet security requirements, particularly those outlined in FIPS publications.
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
- NVLAP is a program within NIST that provides an accreditation process for laboratories performing testing and calibration services.
- NVLAP accredits laboratories based on international standards and guidelines, ensuring they operate competently and produce reliable results.
- Laboratories accredited by NVLAP can perform testing and validation activities, including those related to cryptographic algorithms and modules.
Relationship between CAVP and NVLAP
- NVLAP-accredited laboratories may be involved in the testing and validation processes conducted by CAVP.
- These laboratories may test and evaluate cryptographic algorithms and modules according to the requirements specified by CAVP.
- By utilizing NVLAP-accredited laboratories, CAVP ensures that testing activities are conducted by competent and reliable organizations that adhere to international standards for testing and calibration.
- The involvement of NVLAP-accredited laboratories adds credibility and assurance to the validation process conducted by CAVP, as it demonstrates that testing is carried out by qualified professionals using established procedures and methodologies.
Is Your Cryptography Compliant?
Whether you’re implementing the correct cryptography or managing a compliant cryptography lab or set of modules, Lazarus Alliance has you covered. We handle NIST compliance standards, NIAP Common Criteria assessments, and NVLAP lab accreditation.
If you’re looking to kickstart your assessment, contact Lazarus Alliance.
- FedRAMP
- StateRAMP
- NIST 800-53
- FARS NIST 800-171
- CMMC
- SOC 1 & SOC 2
- HIPAA, HITECH, & Meaningful Use
- PCI DSS RoC & SAQ
- IRS 1075 & 4812
- ISO 27001, ISO 27002, ISO 27005, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, ISO 22301, ISO 17020, ISO 17021, ISO 17025, ISO 17065, ISO 9001, & ISO 90003
- NIAP Common Criteria – Lazarus Alliance Laboratories
- And dozens more!
What Is Autonomous Malware?
We’re reaching the end of 2025, and looking ahead to 2026, most experts are discussing the latest threats that will shape the year ahead. This year, we’re seeing a new, but not unexpected, shift to autonomous threats driven by state-sponsored actors and AI. With that in mind, a new generation of threats, broadly known as...Continue reading→
What CISA’s Emergency Directive 26-01 Means for Everyone
In mid-October 2025, the CISA issued one of its most urgent orders yet: Emergency Directive 26-01. The directive calls on all Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies to immediately mitigate vulnerabilities in devices from F5 Networks following a state-sponsored breach of F5’s systems and access to portions of BIG-IP source code and vulnerability data. The event...Continue reading→
Cybersecurity and Vetting AI-Powered Tools
A recent exploit involving a new AI-focused browser shone a light on a critical problem–namely, that browser security is a constant issue, and AI is just making that threat more pronounced. Attackers discovered a way to use that browser’s memory features to implant hidden instructions inside an AI assistant. Once stored, those instructions triggered unwanted...Continue reading→
Shutdown Security And Cyber Vulnerability
When the federal government shuts down, the public sees closed monuments, unpaid workers, and halted programs. What they do not see is the silent surge of cyberattacks targeting agencies already operating on fumes. During the most recent shutdown, attacks against U.S. government systems spiked by nearly 85%. Cybersecurity failures during government disruptions rarely start with...Continue reading→
Identity and the Shift from Malware
The world of cyber threats is rapidly evolving, and while we can see these changes more generally, it’s always crucial to understand them concretely. As the 2025 CrowdStrike Global Threat Report shows us, the landscape of our industry is changing. We’re digging into this report to discuss a challenging trend: the move of hackers foregoing...Continue reading→
Maintaining Compliance Against Prompt Injection Attacks
The increasing adoption of AI by businesses introduces security risks that current cybersecurity frameworks are not prepared to address. A particularly complex emerging threat is prompt injection attacks. These attacks manipulate the integrity of large language models and other AI systems, potentially compromising security protocols and legal compliance. Organizations adopting AI must have a plan...Continue reading→
Are We Already Talking About CMMC 3.0?
The ink has barely dried on the CMMC final rule, and already the defense contracting community is buzzing with speculation about what comes next. Just when contractors thought they had a moment to catch their breath after years of regulatory limbo, whispers of CMMC 3.0 have begun circulating through the industry. But is this just...Continue reading→
Centralizing Identity-Based Risk
As the traditional network boundary dissolves and remote work becomes standard practice, identities are the major frontier for security. Whether we’re talking about human users, service accounts, or machine identities, these have emerged as both the primary access mechanism and the most targeted attack vector. It has become imperative for providers to centralize identity management...Continue reading→
Deviation and Significant Change Requests in FedRAMP: A Comprehensive Guide
FedRAMP provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services used by federal agencies. While the program’s rigorous baseline requirements ensure consistent security, the reality is that this consistency calls for a little flexibility. This is where deviation requests and significant change requests come into play. These two...Continue reading→
The Costs of Compliance and Data Breaches
Data is possibly one of the most valuable assets any organization holds. Customer information, employee records, and proprietary business intelligence present challenges because the data flowing through modern enterprises represents both significant opportunities and serious risks. Businesses face a challenging balance: investing in compliance measures to protect sensitive information while also preparing for the real...Continue reading→
Related Posts