> On 24 Sep 2020, at 18:21, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@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 as I understand it the point of > FIPS is that all the crypto code is encapsulated in a certified module. > Having your own SHA-256 implementation 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
