Navigating the landscape of federal information security requires a deep understanding of two pivotal frameworks: FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP.
- FIPS 140-2 methodically defines the security benchmarks for cryptographic modules, ensuring robust protection.
- FedRAMP spearheads the security of cloud services and hosted applications, streamlining evaluations for federal agencies.
This blog delves into the distinctive features, similarities, differences, and implications of these frameworks for government agencies—and any organization supporting government entities with strict data security requirements. We will start by defining FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP, exploring how both frameworks are designed to safeguard sensitive information. Following this, we will compare the two to clarify why both are crucial for protecting government assets from emerging attack vectors.
Comprehensive Guide to FIPS 140-2: Security Levels and Validation Process
The Federal Information Processing Standard 140-2 (FIPS 140-2) is a security standard established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States. It specifically addresses the requirements for cryptographic modules (programs and services), aiming to ensure the security and integrity of sensitive information handled by encryption-focused applications. FIPS 140-2 is widely recognized and adopted, not only within the U.S. government but also by various industries and organizations globally, as a best practice for data encryption.
The standard defines the criteria that cryptographic modules must meet to be regarded as secure for use in federal government systems. These modules include hardware security modules (HSMs), software-based cryptographic libraries, SaaS services, and other cryptographic devices.
Understanding the Four Security Levels of FIPS 140-2
FIPS 140-2 encompasses four security levels, ranging from Level 1 (basic security) to Level 4 (highest level of security):
- Level 1 - Security Level 1 provides the lowest level of security. Basic security requirements are specified for a cryptographic module and should include at least one approved algorithm or approved security function. No specific physical security mechanisms are required in a Security Level 1 cryptographic module beyond the basic requirement for production-grade components.
- Level 2 - Security Level 2 improves upon the physical security mechanisms of a Security Level 1 cryptographic module by requiring features that show evidence of tampering, including tamper-evident labels, seals, coatings, locks, etc. This will identify if any physical tampering has occurred that may have compromised physical access to the cryptographic keys and Critical Security Parameters (CSPs) within the module.
- Level 3 – Building on Levels 1 and 2, Security Level 3 attempts to prevent the intruder from gaining access to CSPs held within the cryptographic module. Physical security mechanisms required at Security Level 3 are intended to have a high probability of detecting and responding to attempts at physical access, use, or modification of the cryptographic module. These mechanisms should include tamper protection that secures, erases, or damages the CSPs if inappropriate access is detected via a tamper protection technology.
- Level 4 - Security Level 4 provides the highest level of security. At this security level, the physical security mechanisms provide a complete environment of protection around the cryptographic module, with the intent of detecting and responding to all unauthorized attempts at physical access. Any inappropriate access of the cryptographic module enclosure from any direction has a very high probability of being detected, resulting in the immediate deletion of all CSP contents to prevent future abuse.
The FIPS 140-2 Validation Process: Ensuring Security Compliance
One of the fundamental aspects of FIPS 140-2 is the validation process used to certify a solution as FIPS 140-2 compliant. Cryptographic modules undergo a rigorous evaluation and testing process conducted by accredited third-party laboratories authorized by the government. Only modules that successfully meet the specified security requirements and pass the evaluation process can receive FIPS 140-2 validation. This validation provides assurance to users that the cryptographic modules have been thoroughly examined and meet the stringent security standards outlined in FIPS 140-2 guidelines.
Core Security Aspects Covered by FIPS 140-2
At its core, FIPS 140-2 guidelines address various security aspects, including cryptographic algorithms, key management, physical security, and operational security. It mandates the use of approved cryptographic algorithms and ensures that key management practices are robust and secure. Physical security requirements focus on protecting cryptographic modules from tampering or unauthorized access, while operational security considerations emphasize secure handling and usage of cryptographic keys.
The Significance of FIPS 140-2 Compliance Across Sectors
Government agencies and organizations that handle sensitive information often require FIPS 140-2 compliance for the cryptographic modules they use. This standard serves as a benchmark for assessing the security posture of cryptographic systems. It also helps establish a baseline of trust in the security of these systems. FIPS 140-2 compliance is not only relevant for government agencies; it has also become an industry requirement in various business verticals where secure communication and data protection are essential (including finance, healthcare, and telecommunications).
Understanding FedRAMP Compliance: Impact and Certification Process
The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) is a U.S. government initiative aimed at standardizing the security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring of cloud products and services. Established in 2011, FedRAMP addresses the need for a unified and consistent approach to ensure the security of cloud solutions used by federal agencies. By providing a standardized framework for evaluating cloud service providers, FedRAMP enhances the security posture of government information systems while promoting efficiency and cost savings.
FedRAMP's primary goal is to streamline the cloud adoption process for federal agencies by eliminating the redundancy of security assessments. The program enables Cloud Service Providers (also CSPs) to undergo a comprehensive security assessment once, after which the authorization can be leveraged by multiple government agencies. This approach significantly reduces the time and resources required for each agency to assess the security of a cloud service independently.
The FedRAMP process involves several key steps, including initiation, security assessment, authorization, continuous monitoring, and potential decommissioning. During the security assessment phase, CSPs must undergo a rigorous evaluation conducted by a Third-Party Assessment Organization (3PAO). The assessment focuses on security controls, risk management, and compliance with federal security standards. Once a cloud service receives FedRAMP authorization, it is listed in the FedRAMP Marketplace, making it accessible to federal agencies seeking secure cloud solutions.
FedRAMP Certification: Understanding the Three-Tiered Impact Levels
In order to become FedRAMP certified, the program employs a three-tiered approach to categorize cloud service providers based on the impact level of the information they handle:
- Low - Low Impact is most appropriate for CSOs where the loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability would result in limited adverse effects on an agency’s operations, assets, or individuals.
- Moderate - Moderate Impact systems account for nearly 80% of CSP applications that receive FedRAMP authorization. It is most appropriate for CSOs where the loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability would result in serious adverse effects on an agency’s operations, assets, or individuals.
- High - High Impact data is usually in Law Enforcement and Emergency Services systems, Financial systems, Health systems, and any other system where loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals.
The Importance of Continuous Monitoring in FedRAMP Compliance
For a CSPs, continuous monitoring is a crucial aspect of FedRAMP, emphasizing ongoing assessment and reporting to ensure that cloud services maintain their security posture over time. Agencies and CSPs collaborate to address any emerging security risks or incidents are properly remediated or mitigated to ensure the highest level of security that that service can provide.
The Broader Impact of FedRAMP on Cloud Security
FedRAMP has become a cornerstone for cloud security within the U.S. federal government, providing a standardized and repeatable process for evaluating and authorizing cloud services. Its impact extends beyond the government, as many non-federal organizations also view FedRAMP compliance as a valuable benchmark for cloud security, contributing to the broader landscape of trustworthy cloud computing that has minimal risks for any secure workflow.
Comparing FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP: Key Similarities and Differences
FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP are both crucial frameworks within the U.S. government's efforts to enhance information security, but they focus on distinct aspects of the technology landscape and have unique business requirements per organization. Here's a comparison of FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP, highlighting their similarities and differences.
Similarities Between FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP
1. Government Standards - Both FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP are United States government-driven initiatives aimed at improving the security of information systems. While FIPS 140-2 focuses specifically on cryptographic modules, FedRAMP addresses the security of cloud services and hosted applications contained within.
2. Third-Party Assessments - Both frameworks incorporate third-party assessments from authorized government agencies to evaluate the security posture of the technologies they cover. In FIPS 140-2, third-party laboratories conduct assessments for cryptographic modules, while in FedRAMP, third-party assessment organizations (3PAOs) assess the security of cloud service providers.
3. Validation and Authorization - FIPS 140-2 provides a validation process for cryptographic modules, ensuring they meet specific security requirements. Similarly, FedRAMP provides an authorization process for cloud services, enabling them to be used by federal agencies after meeting security standards.
Key Differences Between FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP
1. Scope - FIPS 140-2 is primarily concerned with cryptographic modules, including hardware security modules (HSMs) and software-based cryptographic libraries. It outlines requirements for the secure implementation of cryptographic algorithms and key management. On the other hand, FedRAMP is specifically designed for cloud services, addressing a broader range of security considerations such as data protection, access controls, incident response, and ensuring the security of cloud hosted solutions.
2. Technology - FIPS 140-2 applies to cryptographic modules regardless of the technology environment, whereas FedRAMP is tailored specifically for cloud services. FedRAMP focuses on ensuring the security of data and systems that leverage cloud computing, reflecting the evolving landscape of technology adoption within government agencies.
3. Continuous Monitoring - FedRAMP places a significant emphasis on continuous monitoring, recognizing the dynamic nature of cybersecurity threats and the evolving state of cloud services. Continuous monitoring is integral to FedRAMP's approach, ensuring that cloud services maintain their security posture over time. FIPS 140-2, while emphasizing the robustness of cryptographic modules, may not have as explicit a continuous monitoring component outside of specified tamper protection, which is keenly very different.
4. Certification Levels - FedRAMP employs a tiered approach with impact levels, categorizing cloud services based on the sensitivity of the data they handle (low, moderate, and high impact). FIPS 140-2 has security levels, but the categorization is more focused on the protection of cryptographic modules from electronic and physical tampering and penetration.
5. The acronym CSPs means two different things when discussing FedRAMP and FIPS 140-2. It represents a source of confusion when documenting and discussing both security initiatives, and for all of the readers new to these initiatives, it is best to define them up front, avoid acronyms when possible, and ensure the intended audience knows which version of the acronym you are addressing. In fairness, this confusion alone is what sparked this blog.
Conclusion: The Necessity of Integrating FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP for Comprehensive Government Data Security
In summary, achieving robust government data security necessitates compliance with both FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP. While both FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP share a commitment to enhancing information security, they were developed for different aspects of information security and both implement and contain distinctly different requirements. FIPS 140-2 ensures the integrity of cryptographic modules, while FedRAMP guarantees the security of cloud services and solutions. Together, these frameworks complement each other to provide comprehensive protection.
Organizations must grasp the unique requirements and scopes of FIPS 140-2 and FedRAMP to effectively secure encrypted data and cloud-based services. By integrating both standards, government agencies can enhance their overall data security posture, ensuring reliable and secure operations in today's digital landscape.
Click here to learn more about compliance frameworks, or talk to one of our experts about the solutions that can help you achieve comprehensive government data security.
Further Reading
- FIPS 140-2 Level 1 Validation for BeyondTrust Secure Remote Access: This article discusses the importance of FIPS 140-2 validation for cryptographic products and how BeyondTrust meets these rigorous requirements. It also highlights the relevance of FIPS 140-2 validation for various industries beyond the federal sector, including healthcare and finance. This can help underscore the importance of FIPS 140-2 compliance across different verticals.
- Meet FedRAMP Compliance with BeyondTrust: This resource explains how BeyondTrust has achieved FedRAMP Moderate Authorization for its remote access products. It provides an overview of the FedRAMP compliance process and its benefits, including streamlining cloud adoption for federal agencies and ensuring ongoing security assessments. This can be useful for illustrating the impact and process of FedRAMP compliance.
- Are Your Remote Access Tools FIPS 140-2 Validated? Here’s Why it Matters: This blog emphasizes the necessity of FIPS 140-2 validation for products used in government networks and other critical sectors. It details the validation process and the distinction between FIPS compliance and validation, which is essential for understanding the depth of security required by these standards.
- BeyondTrust Secure Remote Access Solutions Awarded Level 1 FIPS 140-2 Validation: This press release highlights BeyondTrust’s achievement in obtaining FIPS 140-2 Level 1 validation for its remote access solutions. It provides insights into the importance of this validation and its application in ensuring the highest levels of security for sensitive data in government and other industries.
Morey J. Haber, Chief Security Advisor
Morey J. Haber is the Chief Security Advisor at BeyondTrust. As the Chief Security Advisor, Morey is the lead identity and technical evangelist at BeyondTrust. He has more than 25 years of IT industry experience and has authored four books: Privileged Attack Vectors, Asset Attack Vectors, Identity Attack Vectors, and Cloud Attack Vectors. Morey has previously served as BeyondTrust’s Chief Security Officer, Chief Technology, and Vice President of Product Management during his nearly 12-year tenure. In 2020, Morey was elected to the Identity Defined Security Alliance (IDSA) Executive Advisory Board, assisting the corporate community with identity security best practices. He originally joined BeyondTrust in 2012 as a part of the acquisition of eEye Digital Security, where he served as a Product Owner and Solutions Engineer, since 2004. Prior to eEye, he was Beta Development Manager for Computer Associates, Inc. He began his career as Reliability and Maintainability Engineer for a government contractor building flight and training simulators. Morey earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.