UPSTREAM PR #30856: fips: mark X448MLKEM1024 as non-approved#668
Open
loci-dev wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
UPSTREAM PR #30856: fips: mark X448MLKEM1024 as non-approved#668loci-dev wants to merge 1 commit into
loci-dev wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The [FIPS 140-3 I.G.](https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/fips%20140-3/FIPS%20140-3%20IG.pdf) Section D.S Key Encapsulation Mechanisms have been substantially update on April 9, 2026. It now explicitely lists that hybrid mechanisms must be fixed combinations with both portions being in boundary, and the intent should be to use them with an approved combiner such as HKDF as part of a protocol. With the combinations from the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem explicitely mentioned that they can reach appoved or allowed claims. Note that consensus for TLS group for X448MLKEM1024 failed to reach on the [pqc forum](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/?gbt=1&index=YIHJrbWVPdXIr8q57nsEUUmuaIo) and is not part of the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem. And there are no other protocols defined that use this hybrid with an approved combiner. Also on https://test.openquantumsafe.org/ there is x448_mlkem768 but no X448MLKEM1024. To avoid any confusion, it is best to mark this hybrid as non-approved going forward. It is likely also worthfile to deprecate X448MLKEM1024 altogether. cc: @vdukhovni - was there ever a TLS group defined for X448MLKEM1024? Fixes: openssl/openssl#26220
loci-dev
force-pushed
the
main
branch
3 times, most recently
from
b5b7577 to
a9c9e17
Compare
loci-dev
force-pushed
the
main
branch
4 times, most recently
from
421b135 to
770bf14
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Note
Source pull request: openssl/openssl#30856
The FIPS 140-3 I.G. Section D.S Key Encapsulation Mechanisms have been substantially updated on April 9, 2026.
It now explicitely lists that hybrid mechanisms must be fixed
combinations with both portions being in boundary, and the intent
should be to use them with an approved combiner such as HKDF as part
of a protocol. With the combinations from the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem
explicitely mentioned that they can reach appoved or allowed claims.
Note that consensus for TLS group for X448MLKEM1024 failed to reach on
the pqc forum and is not part of the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem. And there
are no other protocols defined that use this hybrid with an approved
combiner. The IETF draft is referenced by the FIPS 140-3 IG.
Also on https://test.openquantumsafe.org/ there is x448_mlkem768 but
no X448MLKEM1024.
To avoid any confusion, it is best to mark this hybrid as non-approved
going forward. It is likely also worthfile to deprecate X448MLKEM1024
altogether, and eventually remove.
cc: @vdukhovni - was there ever a TLS group defined for X448MLKEM1024?
Fixes: openssl/openssl#26220