Because of regulatory reasons, we might need to use FIPS in our brand new Splunk deployment.
I've been going through the documentation but it's very vague in terms of performance implications and what sort of impact is this going to have overall.
All I could find was:
may potentially make your system slower
Any thoughts/experiences you can share would be much appreciated.
Hi all, does anyone have any experience with FIPS?
No experience with FIPS but I understand the concept.
It's the same performance degradation you'd expect with any form of SSL. If i used a 16mb certificate for example (2048 bits is "standard" issue these days), then each new SSL connection would require 16mb of bandwidth/download and the system would be extremely slow. The same concept goes for using FIPS versus 1024-bit SSL. FIPS will be larger and thus slower.
The only way to determine the impact of enabling FIPS vs SSL 2048 bits... is to do load testing before and after because many factors are at play here, and there is no "cut & dry" answer. I cant say SSL2048 is 2% slower than FIPS without looking like an idiot for example. It would only be 2% slower on my systems in this example.
Thanks. It makes perfect sense.
I would still like to hear some comments from people that already implemented FIPS in their environment.
If not I guess it's something we are going to have to measure in our lab, as you said above.
Note: If using a FIPS 140-2 cryptomodule disregard the following rules and defer to the recommended configuration for the particular cryptomodule. Nevertheless we recommend to use this rules to audit your configuration.
Rule - Use Strong Keys & Protect Them
The private key used to generate the cipher key must be sufficiently strong for the anticipated lifetime of the private key and corresponding certificate. The current best practice is to select a key size of at least 2048 bits. Additional information on key lifetimes and comparable key strengths can be found in , NIST SP 800-57. In addition, the private key must be stored in a location that is protected from unauthorized access.
So unless you're using crypto modules... i think you can assume the same performance degradation as standard SSL.
Here's an interesting anecdote. When Google switched Gmail to use HTTPS, no additional resources were required; no network hardware, no new hosts. It only increased CPU load by about 1%.
you're very welcome. Happy to help & learn!
Thanks for the up vote and marking the answer as accepted!