On June 22, 2026, the White House issued Executive Order 14412, “Securing the Nation Against Advanced Cryptographic Attacks,” signaling a major acceleration in the federal government’s transition to post-quantum cryptography (PQC). The Executive Order recognizes a growing national security concern: adversaries can collect encrypted data today and potentially decrypt it in the future once large-scale quantum computers become operational, a threat commonly referred to as “harvest now, decrypt later.”

While the Order is directed primarily at federal agencies, the implications extend far beyond government networks. For technology vendors that sell into the federal market, the message is clear: quantum readiness is becoming a compliance and procurement issue, not just a technical roadmap discussion.

A Faster Federal Timeline for Post-Quantum Security

Why FIPS 140-3 Matters More Than Ever

The Growing Connection to Common Criteria and NIAP

What About DoD STIGs?

Compliance Is Becoming a Competitive Advantage

To help organizations navigate PQC requirements and FiPS 140-3, Corsec is setting calls with product vendors to outline security roadmaps.

Connect With Us:

Stay up to date with Corsec as we bring you all the most recent updates to the standards, certifications, and requirements – Subscribe

As the European Union continues to reshape its cybersecurity regulatory landscape, product vendors face a growing need for clarity, alignment, and practical guidance. Corsec is pleased to announce our attendance at the 7th International Conference on the EU Cyber Security and Resilience Acts, taking place March 24–26 in Brussels.

Key Tracks & Sessions Corsec Will Be Following

Throughout the conference, Corsec will be actively engaging across several tracks that are particularly relevant to manufacturers:

• The EU Cybersecurity Agenda 2025–2029: What It Means for Industry
  This track provides a strategic view of the Commission’s priorities for the next legislative cycle, including CRA implementation, NIS 2 enforcement, and the future direction of certification schemes. For vendors, these discussions shape long‑term product and compliance planning.
• From Regulation to Reality: How the EC Is Supporting CRA Implementation Across Europe
  Sessions focused on how the European Commission is supporting harmonized CRA adoption offer insight into what “compliance” will look like in practice—and where flexibility or risk remains for manufacturers preparing today.
• Certification in Practice: From EUCC to CRA Conformity
  These discussions explore how EUCC, EUCS, and other schemes relate to CRA obligations. Understanding this mapping is essential for vendors deciding where certification adds value versus where it introduces unnecessary cost or duplication.
• Designing for Lifecycle Security and Post‑Market Responsibility
  CRA Articles addressing vulnerability reporting, patch delivery, and supply‑chain assurance are a major shift for many organizations. This track highlights what continuous compliance means beyond initial market entry.
• Panel Discussion: AI Act Cybersecurity—Real-World Risks, Requirements, and What Comes Next
  “The EU’s AI Act introduces sweeping new cybersecurity expectations—along with plenty of uncertainty. In this panel discussion, experts will break down how the rules reshape AI deployment, what “compliance” actually requires in practice, and where the biggest technical and organizational challenges lie. Panelists will provide a clear view of the security measures regulators expect, how to implement them without blowing up existing workflows, and what these obligations mean for your company’s risk landscape.”
• The Cost of Compliance: New Realities for Testing, Assessment, and Post-Market Obligations
  As assessment, testing, and post‑market obligations expand, vendors must budget realistically for long‑term compliance. This track addresses the emerging cost structures and tradeoffs organizations will face.
• What Market Surveillance Authorities Expect from Manufacturers under the CRA
  “What manufacturers need to provide under the CRA, information and supporting evidence to enable verification of compliance and assurance of requirements.”
• Too Much Already, Supply Chain Security? A Sensible Approach to Rating True Potential Vulnerabilities Is Needed
  “Threat modeling and product-context analysis to cut through the ~140 daily EUVD CVE filings and distinguish real, exploitable vulnerabilities from inflated worst-case assessments.”
• Vulnerability Management in Consumer IoT: Why No IoT Manufacturer Is Ready for CRA Vulnerability Management (And How to Fix It)
  With increasing scrutiny from Market Surveillance Authorities, manufacturers must be prepared to demonstrate not only secure design, but effective vulnerability monitoring, reporting, and remediation over time.
• Panel Discussion: Navigating Fragmented Global Cyber Regulations
  With overlapping global frameworks—from CRA and EUCC to international standards—this panel addresses whether meaningful harmonization is achievable and what manufacturers can do in the meantime.

For federal sales teams, FIPS 140-3 is not simply a technical checkbox. It is often the difference between being eligible to compete and being disqualified before discussions even begin. Products that lack a credible FIPS validation path routinely stall in procurement, trigger ATO delays, or are excluded entirely from RFPs. In contrast, vendors that proactively align with FIPS 140-3 position themselves as lower-risk, procurement-ready partners.

Understanding how FIPS 140-3 works, why agencies mandate it, and what it takes to achieve validation is now a core competency for both federal sales professionals and the engineering leaders who support them.

For more information on engineering your product to meet Federal and regulated industry security requirements, schedule time to speak to a Corsec engineer.

The Rise of CPS in Modern Manufacturing

Smart factories are increasingly powered by cyber-physical systems (CPS)—connected robots, industrial sensors, autonomous vehicles, and AI-enabled control software. These technologies combine computing, analytics, and real-world physical actions to create fast, efficient, and adaptable production environments. As this connectivity expands, so does the potential impact of a cybersecurity event. A compromised device is no longer just an IT issue; it can stop production, alter physical processes, or create safety concerns. This escalating risk is driving manufacturers to adopt formal security certifications as a way to guarantee resilience and trust in their CPS ecosystems.

What Makes CPS Harder to Secure

Cyber-physical systems (CPS) operate very differently from traditional IT environments, which makes securing them a unique and challenging task. Unlike standard IT systems that primarily process data, CPS directly control and interact with physical machinery and industrial processes. This introduces several security complexities:

1. Direct Interaction with Physical Equipment
   CPS, such as robotic assembly lines or industrial control systems (ICS), directly manipulate machinery. A cyberattack or system misconfiguration can cause physical damage or safety hazards. For example, in 2010, the Stuxnet worm targeted Iranian centrifuges, causing them to spin out of control and physically destroy equipment—all while appearing normal to operators. This illustrates how tightly integrated cyber and physical components increase the stakes of security breaches.

2. Real-Time Operational Requirements
   CPS often require precise, real-time responses. Even a fraction-of-a-second delay can disrupt operations or reduce product quality. In automotive manufacturing, for instance, robotic arms on an assembly line must synchronize perfectly. If a security patch or intrusion detection system introduces latency, production may stall or components may be improperly assembled.

3. Downtime Risks and Continuous Availability
   Many CPS environments cannot tolerate interruptions. In power plants, oil refineries, or water treatment facilities, shutting down systems for maintenance or security updates can be costly or dangerous. The 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack in the U.S. forced a shutdown of critical fuel pipelines, causing widespread fuel shortages. This highlights how CPS downtime is not just inconvenient—it has real-world economic and safety impacts.

4. Legacy and Modern Technology Integration
   CPS environments often combine decades-old industrial controllers with modern, cloud-connected software, IoT sensors, and AI tools. This mix of legacy and cutting-edge systems creates a complex network with inconsistent security standards. For example, a manufacturing facility may have older programmable logic controllers (PLCs) that lack encryption or modern authentication, yet these devices are now networked with cloud-based analytics platforms. Protecting such hybrid systems requires solutions that can bridge old and new technologies without disrupting operations.

5. Operational Complexity and Multi-Layered Risks
   CPS security spans digital, physical, and operational dimensions simultaneously. A breach could not only compromise data but also cause safety incidents, environmental hazards, or regulatory non-compliance. For instance, in a chemical plant, a malicious actor could manipulate temperature or pressure controls, causing explosions or toxic leaks. This multi-dimensional risk profile makes a structured, comprehensive certification approach essential.

Because CPS integrate physical machinery, require uninterrupted real-time performance, and often involve hybrid legacy-modern networks, securing them goes far beyond standard IT cybersecurity. Manufacturers need structured frameworks and certifications that account for digital safeguards, operational continuity, and physical safety to ensure resilient and secure CPS deployment.

Key Certifications for CPS Security

Several certification frameworks play a critical role in helping manufacturers build secure and reliable CPS. FIPS 140-3 establishes that cryptographic functions—including encryption, key management, and tamper protection—operate correctly and securely across devices. Common Criteria provides assurance that essential security functions such as system integrity, secure boot, and access control are properly implemented and resistant to attack. As manufacturers increasingly adopt AI-driven tools for inspection, optimization, and predictive maintenance, emerging standards for AI assurance are also becoming important—they help ensure that machine-learning models remain reliable, tamper-resistant, and securely updated over time.

The growing reliance on CPS has significantly expanded the manufacturing attack surface. If an attacker manipulates operational data, disrupts a digital twin, or interferes with autonomous equipment, the resulting impact can spread quickly across an entire production line. Certification helps reduce these risks by requiring thorough, independent evaluations of security controls. Certified systems must meet strict industry standards, demonstrate consistent behavior under stress, and provide evidence that both digital integrity and physical safety have been considered. This creates a higher level of trust for customers, suppliers, and internal stakeholders.

How a Certification Partner Helps

Achieving certification for CPS can be challenging because of the number of interconnected components involved. A specialized certification partner helps manufacturers navigate this complexity by identifying which certifications apply to specific systems, uncovering architectural gaps early in the process, and guiding teams through secure development and documentation requirements. Partners also assist with preparing evidence packages, coordinating with testing labs, and managing the full certification lifecycle. This support reduces delays, improves compliance readiness, and helps ensure that CPS deployments meet rigorous security expectations.

Securing Tomorrow’s Cities: Why Smart Infrastructure Needs Certified Protection

As cities evolve into highly connected smart ecosystems, they increasingly depend on digital infrastructure to manage transportation, energy distribution, utilities, emergency response, and environmental monitoring. These interconnected systems generate and exchange massive volumes of data and keep daily life running smoothly, making them indispensable.

But as digital infrastructure advances and becomes more complex, it inherently becomes more vulnerable. A single compromised device or unsecured communication channel can disrupt essential services and compromise public safety. In modern urban environments, cybersecurity is no longer a supporting function; it is the backbone of reliable and safe city operations.

The New Digital Backbone of Urban Life

Smart cities rely heavily on distributed technologies that gather, transmit, and act on huge amounts of data. Streetlights adjust based on activity, traffic systems reroute drivers with real-time updates, and public utilities monitor system health minute by minute. While these advancements make cities cleaner, safer, and more efficient, they also introduce countless entry points for cyberattacks.

A vulnerability in a traffic signal controller can cause gridlock across an entire district. A compromised environmental sensor can feed false data to emergency responders. Even a small breach in a power system could flood into outages that affect businesses, hospitals, and residents. As urban infrastructure becomes more automated, the security stakes rise dramatically — and so does the need for strong, irrefutable assurance.

Where Certification Meets Critical Infrastructure

Securing smart-city technologies requires more than basic cybersecurity hygiene. It demands tested and evaluated system architectures that can withstand real-world adversarial conditions. This is where internationally recognized standards provide essential security assurance.

• FIPS 140-3, mandated by U.S. federal agencies and widely adopted across critical infrastructure sectors, validates cryptographic modules used for securing communications, authentication, and key management. In a smart-city environment, FIPS-validated cryptography ensures that distributed IoT devices, gateways, and control systems can protect sensitive operational data.

• Common Criteria (CC) evaluates the broader security properties of devices and platforms, confirming that their design, implementation, and threat mitigations hold up under rigorous testing. CC is especially relevant for complex IoT systems, control platforms, and multi-component infrastructure solutions.

For developers and product managers, certification provides a measurable, globally recognized standard of security assurance. For system integrators and municipalities, it ensures that the technologies underpinning critical infrastructure can be trusted against tampering, manipulation, and cyber intrusion.

The Expanding Attack Surface of Smart Cities

Smart-city deployments introduce broad and often decentralized attack surfaces. Public Wi-Fi access points, EV charging stations, distributed IoT devices, surveillance systems, and next-generation utilities all connect to municipal networks—frequently operating in environments where physical access is difficult to control.

A single unvalidated or insecure device can provide attackers with a foothold into operational systems. Threat actors can intercept data, alter sensor readings, or disrupt essential services remotely. Without strong assurance mechanisms, these vulnerabilities can escalate into citywide outages or public safety risks.

Certification frameworks mitigate these challenges by enforcing proven security controls, reducing the likelihood of configuration errors, and ensuring that every component in the system—from edge devices to cloud orchestration—has been tested for resilience. In a world where cities depend on continuous connectivity, certified technologies are essential to building resilience, maintaining public trust, and preventing large-scale disruptions.

Why the Right Architecture Matters

FIPS 140 validation applies to the cryptographic sources within a product—not always the entire system. But many teams fail to isolate the cryptographic boundary in a way that is testable, flexible, and maintainable. This results in inefficient code rewrites or re-architecting late in the process.

Key architectural considerations include:

• Centralizing cryptographic functions
• Ensuring testability of algorithms and key modules
• Avoiding hardcoded or outdated algorithm implementations
• Planning for algorithm evolution, such as post-quantum cryptography

This is where Corsec’s early-stage FIPS Assessments help identify gaps—and where partners like 10Pearls provide the development expertise to implement recommended changes quickly and effectively.

Embedding Validations into the Roadmap

Too often, teams treat validation as a final hurdle rather than an integral part of product strategy. But building with validation in mind reduces delays and creates long-term value.

Corsec provides clear guidance on requirements strategy, cryptographic boundary definition, and documentation, while 10Pearls implements system-level changes to align architecture with validation goals. Together, we enable clients to move forward confidently without derailing innovation.

“You don’t have to stop building features—you just need a smarter, more modular strategy that supports both compliance and agility.” – Peter Hesse

Managing Performance Without Compromising Security

Performance concerns are one of the top reasons companies hesitate to pursue FIPS 140 validation. Startup tests, memory constraints, and algorithm overhead can introduce friction—especially in lightweight or resource-constrained environments.

Effective strategies include:

• Using FIPS mode toggles to balance runtime needs
• Validating subcomponents, not entire systems
• Benchmarking early and often across FIPS-compatible environments
• Leveraging validated cryptographic libraries

Corsec helps clients identify the best technical pathways to validation, while 10Pearls ensures those pathways are built with efficiency and performance in mind.

CI/CD Pipelines Built for Validation

FIPS 140 doesn’t have to slow down your release cycles—if your CI/CD workflows are structured to support it. Separating feature delivery from validation-focused release tracks helps prevent unnecessary rework and keeps product updates moving.

Locking validated modules to specific versions and automating dependency checks ensures changes to the cryptographic boundary are identified early. With the right structure, teams can maintain validation while continuing to deliver at speed.

Validation vs. Compliance—and Why the Distinction Matters

As Matthew Appler explained, the term “FIPS compliant” is often misunderstood. True FIPS 140 validation involves strict documentation, third-party lab testing, and a formal government review process. Corsec guides clients through that process and help to decode vague customer requirements and select the most efficient and effective path to validation.

10Pearls complements this by supporting the necessary engineering adjustments—so compliance aspirations turn into validation outcomes.

Why Corsec and 10Pearls Work Together

Navigating FIPS 140 validation is complex. It requires more than technical documentation—it demands architectural foresight, performance planning, and disciplined execution. That’s why Corsec partners with 10Pearls: to ensure that every gap identified in a FIPS Assessment can be resolved by a trusted and capable development team.

Corsec brings:

• Over 500 certifications completed
• Proven validation strategies for FIPS 140-2/FIPS 140-3, Common Criteria, CSfC, STIGs, DoDIN APL, and more
• Deep relationships with accredited labs and federal authorities
• End-to-end program oversight, from gap analysis to final validation

10Pearls brings:

• Engineering expertise to redesign and refactor systems for validation-readiness
• DevSecOps best practices for building, testing, and maintaining validated software
• Agile, scalable teams to support FIPS-driven development without sacrificing speed

Together, we simplify the path to certification—so your product is ready for high-assurance markets.

Ready to Get Started? 

Connect with us to streamline your validation journey. → Contact Us

A Connected World, A Growing Risk 

From smart thermostats and wearable fitness trackers to industrial control systems and autonomous vehicles, the Internet of Things (IoT) has become an essential part of modern life. These connected devices provide convenience, efficiency, and new capabilities across nearly every industry. But with innovation comes risk. Each new device that connects to a network expands the potential attack surface for cybercriminals. Weak encryption, outdated firmware, or poor authentication can expose sensitive data, disrupt critical operations, or even threaten national security. 

The expansion of IoT has outpaced the security measures needed to protect it. For manufacturers, securing devices is no longer optional—it is a requirement for market entry. 

The Challenge of IoT Security 

IoT products are often developed with speed-to-market in mind, and security features can be left behind in the rush to innovate. The consequences of these oversights are significant. Vulnerabilities in consumer devices can lead to privacy violations, while flaws in industrial or medical IoT systems can cause operational failures or put lives at risk. 

Manufacturers face an increasingly complex regulatory landscape as well. Governments, enterprises, and consumers alike now expect clear proof that IoT devices are secure. Meeting these expectations requires not only strong engineering practices but also formal certification to demonstrate compliance with established security standards. 

Certification as a Path to Trust 

Certifications have become the cornerstone of IoT trust. Security frameworks such as Common Criteria, FIPS 140-3, CSfC, STIGs, and the UCR provide assurance that devices meet rigorous industry requirements. For manufacturers, achieving certifications unlock access to critical markets, including federal, defense, and enterprise sectors where uncertified devices cannot compete. 

Certifications also offer long-term advantages. By validating a device against internationally recognized standards, companies demonstrate their commitment to security, differentiate themselves from competitors, and reduce barriers to adoption. In an environment where buyers are increasingly security-conscious, certifications are not just about compliance— they are about gaining a competitive edge. 

Building Security from the Start 

The most successful IoT companies integrate security into their products from the very beginning. Certifications should not be treated as a checkbox at the end of development, but as a guiding framework for product design. By aligning early with certification requirements, manufacturers can avoid costly redesigns, accelerate approval timelines, and ensure that security is woven into the DNA of their devices. 

Ready to Get Started? 

The IoT revolution is here—but only secure and certified devices will earn lasting trust. Don’t let certification challenges slow you down. 

Let Corsec help you navigate the complexities of IoT certification and bring secure products to market faster. Learn more about our certification services → https://www.corsec.com/services 

As the healthcare industry becomes more connected, securing medical devices is no longer optional—it’s essential. Systems and devices that handle sensitive patient data are now being required to meet strict security standards. Evaluating protection of sensitive data within products will no longer be a differentiator, it will be a barrier to entry.

A New Way of Supporting Patient Health

Innovation in connectivity has not stopped at consumer technology; it has become deeply embedded in the medical field through advanced equipment and devices. Modern hospitals and clinics now rely on interconnected medical technologies such as infusion pumps, ventilators, imaging systems, and wearable monitors, all designed to share data seamlessly across networks. These devices enable healthcare providers to track patient conditions in real time, improve diagnostic accuracy, and deliver faster, more personalized treatment. The benefits are undeniable: increased efficiency, improved outcomes, and more accessible care. Yet, this growing reliance on networked medical devices also introduces significant risks. A single vulnerability in a connected device can open the door to cyberattacks, leading to data breaches, exposure of patient records, or even the manipulation of life-sustaining equipment. Protecting these devices is therefore not only a matter of securing information but of safeguarding patient safety and trust. As medical technology continues to advance, the demand for robust cybersecurity measures tailored specifically to medical equipment has never been more urgent.

The Challenge Ahead

Medical device companies operate in one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world—and the path becomes even more difficult when targeting the U.S. federal government as a customer. While the opportunity can be lucrative, gaining access to this market comes with a unique set of challenges that can quickly become overwhelming without a clear strategy. To succeed, companies must prove not only that their products are safe and effective, but also that they meet stringent regulatory and cybersecurity requirements. They must navigate a landscape shaped by evolving federal mandates, rigorous compliance expectations, and complex procurement processes that can extend sales cycles for months or even years.  

For medical device manufacturers looking to expand into the U.S. federal market, these are just a few of the major hurdles: 

1. Constantly Changing Global and Federal Regulations
   The regulatory environment is in constant flux. Agencies such as the FDA, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs regularly update their standards to reflect new technologies, threats, and political priorities. Staying compliant means staying informed—and often requires reworking product features, documentation, or security architectures just to remain eligible for federal contracts.
2. Extensive Documentation and Testing Requirements
   Entering the federal market isn’t just about having a functional product. Companies must invest in rigorous testing protocols and produce detailed documentation that proves product safety, performance, and interoperability. This includes everything from clinical validation studies to cybersecurity posture assessments. One overlooked requirement can delay approvals by months or disqualify a bid entirely.
   
3. Long Sales Cycles and Strict Contracting Rules
   Selling to the government is nothing like selling to the private sector. The process is often protracted and layered with approvals, vendor registrations, procurement vehicles, and compliance checks. Understanding how to navigate FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations), secure a place on approved contract vehicles like GSA Schedules, or build relationships with system integrators is essential—but time-consuming.
4. Security and Compliance Demands
   Beyond FDA approval, federal buyers demand proof that devices meet the highest security standards. Frameworks like FIPS 140-3 for cryptographic modules, HIPAA for patient data privacy, and other NIST-based requirements are table stakes for participation. Meeting these standards often requires significant re-architecture of systems and undergoing third-party validations—especially for products that store, transmit, or process sensitive information.
5. High Costs Tied to Engineering, Marketing, and Monitoring
   All of these challenges translate into substantial upfront and ongoing investment. Whether it’s hiring compliance consultants, modifying product designs, or building custom sales materials for federal buyers, the costs can mount quickly. And even post-sale, companies are expected to monitor system performance, report vulnerabilities, and ensure continued compliance—driving long-term resource commitments. 

Supporting Industry Requirements Through Validation

The good news is that proven steps and processes exist to strengthen this protection. One of the most effective is the use of FIPS 140-3 validated products, which provide a recognized standard for cryptographic security. For medical device manufacturers, implementing FIPS 140-3 validation offers a strategic advantage: it ensures the data collected and transmitted by devices is safeguarded against compromise, while also reducing concerns about device integrity. Certification builds trust not only with patients, but also with healthcare providers, regulators such as the FDA, and organizations that deploy these solutions—including federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs and large hospital systems. In a competitive market, achieving FIPS 140-3 validation helps products stand out, especially for critical devices such as heart monitors, pacemakers, and infusion pumps where patient safety and data security are paramount. By aligning innovation with certified security, medical device manufacturers can both differentiate their products and reassure stakeholders that safety has been built into the core of their technology.

What is FIPS 140-3?

FIPS 140-3 validation ensures that cryptographic modules meet rigorous standards for encryption, key management, authentication, and tamper resistance. This includes protections against common attack vectors such as side-channel attacks, brute-force decryption, and unauthorized firmware updates. Devices validated under this standard demonstrate strong resistance to both software-based and physical attacks, making them resilient in the face of evolving cyber threats. For manufacturers, adopting FIPS 140-3 validated cryptographic modules not only streamlines compliance with federal and healthcare regulations, but also provides a scalable foundation for securing future device generations.

In short, this certification is more than a regulatory checkbox—it is a technical safeguard that strengthens the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of modern medical devices.

The Corsec Advantage

As a privately owned company with over 27 years of experience, Corsec has partnered with organizations worldwide to deliver comprehensive security certification solutions. Having guided medical device companies and technology vendors through more than 500 successful certifications—including FIPS 140, Common Criteria, CSfC, and DoD STIGs —Corsec offers unmatched expertise in navigating complex certification landscapes. From early design reviews to lab coordination and final approval, our proven process streamlines every step, mitigating delays and avoiding costly pitfalls. With experience securing products across diverse industries, from storage devices to satellites, Corsec provides the knowledge and hands-on support manufacturers need to bring FIPS 140-3 validated medical devices to market quickly and confidently.

By partnering with Corsec, medical device companies gain not just a guide through certification, but a trusted ally in building secure, compliant, and market-ready solutions.

Ready to Get Started?

Let Corsec help you bring secure, certified products to the market faster. Learn more about our FIPS services → https://www.corsec.com/fips-140-3/