Skip to main content
Comply Defense
Category: CMMC & DIB Assessment

National Information Assurance Partnership

Also known as:
Simply put

The National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) is a U.S. Government initiative created to promote and support the use of security-tested information technology products. It helps ensure that IT products used in government systems have been independently evaluated against security requirements. NIAP maintains a list of evaluated products that organizations can consider when selecting technology.

Formal definition

NIAP is a U.S. Government initiative, generally managed by the National Security Agency, established to promote the use of evaluated information technology products and to advance security assurance for information technology. It supports the security testing needs of information technology products and maintains a Product Compliance List (PCL) of evaluated products. As reflected in NIAP guidance, products listed on the PCL must be considered in the context of their environment of use, including appropriate risk analysis and system accreditation; inclusion on the list does not by itself constitute authorization of a system, and readers should verify current NIAP evaluation scope and processes against authoritative sources.

Why it matters

For defense and government acquisition, NIAP addresses a foundational question: has an information technology product been independently tested against security requirements, or is the buyer relying on vendor claims alone? By maintaining a Product Compliance List (PCL) of evaluated products, NIAP gives compliance officers, acquisition officials, and system owners a reference point when selecting commercial technology intended for government systems. This independent evaluation model matters because it separates marketing assertions from demonstrated, tested assurance.

A critical distinction that experts insist upon is that inclusion on the PCL is not equivalent to authorization of a system. As NIAP guidance reflects, listed products must be considered in the context of their environment of use, including appropriate risk analysis and system accreditation. A product's evaluation covers a defined scope and configuration; deploying that product does not by itself confer an Authority to Operate, satisfy every applicable control, or make the surrounding system secure. Product-level assurance and system-level authorization are separate concerns, and treating one as a substitute for the other is a common and consequential error.

Because evaluation scope, processes, and the composition of the PCL can change over time, NIAP's relevance is ongoing rather than static. Organizations should treat a product's listing as one input into a broader risk decision and verify the current evaluation scope and status against authoritative NIAP sources rather than assuming a past listing remains current or covers a given deployment configuration.

Who it's relevant to

Acquisition and Procurement Officials
Those responsible for selecting information technology for government systems can consult the Product Compliance List as one input into sourcing decisions. A listing indicates a product underwent independent evaluation within a defined scope, but officials should confirm the current listing status and evaluated configuration against authoritative NIAP sources, and should not assume a product's presence on the list satisfies all applicable security or contractual requirements.
Information System Security Managers and System Owners
System owners must remember that a product's NIAP evaluation supports, but does not replace, their own risk analysis and system accreditation. Per NIAP guidance, listed products have to be considered in the context of their environment of use. Selecting an evaluated product does not by itself authorize a system or confer an Authority to Operate; those remain distinct, system-level determinations.
Compliance Officers and Auditors
Compliance and audit personnel evaluating whether deployed technology reflects appropriate product assurance can use the PCL as a reference. They should verify that a product's evaluated scope matches the deployed configuration and confirm current listing status, since evaluation scope and the composition of the list can change over time. Product-level assurance should not be conflated with overall system security or authorization.
Technology Vendors Serving Government Customers
Vendors seeking to supply information technology to government systems may pursue NIAP evaluation to demonstrate independently tested security assurance and to appear on the Product Compliance List. Because evaluation processes and scope can evolve, vendors should confirm current NIAP requirements and methodology against authoritative sources rather than relying on past practices.

Inside NIAP

Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme (CCEVS)
NIAP operates the U.S. scheme for evaluating IT products against the Common Criteria (ISO/IEC 15408). Evaluations are performed by accredited private-sector laboratories, and NIAP validates the results. Readers should verify current scheme rules and accreditation status against official NIAP sources.
Protection Profiles (PPs)
NIAP develops and maintains technology-specific Protection Profiles that define standardized security requirements for a category of products (for example, certain network devices or mobile platforms). Current NIAP practice generally emphasizes evaluation against approved PPs rather than open-ended Evaluation Assurance Levels.
Product Compliant List (PCL)
NIAP publishes a list of products that have completed evaluation and validation under the scheme. The list is time-bound and subject to change, so practitioners should confirm a product's current status and applicable PP directly on the authoritative NIAP source.
Interagency partnership role
NIAP is a U.S. Government initiative associated with national security system stakeholders and international Common Criteria arrangements. Its validations support product selection but do not by themselves constitute a system authorization.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about NIAP.

Does a NIAP evaluation certify that a product is secure for any use?
No. A NIAP evaluation under the Common Criteria validates that a product's security functionality conforms to a specific Protection Profile within a defined evaluation scope and configuration; it does not certify that the product is secure for all uses or in all environments. Evaluation is not the same as authorization, and it does not relieve an organization of its own risk assessment, secure configuration, and continuous monitoring obligations. You should confirm the specific Protection Profile, version, and evaluated configuration against the current NIAP Product Compliant List.
Is NIAP the same thing as FIPS 140 cryptographic validation?
No, these are distinct programs with different scopes and authorities. NIAP manages Common Criteria evaluations against Protection Profiles in the United States, while FIPS 140 cryptographic module validation is administered separately under a NIST program. A product may reference or rely on validated cryptography, but a NIAP evaluation and a FIPS 140 validation are not interchangeable. Treat them as separate requirements and verify each against its own authoritative listing rather than assuming one satisfies the other.
How do I find out whether a product has a current NIAP evaluation?
NIAP generally maintains a Product Compliant List identifying evaluated products, the Protection Profile evaluated against, and the applicable status. Because evaluations are tied to specific product versions and can expire or be removed, you should verify a product's current standing directly against the official NIAP list rather than relying on a vendor claim or an older reference. Confirm the evaluated version matches the version you intend to deploy.
What is a Protection Profile and why does it matter for procurement?
A Protection Profile is a standardized set of security requirements for a category of technology that NIAP-recognized evaluations are conducted against. It matters for procurement because a NIAP evaluation is only meaningful in relation to the specific Protection Profile it addresses; a product evaluated against one profile has not necessarily been assessed against the requirements relevant to your use case. When specifying requirements, identify the applicable Protection Profile and confirm the product was evaluated against it in the configuration you plan to use.
Does using a NIAP-evaluated product automatically satisfy my agency's authorization requirements?
Generally no. A NIAP evaluation addresses product-level security functionality, but system authorization decisions, such as those made under the RMF for DoD systems or under FISMA-based processes for civilian agency systems, involve broader considerations including tailoring, environment, and continuous monitoring. Evaluation status may inform an authorizing official's decision but does not by itself constitute authorization. Confirm how your specific agency and authorizing official treat NIAP evaluation within their process, as interpretations may vary.
What should I do when a NIAP-evaluated product is updated to a new version I need to deploy?
Because NIAP evaluations are tied to specific evaluated versions and configurations, a newer version you deploy may not be covered by the existing evaluation. In most cases you should verify the current status of the specific version against the NIAP Product Compliant List and determine whether the update is within the evaluated scope or requires re-evaluation or assurance maintenance. Do not assume that an evaluation of an earlier version carries forward automatically; confirm the specifics against the current authoritative listing and your applicable acquisition requirements.

Common misconceptions

A NIAP-validated product is automatically authorized to operate on any government network.
NIAP validation addresses a product's evaluation against Common Criteria requirements; it is not a system-level Authority to Operate. Authorization decisions are made separately under the applicable framework (such as the RMF for DoD systems or FISMA processes for civilian agencies) and remain time-bound and subject to continuous monitoring.
NIAP validation is the same thing as, or a substitute for, NIST SP 800-53 control compliance or FedRAMP authorization.
NIAP operates the Common Criteria evaluation scheme for products, which is distinct from NIST control baselines and from the FedRAMP PMO's cloud service authorization process. These are maintained by different bodies and serve different purposes; one does not automatically satisfy another.
Once a product is on the Product Compliant List, its listing is permanent.
PCL entries are time-bound and tied to a specific evaluated configuration and Protection Profile. Listings can expire or change, so practitioners should verify current status against the authoritative NIAP source rather than relying on a prior entry.

Best practices

Confirm a product's current status, evaluated configuration, and associated Protection Profile directly on the authoritative NIAP Product Compliant List rather than relying on vendor marketing claims.
Treat NIAP validation as one input to product selection, not as a system authorization; pursue the applicable authorization process (such as the RMF or FISMA-based processes) separately.
Verify that the evaluated configuration matches your intended deployment, since validation applies to a specific tested configuration and may not cover all use cases.
Check whether an approved Protection Profile exists for the technology category you are procuring, and prefer products evaluated against the current applicable PP.
Coordinate with your authorizing official and ISSM to understand how NIAP validation is weighed within your organization's or agency's specific requirements, which may differ across defense, civilian, and national security contexts.
Re-verify listings and scheme requirements periodically, since evaluations, Protection Profiles, and scheme rules evolve over time.