DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft (Dated April 2005), Has Been Superseded and Is Provided Here Only for Historical Purposes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft (Dated April 2005), Has Been Superseded and Is Provided Here Only for Historical Purposes ARCHIVED PUBLICATION The attached publication, NIST Special Publication 800-57 Part 1, Draft (dated April 2005), has been superseded and is provided here only for historical purposes. For the most current revision of this publication, see: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html#800-57- part1. NIST Special Publication 800-57 Recommendation for Key DRAFT (April, 2005) Management – Part 1: General Elaine Barker, William Barker, William Burr, William Polk, and Miles Smid C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y April, 2005 Abstract This Recommendation provides cryptographic key management guidance. It consists of three parts. Part 1 provides general guidance and best practices for the management of cryptographic keying material. Part 2 provides guidance on policy and security planning requirements for U.S. government agencies. Finally, Part 3 provides guidance when using the cryptographic features of current systems. KEY WORDS: assurances; authentication; authorization; availability; backup; compromise; confidentiality; cryptanalysis; cryptographic key; cryptographic module; digital signature; hash function; key agreement; key management; key management policy; key recovery; key transport; originator usage period; private key; public key; recipient usage period; secret key; split knowledge; trust anchor. 2 April, 2005 Authority This document has been developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347. NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements, for providing adequate information security for all agency operations and assets, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Section 8b(3), Securing Agency Information Systems, as analyzed in A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Sections. Supplemental information is provided in A-130, Appendix III. This guideline has been prepared for use by federal agencies. It may be used by nongovernmental organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright. (Attribution would be appreciated by NIST.) Nothing in this document should be taken to contradict standards and guidelines made mandatory and binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory authority. Nor should these guidelines be interpreted as altering or superseding the existing authorities of the Secretary of Commerce, Director of the OMB, or any other federal official. Conformance testing for implementations of key management as specified in this Recommendation will be conducted within the framework of the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP), a joint effort of NIST and the Communications Security Establishment of the Government of Canada. Cryptographic implementations must adhere to the requirements in this Recommendation in order to be validated under the CMVP. The requirements of this Recommendation are indicated by the word “shall.” 3 April, 2005 Overview The proper management of cryptographic keys is essential to the effective use of cryptography for security. Keys are analogous to the combination of a safe. If a safe combination becomes known to an adversary, the strongest safe provides no security against penetration. Similarly, poor key management may easily compromise strong algorithms. Ultimately, the security of information protected by cryptography directly depends on the strength of the keys, the effectiveness of mechanisms and protocols associated with keys, and the protection afforded to the keys. All keys need to be protected against modification, and secret and private keys need to be protected against unauthorized disclosure. Key management provides the foundation for the secure generation, storage, distribution, and destruction of keys. Users and developers are presented with many choices in their use of cryptographic mechanisms. Inappropriate choices may result in an illusion of security, but little or no real security for the protocol or application. This recommendation (i.e., SP 800-57) provides background information and establishes frameworks to support appropriate decisions when selecting and using cryptographic mechanisms. This recommendation does not address implementation details for cryptographic modules that may be used to achieve the security requirements identified. These details are addressed in [FIPS140-2] and the derived test requirements (available at http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/). This recommendation is written for several different audiences and is divided into three parts. Part 1, General, contains basic key management guidance. It is intended to advise developers and system administrators on the "best practices" associated with key management. Cryptographic module developers may benefit from this general guidance by obtaining a greater understanding of the key management features that are required to support specific intended ranges of applications. Protocol developers may identify key management characteristics associated with specific suites of algorithms and gain a greater understanding of the security services provided by those algorithms. System administrators may use this document to determine which configuration settings are most appropriate for their information. Part 1 of the recommendation: 1. Defines the security services that may be provided and key types employed in using cryptographic mechanisms. 2. Provides background information regarding the cryptographic algorithms that use cryptographic keying material. 3. Classifies the different types of keys and other cryptographic information according to their functions, specifies the protection that each type of information requires and identifies methods for providing this protection. 4. Identifies the states in which a cryptographic key may exist during its lifetime. 5. Identifies the multitude of functions involved in key management. 6. Discusses a variety of key management issues related to the keying material. Topics discussed include key usage, cryptoperiod length, domain parameter validation, public 4 April, 2005 key validation, accountability, audit, key management system survivability, and guidance for cryptographic algorithm and key size selection. Part 2, General Organization and Management Requirements, is intended primarily to address the needs of system owners and managers. It provides a framework and general guidance to support establishing cryptographic key management within an organization and a basis for satisfying key management aspects of statutory and policy security planning requirements for Federal government organizations. Part 3, Implementation-Specific Key Management Guidance, is intended to address the key management issues associated with currently available implementations. 5 April, 2005 Table of Contents PART 1: GENERAL....................................................................................................................14 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................14 1.1 Goal/Purpose...................................................................................................................14 1.2 Audience .........................................................................................................................15 1.3 Scope...............................................................................................................................15 1.4 Purpose of FIPS and NIST Recommendations...............................................................16 1.5 Content and Organization ...............................................................................................16 2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS .....................................................................18 2.1 Glossary ..........................................................................................................................18 2.2 Acronyms........................................................................................................................28 3 SECURITY SERVICES .........................................................................................................29 3.1 Confidentiality ................................................................................................................29 3.2 Data Integrity ..................................................................................................................29 3.3 Authentication.................................................................................................................29 3.4 Authorization ..................................................................................................................30 3.5 Non-repudiation ..............................................................................................................30 3.6 Support Services .............................................................................................................30 3.7 Combining Services........................................................................................................30 4 CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS ..................................................................................33 4.1 Classes of Cryptographic Algorithms.............................................................................33
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cryptography
    56 Protecting Information With Cryptography Chapter by Peter Reiher (UCLA) 56.1 Introduction In previous chapters, we’ve discussed clarifying your security goals, determining your security policies, using authentication mechanisms to identify principals, and using access control mechanisms to enforce poli- cies concerning which principals can access which computer resources in which ways. While we identified a number of shortcomings and prob- lems inherent in all of these elements of securing your system, if we re- gard those topics as covered, what’s left for the operating system to worry about, from a security perspective? Why isn’t that everything? There are a number of reasons why we need more. Of particular im- portance: not everything is controlled by the operating system. But per- haps you respond, you told me the operating system is all-powerful! Not really. It has substantial control over a limited domain – the hardware on which it runs, using the interfaces of which it is given control. It has no real control over what happens on other machines, nor what happens if one of its pieces of hardware is accessed via some mechanism outside the operating system’s control. But how can we expect the operating system to protect something when the system does not itself control access to that resource? The an- swer is to prepare the resource for trouble in advance. In essence, we assume that we are going to lose the data, or that an opponent will try to alter it improperly. And we take steps to ensure that such actions don’t cause us problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Hello, and Welcome to This Presentation of the STM32MP1 Hash Processor
    Hello, and welcome to this presentation of the STM32MP1 hash processor. 1 Hash peripheral is in charge of efficient computing of message digest. A digest is a fixed-length value computed from an input message. A digest is unique - it is virtually impossible to find two messages with the same digest. The original message cannot be retrieved from its digest. Hash digests and Hash-based Message Authentication Code (HMAC) are widely used in communication since they are used to guarantee the integrity and authentication of a transfer. 2 HASH1 is a secure peripheral (under ETZPC control through ETZPC_DECPROT0 bit 8) while HASH2 is a non secure peripheral. HASH1 instance can be allocated to: • The Arm® Cortex®-A7 secure core to be controlled in OP-TEE by the HASH OP-TEE driver or • The Arm® Cortex® -A7 non-secure core for using in Linux® with Linux Crypto framework HASH2 instance can be allocated to the Arm® Cortex®-M4 core to be controlled in the STM32Cube MPU Package using the STM32Cube HASH driver. HASH1 instance is used as boot device to support binary authentication. 3 The hash processor supports widely used hash functions including Message Digest 5 (MD5), Secure Hash Algorithm SHA-1 and the more recent SHA-2 with its 224- and 256-bit digest length versions. A hash can also be generated with a secrete-key to produce a message authentication code (MAC). The processor supports bit, byte and half-word swapping. It supports also automatic padding of input data for block alignment. The processor can be used in conjunction with the DMA for automatic processor feeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded on 2017-02-12T13:16:07Z HARDWARE DESIGNOF CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCELERATORS
    Title Hardware design of cryptographic accelerators Author(s) Baldwin, Brian John Publication date 2013 Original citation Baldwin, B.J., 2013. Hardware design of cryptographic accelerators. PhD Thesis, University College Cork. Type of publication Doctoral thesis Rights © 2013. Brian J. Baldwin http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Embargo information No embargo required Item downloaded http://hdl.handle.net/10468/1112 from Downloaded on 2017-02-12T13:16:07Z HARDWARE DESIGN OF CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCELERATORS by BRIAN BALDWIN Thesis submitted for the degree of PHD from the Department of Electrical Engineering National University of Ireland University College, Cork, Ireland May 7, 2013 Supervisor: Dr. William P. Marnane “What I cannot create, I do not understand” - Richard Feynman; on his blackboard at time of death in 1988. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation...................................... 1 1.2 ThesisAims..................................... 3 1.3 ThesisOutline................................... 6 2 Background 9 2.1 Introduction.................................... 9 2.2 IntroductiontoCryptography. ...... 10 2.3 MathematicalBackground . ... 13 2.3.1 Groups ................................... 13 2.3.2 Rings .................................... 14 2.3.3 Fields.................................... 15 2.3.4 FiniteFields ................................ 16 2.4 EllipticCurves .................................. 17 2.4.1 TheGroupLaw............................... 18 2.4.2 EllipticCurvesoverPrimeFields . .... 19 2.5 CryptographicPrimitives&Protocols
    [Show full text]
  • PCI Assessment Evidence of PCI Policy Compliance
    PCI Assessment Evidence of PCI Policy Compliance CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this report document is for the Prepared for: exclusive use of the client specified above and may contain confidential, privileged and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this report is not the client or Prospect or Customer addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this report or its contents in any way. Prepared by: Your Company Name Evidence of PCI Policy Compliance PCI ASSESSMENT Table of Contents 1 - Overview 1.1 - Security Officer 1.2 - Overall Risk 2 - PCI DSS Evidence of Compliance 2.1 - Install and maintain firewall to protect cardholder data 2.1.1.1 - Requirements for firewall at each Internet connections and between DMZ and internal network zone 2.1.1.2 - Business justification for use of all services, protocols and ports allowed 2.1.2 - Build firewall and router configurations that restrict connections between untrusted networks and the cardholder data environment 2.1.2.1 - Restrict inbound and outbound to that which is necessary for the cardholder data environment 2.1.2.3 - Do not allow unauthorized outbound traffic from the cardholder data environment to the Internet 2.1.2.4 - Implement stateful inspection (also known as dynamic packet filtering) 2.1.2.5 - Do not allow unauthorized outbound traffic from the cardholder data environment to the Internet 2.2 - Prohibition of vendor-supplied default password for systems and security parameters 2.2.1
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Encrypting Deception: Weaknesses in the Encryption of Solid State Drives
    Self-encrypting deception: weaknesses in the encryption of solid state drives Carlo Meijer Bernard van Gastel Institute for Computing and Information Sciences School of Computer Science Radboud University Nijmegen Open University of the Netherlands [email protected] and Institute for Computing and Information Sciences Radboud University Nijmegen Bernard.vanGastel@{ou.nl,ru.nl} Abstract—We have analyzed the hardware full-disk encryption full-disk encryption. Full-disk encryption software, especially of several solid state drives (SSDs) by reverse engineering their those integrated in modern operating systems, may decide to firmware. These drives were produced by three manufacturers rely solely on hardware encryption in case it detects support between 2014 and 2018, and are both internal models using the SATA and NVMe interfaces (in a M.2 or 2.5" traditional form by the storage device. In case the decision is made to rely on factor) and external models using the USB interface. hardware encryption, typically software encryption is disabled. In theory, the security guarantees offered by hardware encryp- As a primary example, BitLocker, the full-disk encryption tion are similar to or better than software implementations. In software built into Microsoft Windows, switches off software reality, we found that many models using hardware encryption encryption and completely relies on hardware encryption by have critical security weaknesses due to specification, design, and implementation issues. For many models, these security default if the drive advertises support. weaknesses allow for complete recovery of the data without Contribution. This paper evaluates both internal and external knowledge of any secret (such as the password).
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptographic Control Standard, Version
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Chief Information Officer Computer Security Standard Office Instruction: OCIO-CS-STD-2009 Office Instruction Title: Cryptographic Control Standard Revision Number: 2.0 Issuance: Date of last signature below Effective Date: October 1, 2017 Primary Contacts: Kathy Lyons-Burke, Senior Level Advisor for Information Security Responsible Organization: OCIO Summary of Changes: OCIO-CS-STD-2009, “Cryptographic Control Standard,” provides the minimum security requirements that must be applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) systems which utilize cryptographic algorithms, protocols, and cryptographic modules to provide secure communication services. This update is based on the latest versions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Guidance and Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) publications, Committee on National Security System (CNSS) issuances, and National Security Agency (NSA) requirements. Training: Upon request ADAMS Accession No.: ML17024A095 Approvals Primary Office Owner Office of the Chief Information Officer Signature Date Enterprise Security Kathy Lyons-Burke 09/26/17 Architecture Working Group Chair CIO David Nelson /RA/ 09/26/17 CISO Jonathan Feibus 09/26/17 OCIO-CS-STD-2009 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unlocking the Fifth Amendment: Passwords and Encrypted Devices
    Fordham Law Review Volume 87 Issue 1 Article 9 2018 Unlocking the Fifth Amendment: Passwords and Encrypted Devices Laurent Sacharoff University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Laurent Sacharoff, Unlocking the Fifth Amendment: Passwords and Encrypted Devices, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 203 (2018). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNLOCKING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT: PASSWORDS AND ENCRYPTED DEVICES Laurent Sacharoff* Each year, law enforcement seizes thousands of electronic devices— smartphones, laptops, and notebooks—that it cannot open without the suspect’s password. Without this password, the information on the device sits completely scrambled behind a wall of encryption. Sometimes agents will be able to obtain the information by hacking, discovering copies of data on the cloud, or obtaining the password voluntarily from the suspects themselves. But when they cannot, may the government compel suspects to disclose or enter their password? This Article considers the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled disclosures of passwords—a question that has split and confused courts. It measures this right against the legal right of law enforcement, armed with a warrant, to search the device that it has validly seized.
    [Show full text]
  • Pgpfone Pretty Good Privacy Phone Owner’S Manual Version 1.0 Beta 7 -- 8 July 1996
    Phil’s Pretty Good Software Presents... PGPfone Pretty Good Privacy Phone Owner’s Manual Version 1.0 beta 7 -- 8 July 1996 Philip R. Zimmermann PGPfone Owner’s Manual PGPfone Owner’s Manual is written by Philip R. Zimmermann, and is (c) Copyright 1995-1996 Pretty Good Privacy Inc. All rights reserved. Pretty Good Privacy™, PGP®, Pretty Good Privacy Phone™, and PGPfone™ are all trademarks of Pretty Good Privacy Inc. Export of this software may be restricted by the U.S. government. PGPfone software is (c) Copyright 1995-1996 Pretty Good Privacy Inc. All rights reserved. Phil’s Pretty Good engineering team: PGPfone for the Apple Macintosh and Windows written mainly by Will Price. Phil Zimmermann: Overall application design, cryptographic and key management protocols, call setup negotiation, and, of course, the manual. Will Price: Overall application design. He persuaded the rest of the team to abandon the original DOS command-line approach and designed a multithreaded event-driven GUI architecture. Also greatly improved call setup protocols. Chris Hall: Did early work on call setup protocols and cryptographic and key management protocols, and did the first port to Windows. Colin Plumb: Cryptographic and key management protocols, call setup negotiation, and the fast multiprecision integer math package. Jeff Sorensen: Speech compression. Will Kinney: Optimization of GSM speech compression code. Kelly MacInnis: Early debugging of the Win95 version. Patrick Juola: Computational linguistic research for biometric word list. -2- PGPfone Owner’s
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms
    Archived NIST Technical Series Publication The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below). Archived Publication Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-107 Title: Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms Publication Date(s): February 2009 Withdrawal Date: August 2012 Withdrawal Note: SP 800-107 is superseded in its entirety by the publication of SP 800-107 Revision 1 (August 2012). Superseding Publication(s) The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): Series/Number: NIST Special Publication 800-107 Revision 1 Title: Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms Author(s): Quynh Dang Publication Date(s): August 2012 URL/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.107r1 Additional Information (if applicable) Contact: Computer Security Division (Information Technology Lab) Latest revision of the SP 800-107 Rev. 1 (as of August 12, 2015) attached publication: Related information: http://csrc.nist.gov/ Withdrawal N/A announcement (link): Date updated: ƵŐƵƐƚϭϮ, 2015 NIST Special Publication 800-107 Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms Quynh Dang Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y February 2009 U.S. Department of Commerce Otto J. Wolff, Acting Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Patrick D. Gallagher, Deputy Director NIST SP 800-107 Abstract Cryptographic hash functions that compute a fixed- length message digest from arbitrary length messages are widely used for many purposes in information security. This document provides security guidelines for achieving the required or desired security strengths when using cryptographic applications that employ the approved cryptographic hash functions specified in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-3.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study on the Official Scripts Electronic Applications in Bantul)
    I.J. Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 2017, 4, 1-6 Published Online July 2017 in MECS (http://www.mecs-press.org/) DOI: 10.5815/ijieeb.2017.04.01 The Implementation of Pretty Good Privacy in eGovernment Applications (Case Study on the Official Scripts Electronic Applications in Bantul) Didit Suprihanto Department of Electrical Engineering Universitas Mulawarman, Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia, 75123 Email: [email protected] Tri Kuntoro Priyambodo Department of Computer Sciences & Electronics, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 55281 Corresponding Author Email: [email protected] Abstract—eGovernment application has evolved from the world [1]. The United Nations‘ global survey reports simply appearing as a website providing news and some ICT indicators that point to the measure of how far information, to the application that provides various a nation has gone in the implementation of e-governance services through online transactions. Provision of online such as: 1.E-readiness, 2.Web measure index, 3. transactions require the effectively and safely service, so Telecommunications infrastructure index, 4. Human the users can make sure that the entry data is secure and capital index, 5. E-participation index[2] will not be used by other parties which are not authorized. Information security is a major factor in the service of Security is also necessary for the service provider side of eGovernment. The using of the host to host in previous online transactions, it is necessary to keep the system, and services of eGovernment is considered as lacking in the data transactions sent through the communications security. Therefore, it needs more security to serve clients media and the data stored in the database are secured.
    [Show full text]
  • Secure Hash Algorithms
    Keywords: secure hash, 1-wire, i2c, iButton, parasitic power, security, sha1, sha2, sha3, sha256, sha3-256, authentication, intellectual property protection, puf, physically unclonable function, chipdna, eeprom, cloning, counterfeit, medical disposables APPLICATION NOTE 7015 BACK TO BASICS: SECURE HASH ALGORITHMS Abstract: This application note goes over the basics of Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA) and discusses the variants of the algorithm. It then briefly touches on how the algorithm is used for authentication, including the concept of a Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC). It concludes by looking at some of the Maxim secure authenticators that can be used to very easily deploy SHA algorithms for security applications. Introduction In this application note, we will discuss the Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA) that are widely used in symmetric key cryptography. The basic idea behind a SHA function is to take data of variable size and condense it into a fixed-size bit string output. This concept is called hashing. The SHA functions are a family of hashing algorithms that have been developed over time through oversight by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The latest of these is the SHA-3 function. Maxim has a family of secure authenticator products that provide both SHA-2 and SHA-3 functions. Figure 1 shows the basic concept of secure hash generation. Figure 1. Secure hash generation, basic concept. SHA Characteristics The SHA functions have the following characteristics: They have variable input length and fixed output length. They are one-way functions. Figure 1 shows that it is infeasible to use the resultant hash value to regenerate the input text other than trying each possible input text.
    [Show full text]
  • Year 2010 Issues on Cryptographic Algorithms
    IMES DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Year 2010 issues on cryptographic algorithms Masashi Une and Masayuki Kanda Discussion Paper No. 2006-E-8 INSTITUTE FOR MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES BANK OF JAPAN C.P.O BOX 203 TOKYO 100-8630 JAPAN You can download this and other papers at the IMES Web site: http://www.imes.boj.or.jp Do not reprint or reproduce without permission. NOTE: IMES Discussion Paper Series is circulated in order to stimulate discussion and comments. Views expressed in Discussion Paper Series are those of authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Bank of Japan or the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies. IMES Discussion Paper Series 2006-E-8 June 2006 Year 2010 issues on cryptographic algorithms Masashi Une† and Masayuki Kanda* Abstract In the financial sector, cryptographic algorithms are used as fundamental techniques for assuring confidentiality and integrity of data used in financial transactions and for authenticating entities involved in the transactions. Currently, the most widely used algorithms appear to be two-key triple DES and RC4 for symmetric ciphers, RSA with a 1024-bit key for an asymmetric cipher and a digital signature, and SHA-1 for a hash function according to international standards and guidelines related to the financial transactions. However, according to academic papers and reports regarding the security evaluation for such algorithms, it is difficult to ensure enough security by using the algorithms for a long time period such as ten or fifteen years due to advances in cryptanalysis techniques, improvement of computing power and so on. In order to enhance the transition to more secure ones, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) of the United States describes in various guidelines that NIST will no longer approve two-key triple DES, RSA with a 1024-bit key, and SHA-1 as the algorithms suitable for IT systems of the Federal Government after 2010.
    [Show full text]