Issue Station
Sign In
Tools hereToolbox

litellm - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Feature]: FIPS compliance of LiteLLM Proxy [1 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
BerriAI/litellm#25861•Fetched 2026-04-17 08:28:35
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
2
Timeline
4
Reactions
2
Author
bhadrimbhadrim
Participants
bhadrimbhadrimccreighton-apptioccreighton-apptio
Timeline (top)
labeled ×2commented ×1subscribed ×1
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Check for existing issues

  • I have searched the existing issues and checked that my issue is not a duplicate.

The Feature

I am trying to revive the discussion on this feature request that is closed as stale. From this comment my understading was this feature may be considered. Was the decision made not to consider this requirement. Thank you.

Original feature request:

LiteLLM proxy is using pynacl which is bound to libsodium library, which is not FIPS certified, so pynacl is not FIPS compliant. This prevents LiteLLM proxy from being used in environment that needs to be certified for FIPS compliance.

This feature request is to use FIPS certified cryptography module. Thank you.

Motivation, pitch

I am trying to use LiteLLM proxy in a FIPS compliant environment and I cannot adopt LiteLLM proxy as pynacl is not FIPS certified. This issue will prevent adoption of LiteLLM proxy in all the environment that requires FIPS compliance.

What part of LiteLLM is this about?

Proxy

LiteLLM is hiring a founding backend engineer, are you interested in joining us and shipping to all our users?

No

Twitter / LinkedIn details

No response

extent analysis

TL;DR

The most likely fix is to replace pynacl with a FIPS certified cryptography module in the LiteLLM proxy.

Guidance

  • Review the comment thread in the original feature request issue to understand the previous discussion and decision-making process regarding FIPS compliance.
  • Investigate alternative cryptography modules that are FIPS certified and compatible with the LiteLLM proxy's requirements.
  • Consider reaching out to the maintainers or contributors of the LiteLLM project to discuss the feasibility of implementing a FIPS certified cryptography module.
  • Evaluate the impact of using a non-FIPS compliant module in your environment and determine if a workaround or temporary solution is necessary.

Notes

The issue lacks technical details about the current implementation and the specific requirements for FIPS compliance, so a more detailed solution cannot be provided.

Recommendation

Apply workaround: Replace pynacl with a FIPS certified cryptography module, as this is the core issue preventing FIPS compliance in the LiteLLM proxy.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…
#api#ssr#installation#API versioning#request timeout

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

litellm - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Feature]: FIPS compliance of LiteLLM Proxy [1 comments, 2 participants]