Skip to content

O
openssl

btwise / openssl

通知 1
Star 0
Fork 0
O
openssl

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 29 10月, 2018 9 次提交
  3. 28 10月, 2018 1 次提交
  5. 27 10月, 2018 1 次提交
    • F
      Support GeneralSubtrees with minimum = 0 · c23e497d
      由 Fraser Tweedale 提交于 
      The Name Constraints extension contains GeneralSubtree values
indicating included or excluded subtrees.  It is defined as:

  GeneralSubtree ::= SEQUENCE {
    base                    GeneralName,
    minimum         [0]     BaseDistance DEFAULT 0,
    maximum         [1]     BaseDistance OPTIONAL }

RFC 5280 further specifies:

  Within this profile, the minimum and maximum fields are not used with
  any name forms, thus, the minimum MUST be zero, and maximum MUST be
  absent.

Because the minimum fields has DEFAULT 0, and certificates should be
encoded using DER, the situation where minimum = 0 occurs in a
certificate should not arise.  Nevertheless, it does arise.  For
example, I have seen certificates issued by Microsoft programs that
contain GeneralSubtree values encoded thus.

Enhance the Name Constraints matching routine to handle the case
where minimum is specified.  If present, it must be zero.  The
maximum field remains prohibited.
Reviewed-by: NPaul Yang <yang.yang@baishancloud.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7039)
      c23e497d
  7. 26 10月, 2018 8 次提交
  9. 25 10月, 2018 1 次提交
    • R
      Windows: Produce a static version of the public libraries, always · b3023ced
      由 Richard Levitte 提交于 
      When building shared libraries on Windows, we had a clash between
'libcrypto.lib' the static routine library and 'libcrypto.lib' the
import library.

We now change it so the static versions of our libraries get '_static'
appended to their names.  These will never get installed, but can
still be used for our internal purposes, such as internal tests.

When building non-shared, the renaming mechanism doesn't come into
play.  In that case, the static libraries 'libcrypto.lib' and
'libssl.lib' are installed, just as always.

Fixes #7492
Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7496)
      b3023ced
  11. 23 10月, 2018 2 次提交
  13. 22 10月, 2018 1 次提交
    • D
      RAND_add(): fix heap corruption in error path · 5b4cb385
      由 Dr. Matthias St. Pierre 提交于 
      This bug was introduced by #7382 which enhanced RAND_add() to
accept large buffer sizes. As a consequence, RAND_add() now fails
for buffer sizes less than 32 bytes (i.e. less than 256 bits).
In addition, rand_drbg_get_entropy() forgets to reset the attached
drbg->pool in the case of an error, which leads to the heap corruption.

The problem occurred with RAND_load_file(), which reads the file in
chunks of 1024 bytes each. If the size of the final chunk is less than
32 bytes, then RAND_add() fails, whence RAND_load_file() fails
silently for buffer sizes n = k * 1024 + r with r = 1,...,31.

This commit fixes the heap corruption only. The other issues will
be addressed in a separate pull request.

Thanks to Gisle Vanem for reporting this issue.

Fixes #7449
Reviewed-by: NPaul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7455)
      5b4cb385
  15. 21 10月, 2018 1 次提交
  17. 19 10月, 2018 9 次提交
  19. 18 10月, 2018 2 次提交
    • V
      Apply self-imposed path length also to root CAs · dc5831da
      由 Viktor Dukhovni 提交于 
      Also, some readers of the code find starting the count at 1 for EE
cert confusing (since RFC5280 counts only non-self-issued intermediate
CAs, but we also counted the leaf).  Therefore, never count the EE
cert, and adjust the path length comparison accordinly.  This may
be more clear to the reader.
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
      dc5831da
    • V
      Only CA certificates can be self-issued · ed422a2d
      由 Viktor Dukhovni 提交于 
      At the bottom of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#page-12 and
top of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#page-13 (last paragraph
of above https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-3.3), we see:

   This specification covers two classes of certificates: CA
   certificates and end entity certificates.  CA certificates may be
   further divided into three classes: cross-certificates, self-issued
   certificates, and self-signed certificates.  Cross-certificates are
   CA certificates in which the issuer and subject are different
   entities.  Cross-certificates describe a trust relationship between
   the two CAs.  Self-issued certificates are CA certificates in which
   the issuer and subject are the same entity.  Self-issued certificates
   are generated to support changes in policy or operations.  Self-
   signed certificates are self-issued certificates where the digital
   signature may be verified by the public key bound into the
   certificate.  Self-signed certificates are used to convey a public
   key for use to begin certification paths.  End entity certificates
   are issued to subjects that are not authorized to issue certificates.

that the term "self-issued" is only applicable to CAs, not end-entity
certificates.  In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.9
the description of path length constraints says:

   The pathLenConstraint field is meaningful only if the cA boolean is
   asserted and the key usage extension, if present, asserts the
   keyCertSign bit (Section 4.2.1.3).  In this case, it gives the
   maximum number of non-self-issued intermediate certificates that may
   follow this certificate in a valid certification path.  (Note: The
   last certificate in the certification path is not an intermediate
   certificate, and is not included in this limit.  Usually, the last
   certificate is an end entity certificate, but it can be a CA
   certificate.)

This makes it clear that exclusion of self-issued certificates from
the path length count applies only to some *intermediate* CA
certificates.  A leaf certificate whether it has identical issuer
and subject or whether it is a CA or not is never part of the
intermediate certificate count.  The handling of all leaf certificates
must be the same, in the case of our code to post-increment the
path count by 1, so that we ultimately reach a non-self-issued
intermediate it will be the first one (not zeroth) in the chain
of intermediates.
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
      ed422a2d
  21. 17 10月, 2018 5 次提交