1. 20 9月, 2016 2 次提交
  2. 13 9月, 2016 3 次提交
  3. 22 8月, 2016 1 次提交
    • M
      Fix DTLS buffered message DoS attack · f5c7f5df
      Matt Caswell 提交于
      DTLS can handle out of order record delivery. Additionally since
      handshake messages can be bigger than will fit into a single packet, the
      messages can be fragmented across multiple records (as with normal TLS).
      That means that the messages can arrive mixed up, and we have to
      reassemble them. We keep a queue of buffered messages that are "from the
      future", i.e. messages we're not ready to deal with yet but have arrived
      early. The messages held there may not be full yet - they could be one
      or more fragments that are still in the process of being reassembled.
      
      The code assumes that we will eventually complete the reassembly and
      when that occurs the complete message is removed from the queue at the
      point that we need to use it.
      
      However, DTLS is also tolerant of packet loss. To get around that DTLS
      messages can be retransmitted. If we receive a full (non-fragmented)
      message from the peer after previously having received a fragment of
      that message, then we ignore the message in the queue and just use the
      non-fragmented version. At that point the queued message will never get
      removed.
      
      Additionally the peer could send "future" messages that we never get to
      in order to complete the handshake. Each message has a sequence number
      (starting from 0). We will accept a message fragment for the current
      message sequence number, or for any sequence up to 10 into the future.
      However if the Finished message has a sequence number of 2, anything
      greater than that in the queue is just left there.
      
      So, in those two ways we can end up with "orphaned" data in the queue
      that will never get removed - except when the connection is closed. At
      that point all the queues are flushed.
      
      An attacker could seek to exploit this by filling up the queues with
      lots of large messages that are never going to be used in order to
      attempt a DoS by memory exhaustion.
      
      I will assume that we are only concerned with servers here. It does not
      seem reasonable to be concerned about a memory exhaustion attack on a
      client. They are unlikely to process enough connections for this to be
      an issue.
      
      A "long" handshake with many messages might be 5 messages long (in the
      incoming direction), e.g. ClientHello, Certificate, ClientKeyExchange,
      CertificateVerify, Finished. So this would be message sequence numbers 0
      to 4. Additionally we can buffer up to 10 messages in the future.
      Therefore the maximum number of messages that an attacker could send
      that could get orphaned would typically be 15.
      
      The maximum size that a DTLS message is allowed to be is defined by
      max_cert_list, which by default is 100k. Therefore the maximum amount of
      "orphaned" memory per connection is 1500k.
      
      Message sequence numbers get reset after the Finished message, so
      renegotiation will not extend the maximum number of messages that can be
      orphaned per connection.
      
      As noted above, the queues do get cleared when the connection is closed.
      Therefore in order to mount an effective attack, an attacker would have
      to open many simultaneous connections.
      
      Issue reported by Quan Luo.
      
      CVE-2016-2179
      Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
      f5c7f5df
  4. 18 8月, 2016 1 次提交
  5. 17 8月, 2016 2 次提交
  6. 16 8月, 2016 1 次提交
  7. 15 8月, 2016 1 次提交
  8. 13 8月, 2016 1 次提交
  9. 06 8月, 2016 1 次提交
  10. 05 8月, 2016 2 次提交
  11. 19 7月, 2016 2 次提交
  12. 15 7月, 2016 1 次提交
  13. 04 6月, 2016 1 次提交
  14. 24 5月, 2016 1 次提交
  15. 20 5月, 2016 1 次提交
    • M
      Simplify SSL BIO buffering logic · 46417569
      Matt Caswell 提交于
      The write BIO for handshake messages is bufferred so that we only write
      out to the network when we have a complete flight. There was some
      complexity in the buffering logic so that we switched buffering on and
      off at various points through out the handshake. The only real reason to
      do this was historically it complicated the state machine when you wanted
      to flush because you had to traverse through the "flush" state (in order
      to cope with NBIO). Where we knew up front that there was only going to
      be one message in the flight we switched off buffering to avoid that.
      
      In the new state machine there is no longer a need for a flush state so
      it is simpler just to have buffering on for the whole handshake. This
      also gives us the added benefit that we can simply call flush after every
      flight even if it only has one message in it. This means that BIO authors
      can implement their own buffering strategies and not have to be aware of
      the state of the SSL object (previously they would have to switch off
      their own buffering during the handshake because they could not rely on
      a flush being received when they really needed to write data out). This
      last point addresses GitHub Issue #322.
      Reviewed-by: NAndy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
      46417569
  16. 18 5月, 2016 1 次提交
  17. 17 5月, 2016 2 次提交
  18. 16 5月, 2016 1 次提交
  19. 10 5月, 2016 2 次提交
  20. 13 4月, 2016 3 次提交
  21. 11 4月, 2016 1 次提交
  22. 08 4月, 2016 2 次提交
    • R
      Add SSL_DANE typedef for consistency. · b9aec69a
      Rich Salz 提交于
      Reviewed-by: NViktor Dukhovni <viktor@openssl.org>
      b9aec69a
    • V
      Suppress CT callback as appropriate · 43341433
      Viktor Dukhovni 提交于
      Suppress CT callbacks with aNULL or PSK ciphersuites that involve
      no certificates.  Ditto when the certificate chain is validated via
      DANE-TA(2) or DANE-EE(3) TLSA records.  Also skip SCT processing
      when the chain is fails verification.
      
      Move and consolidate CT callbacks from libcrypto to libssl.  We
      also simplify the interface to SSL_{,CTX_}_enable_ct() which can
      specify either a permissive mode that just collects information or
      a strict mode that requires at least one valid SCT or else asks to
      abort the connection.
      
      Simplified SCT processing and options in s_client(1) which now has
      just a simple pair of "-noct" vs. "-ct" options, the latter enables
      the permissive callback so that we can complete the handshake and
      report all relevant information.  When printing SCTs, print the
      validation status if set and not valid.
      Signed-off-by: NRob Percival <robpercival@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: NEmilia Käsper <emilia@openssl.org>
      43341433
  23. 28 3月, 2016 1 次提交
  24. 23 3月, 2016 1 次提交
  25. 21 3月, 2016 1 次提交
  26. 17 3月, 2016 1 次提交
  27. 10 3月, 2016 3 次提交