We can end up with a NULL SSL_METHOD function if a method has been
disabled. If that happens then we shouldn't call vent->smeth().
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

For consistency with the TLSv1.3 spec.
Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Based on review feedback received.
Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

We read it later in grow_init_buf(). If CCS is the first thing received in
a flight, then it will use the init_msg from the last flight we received. If
the init_buf has been grown in the meantime then it will point to some
arbitrary other memory location. This is likely to result in grow_init_buf()
attempting to grow to some excessively large amount which is likely to
fail. In practice this should never happen because the only time we receive
a CCS as the first thing in a flight is in an abbreviated handshake. None
of the preceding messages from the server flight would be large enough to
trigger this.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Travis is reporting one file at a time shadowed variable warnings where
"read" has been used. This attempts to go through all of libssl and replace
"read" with "readbytes" to fix all the problems in one go.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Writing still to be done
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Includes addition of the various options to s_server/s_client. Also adds
one of the new TLS1.3 ciphersuites.

This isn't "real" TLS1.3!! It's identical to TLS1.2 apart from the protocol
and the ciphersuite...and the ciphersuite is just a renamed TLS1.2 one (not
a "real" TLS1.3 ciphersuite).
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

tls_construct_finished() used to have different arguments to all of the
other construction functions. It doesn't anymore, so there is no neeed to
treat it as a special case.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Ensure all message types work the same way including CCS so that the state
machine doesn't need to know about special cases. Put all the special logic
into ssl_set_handshake_header() and ssl_close_construct_packet().
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Move setting the handshake header up a level into the state machine code
in order to reduce boilerplate.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Instead of initialising, finishing and cleaning up the WPACKET in every
message construction function, we should do it once in
write_state_machine().
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

ssl_set_handshake_header2() was only ever a temporary name while we had
to have ssl_set_handshake_header() for code that hadn't been converted to
WPACKET yet. No code remains that needed that so we can rename it.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

A TLS message includes 3 bytes for its length in the header for the message.
This would allow for messages up to 16Mb in length. Messages of this length
are excessive and OpenSSL includes a check to ensure that a peer is sending
reasonably sized messages in order to avoid too much memory being consumed
to service a connection. A flaw in the logic of version 1.1.0 means that
memory for the message is allocated too early, prior to the excessive
message length check. Due to way memory is allocated in OpenSSL this could
mean an attacker could force up to 21Mb to be allocated to service a
connection. This could lead to a Denial of Service through memory
exhaustion. However, the excessive message length check still takes place,
and this would cause the connection to immediately fail. Assuming that the
application calls SSL_free() on the failed conneciton in a timely manner
then the 21Mb of allocated memory will then be immediately freed again.
Therefore the excessive memory allocation will be transitory in nature.
This then means that there is only a security impact if:

1) The application does not call SSL_free() in a timely manner in the
event that the connection fails
or
2) The application is working in a constrained environment where there
is very little free memory
or
3) The attacker initiates multiple connection attempts such that there
are multiple connections in a state where memory has been allocated for
the connection; SSL_free() has not yet been called; and there is
insufficient memory to service the multiple requests.

Except in the instance of (1) above any Denial Of Service is likely to
be transitory because as soon as the connection fails the memory is
subsequently freed again in the SSL_free() call. However there is an
increased risk during this period of application crashes due to the lack
of memory - which would then mean a more serious Denial of Service.

This issue does not affect DTLS users.

Issue was reported by Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.).

CVE-2016-6307
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

All the other functions that take an argument for the number of bytes
use convenience macros for this purpose. We should do the same with
WPACKET_put_bytes().
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

No need to declare an explicit sub-packet. Just start one.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

To avoid confusion with the read PACKET structure.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

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>

Run util/openssl-format-source on ssl/

Some comments and hand-formatted tables were fixed up
manually by disabling auto-formatting.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

DTLSv1_client_method() is deprecated, but it was the only way to obtain
DTLS1_BAD_VER support. The SSL_OP_CISCO_ANYCONNECT hack doesn't work with
DTLS_client_method(), and it's relatively non-trivial to make it work without
expanding the hack into lots of places.

So deprecate SSL_OP_CISCO_ANYCONNECT with DTLSv1_client_method(), and make
it work with SSL_CTX_set_{min,max}_proto_version(DTLS1_BAD_VER) instead.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>

Fix some indentation at the same time
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1292)

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NAndy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1264)