- 16 11月, 2016 2 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
At the moment the server doesn't yet do anything with this information. We still need to send the server's key_share info back to the client. That will happen in subsequent commits. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 15 11月, 2016 2 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
Done too soon, this is for future OpenSSL 1.2.0 This reverts commit 6c62f9e1. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1669)
-
- 09 11月, 2016 2 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 04 11月, 2016 2 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Writing still to be done Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 03 10月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
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>
-
- 30 9月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 29 9月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 22 9月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Certain warning alerts are ignored if they are received. This can mean that no progress will be made if one peer continually sends those warning alerts. Implement a count so that we abort the connection if we receive too many. Issue reported by Shi Lei. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 21 9月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
-
- 20 9月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 13 9月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 19 8月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
The DTLS implementation provides some protection against replay attacks in accordance with RFC6347 section 4.1.2.6. A sliding "window" of valid record sequence numbers is maintained with the "right" hand edge of the window set to the highest sequence number we have received so far. Records that arrive that are off the "left" hand edge of the window are rejected. Records within the window are checked against a list of records received so far. If we already received it then we also reject the new record. If we have not already received the record, or the sequence number is off the right hand edge of the window then we verify the MAC of the record. If MAC verification fails then we discard the record. Otherwise we mark the record as received. If the sequence number was off the right hand edge of the window, then we slide the window along so that the right hand edge is in line with the newly received sequence number. Records may arrive for future epochs, i.e. a record from after a CCS being sent, can arrive before the CCS does if the packets get re-ordered. As we have not yet received the CCS we are not yet in a position to decrypt or validate the MAC of those records. OpenSSL places those records on an unprocessed records queue. It additionally updates the window immediately, even though we have not yet verified the MAC. This will only occur if currently in a handshake/renegotiation. This could be exploited by an attacker by sending a record for the next epoch (which does not have to decrypt or have a valid MAC), with a very large sequence number. This means the right hand edge of the window is moved very far to the right, and all subsequent legitimate packets are dropped causing a denial of service. A similar effect can be achieved during the initial handshake. In this case there is no MAC key negotiated yet. Therefore an attacker can send a message for the current epoch with a very large sequence number. The code will process the record as normal. If the hanshake message sequence number (as opposed to the record sequence number that we have been talking about so far) is in the future then the injected message is bufferred to be handled later, but the window is still updated. Therefore all subsequent legitimate handshake records are dropped. This aspect is not considered a security issue because there are many ways for an attacker to disrupt the initial handshake and prevent it from completing successfully (e.g. injection of a handshake message will cause the Finished MAC to fail and the handshake to be aborted). This issue comes about as a result of trying to do replay protection, but having no integrity mechanism in place yet. Does it even make sense to have replay protection in epoch 0? That issue isn't addressed here though. This addressed an OCAP Audit issue. CVE-2016-2181 Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
-
- 17 8月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Remi Gacogne 提交于
* SSL_SESSION_set1_id() * SSL_SESSION_get0_id_context() * SSL_CTX_get_tlsext_status_cb() * SSL_CTX_get_tlsext_status_arg() Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
-
- 21 7月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Kurt Roeckx 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> GH: #1330
-
- 19 7月, 2016 4 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
-
- 09 7月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Salz 提交于
Commit aea145e3 removed some error codes that are generated algorithmically: mapping alerts to error texts. Found by Andreas Karlsson. This restores them, and adds two missing ones. Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
-
- 22 6月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 FdaSilvaYY 提交于
Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1245)
-
- 04 6月, 2016 2 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Salz 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
The ssl3_init_finished_mac() function can fail, in which case we need to propagate the error up through the stack. RT#3198 Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 24 5月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Salz 提交于
Add script to find unused err/reason codes Remove unused reason codes. Remove entries for unused functions Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
-
- 29 4月, 2016 2 次提交
-
-
由 FdaSilvaYY 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/952)
-
由 FdaSilvaYY 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/952)
-
- 22 4月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Viktor Dukhovni 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 08 4月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Viktor Dukhovni 提交于
Signed-off-by: NRob Percival <robpercival@google.com> Reviewed-by: NEmilia Käsper <emilia@openssl.org>
-
- 05 4月, 2016 4 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Salz 提交于
This reverts commit 620d540b. It wasn't reviewed. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 Rich Salz 提交于
This reverts commit 2b0bcfaf. It wasn't reviewed. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 FdaSilvaYY 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
由 FdaSilvaYY 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 28 3月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Fedor Indutny 提交于
We now send the highest supported version by the client, even if the session uses an older version. This fixes 2 problems: - When you try to reuse a session but the other side doesn't reuse it and uses a different protocol version the connection will fail. - When you're trying to reuse a session with an old version you might be stuck trying to reuse the old version while both sides support a newer version Signed-off-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> Reviewed-by: NViktor Dukhovni <viktor@openssl.org> GH: #852, MR: #2452
-
- 08 3月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Use the new pipeline cipher capability to encrypt multiple records being written out all in one go. Two new SSL/SSL_CTX parameters can be used to control how this works: max_pipelines and split_send_fragment. max_pipelines defines the maximum number of pipelines that can ever be used in one go for a single connection. It must always be less than or equal to SSL_MAX_PIPELINES (currently defined to be 32). By default only one pipeline will be used (i.e. normal non-parallel operation). split_send_fragment defines how data is split up into pipelines. The number of pipelines used will be determined by the amount of data provided to the SSL_write call divided by split_send_fragment. For example if split_send_fragment is set to 2000 and max_pipelines is 4 then: SSL_write called with 0-2000 bytes == 1 pipeline used SSL_write called with 2001-4000 bytes == 2 pipelines used SSL_write called with 4001-6000 bytes == 3 pipelines used SSL_write_called with 6001+ bytes == 4 pipelines used split_send_fragment must always be less than or equal to max_send_fragment. By default it is set to be equal to max_send_fragment. This will mean that the same number of records will always be created as would have been created in the non-parallel case, although the data will be apportioned differently. In the parallel case data will be spread equally between the pipelines. Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
-
- 04 3月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rob Percival 提交于
Disabled by default, but can be enabled by setting the ct_validation_callback on a SSL or SSL_CTX. Reviewed-by: NBen Laurie <ben@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- 25 2月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Salz 提交于
Reviewed-by: NEmilia Käsper <emilia@openssl.org>
-
- 20 2月, 2016 1 次提交
-
-
由 Emilia Kasper 提交于
Adapted from BoringSSL. Added a test. The extension parsing code is already attempting to already handle this for some individual extensions, but it is doing so inconsistently. Duplicate efforts in individual extension parsing will be cleaned up in a follow-up. Reviewed-by: NStephen Henson <steve@openssl.org>
-