- 10 3月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Benjamin Kaduk 提交于
At the core of things is the concept that each extension is only defined in certain context(s) -- the ClientHello, EncryptedExtensions, etc., and sometimes only for a specific protocol or protocol range; we want to enforce that we only parse or generate extensions in the context(s) for which they are defined. There is some subtlety here, in that the protocol version in use is not known when generating the ClientHello (but it is known when the ClientHello extensions are being parsed!), so the SSL_IS_TLS13() macro must be used with caution. Nonetheless, by making assertions about whether we are acting in a server role and whether the current context is (not) a ClientHello, we can consolidate almost all of the logic for determining whether an extension is permitted in a given protocol message, whether we are generating or parsing that message. The only logic that remains separate relates to generating the ClientHello, as it depends on an external factor (the maximum permitted TLS version) that is not defined in the parsing context. Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2945)
-
- 09 3月, 2018 3 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Allow users to distinguish between an error occurring and an HRR being issued. Fixes #5549 Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5562)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5554)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
We also default to SHA256 as per the spec if we do not have an explicit digest defined. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5554)
-
- 05 3月, 2018 2 次提交
-
-
由 Todd Short 提交于
This fixes an issue raised in PR #4964 by kaduk. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5491)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
They are valid for use in a CertificateRequest message, but we did not allow it. If a server sent such a message using either of those two extensions then the handshake would abort. This corrects that error, but does not add support for actually processing the extensions. They are simply ignored, and a TODO is inserted to add support at a later time. This was found during interoperability testing with btls: https://gitlab.com/ilari_l/btls Prompted by these errors I reviewed the complete list of extensions and compared them with the latest table in draft-24 to confirm there were no other errors of a similar type. I did not find any. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5490)
-
- 01 3月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Kurt Roeckx 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> GH: #4672
-
- 26 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa 提交于
This commit adds SSL_export_keying_material_early() which exports keying material using early exporter master secret. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5252)
-
- 23 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Pauli 提交于
The return at the end isn't reachable. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5442)
-
- 15 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Coverity was complaining because we checked if s->ctx is NULL and then later on in the function deref s->ctx anyway. In reality if s->ctx is NULL then this is an internal error. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5334)
-
- 14 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
The s_client psk_use_session_cb callback has a comment stating that we should ignore a key that isn't suitable for TLSv1.3. However we were actually causing the connection to fail. Changing the return value fixes the issue. Also related to this is that the early_data extension was not marked as TLSv1.3 only which it should be. Fixes #5202 Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5205)
-
- 13 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
-
- 12 2月, 2018 2 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
We should always check the return code. This fixes a coverity issue. Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5308)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
On the client we calculate the age of the ticket in seconds but the server may work in ms. Due to rounding errors we could overestimate the age by up to 1s. It is better to underestimate it. Otherwise, if the RTT is very short, when the server calculates the age reported by the client it could be bigger than the age calculated on the server - which should never happen. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5306)
-
- 09 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
In <= TLSv1.2 a Finished message always comes immediately after a CCS except in the case of NPN where there is an additional message between the CCS and Finished. Historically we always calculated the Finished MAC when we processed the CCS. However to deal with NPN we also calculated it when we receive the Finished message. Really this should only have been done if we hand negotiated NPN. This simplifies the code to only calculate the MAC when we receive the Finished. In 1.1.1 we need to do it this way anyway because there is no CCS (except in middlebox compat mode) in TLSv1.3. Coincidentally, this commit also fixes the fact that no-nextprotoneg does not currently work in master. Reviewed-by: NAndy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5285)
-
- 03 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa 提交于
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4944)
-
- 02 2月, 2018 2 次提交
-
-
由 Todd Short 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4964)
-
由 Todd Short 提交于
Add SSL_verify_client_post_handshake() for servers to initiate PHA Add SSL_force_post_handshake_auth() for clients that don't have certificates initially configured, but use a certificate callback. Update SSL_CTX_set_verify()/SSL_set_verify() mode: * Add SSL_VERIFY_POST_HANDSHAKE to postpone client authentication until after the initial handshake. * Update SSL_VERIFY_CLIENT_ONCE now only sends out one CertRequest regardless of when the certificate authentication takes place; either initial handshake, re-negotiation, or post-handshake authentication. Add 'RequestPostHandshake' and 'RequirePostHandshake' SSL_CONF options that add the SSL_VERIFY_POST_HANDSHAKE to the 'Request' and 'Require' options Add support to s_client: * Enabled automatically when cert is configured * Can be forced enabled via -force_pha Add support to s_server: * Use 'c' to invoke PHA in s_server * Remove some dead code Update documentation Update unit tests: * Illegal use of PHA extension * TLSv1.3 certificate tests DTLS and TLS behave ever-so-slightly differently. So, when DTLS1.3 is implemented, it's PHA support state machine may need to be different. Add a TODO and a #error Update handshake context to deal with PHA. The handshake context for TLSv1.3 post-handshake auth is up through the ClientFinish message, plus the CertificateRequest message. Subsequent Certificate, CertificateVerify, and Finish messages are based on this handshake context (not the Certificate message per se, but it's included after the hash). KeyUpdate, NewSessionTicket, and prior Certificate Request messages are not included in post-handshake authentication. After the ClientFinished message is processed, save off the digest state for future post-handshake authentication. When post-handshake auth occurs, copy over the saved handshake context into the "main" handshake digest. This effectively discards the any KeyUpdate or NewSessionTicket messages and any prior post-handshake authentication. This, of course, assumes that the ID-22 did not mean to include any previous post-handshake authentication into the new handshake transcript. This is implied by section 4.4.1 that lists messages only up to the first ClientFinished. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4964)
-
- 01 2月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
In a few places we sent an internal_error alert instead of a decode_error. Fixes #5213 Fixes #5214 Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5219)
-
- 30 1月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
If a server receives an unexpected ClientHello then we may or may not accept it. Make sure all such decisions are made in the state machine and not in the record layer. This also removes a disparity between the TLS and the DTLS code. The TLS code was making this decision in the record layer, while the DTLS code was making it later. Finally it also solves a problem where a warning alert was being sent during tls_setup_handshake() and the function was returning a failure return code. This is problematic because it can be called from a transition function - which we only allow fatal errors to occur in. Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5190)
-
- 26 1月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Benjamin Kaduk 提交于
The new extension is like signature_algorithms, but only for the signature *on* the certificate we will present to the peer (the old signature_algorithms extension is still used for signatures that we *generate*, i.e., those over TLS data structures). We do not need to generate this extension, since we are the same implementation as our X.509 stack and can handle the same types of signatures, but we need to be prepared to receive it, and use the received information when selecting what certificate to present. There is a lot of interplay between signature_algorithms_cert and signature_algorithms, since both affect what certificate we can use, and thus the resulting signature algorithm used for TLS messages. So, apply signature_algorithms_cert (if present) as a filter on what certificates we can consider when choosing a certificate+sigalg pair. As part of this addition, we also remove the fallback code that let keys of type EVP_PKEY_RSA be used to generate RSA-PSS signatures -- the new rsa_pss_pss_* and rsa_pss_rsae_* signature schemes have pulled the key type into what is covered by the signature algorithm, so we should not apply this sort of compatibility workaround. Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5068)
-
- 25 1月, 2018 7 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4435)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4435)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Probably this is the CCS between the first and second ClientHellos. It should be ignored. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4435)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Fixes some bugs identified during testing. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4435)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4435)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4435)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
This just adds the various extension functions. More changes will be required to actually use them. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4435)
-
- 23 1月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Salz 提交于
Thanks to David Vernet for reporting this. Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5140)
-
- 09 1月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5038)
-
- 03 1月, 2018 1 次提交
-
-
由 Benjamin Kaduk 提交于
Although this is forbidden by all three(!) relevant specifications, there seem to be multiple server implementations in the wild that send it. Since we didn't check for unexpected extensions in any given message type until TLS 1.3 support was added, our previous behavior was to silently accept these extensions and pass them over to the custom extension callback (if any). In order to avoid regression of functionality, relax the check for "extension in unexpected context" for this specific case, but leave the protocol enforcment mechanism unchanged for other extensions and in other extension contexts. Leave a detailed comment to indicate what is going on. Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4463)
-
- 29 12月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
We'd like the first bit of early_data and the ClientHello to go in the same TCP packet if at all possible to enable things like TCP Fast Open. Also, if you're only going to send one block of early data then you also don't need to worry about TCP_NODELAY. Fixes #4783 Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4802)
-
- 26 12月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 Paul Yang 提交于
Variables n, d, p are no longer there. [skip ci] Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4894)
-
- 18 12月, 2017 1 次提交
-
-
由 Paul Yang 提交于
Reviewed-by: NKurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> GH: #4934
-
- 14 12月, 2017 6 次提交
-
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4701)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Flush following the CCS after an HRR. Only flush the HRR if middlebox compat is turned off. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4701)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Normally we flush immediately after writing the ClientHello. However if we are going to write a CCS immediately because we've got early_data to come, then we should move the flush until after the CCS. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4701)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4701)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4701)
-
由 Matt Caswell 提交于
The CCS may be sent at different times based on whether or not we sent an HRR earlier. In order to make that decision this commit also updates things to make sure we remember whether an HRR was used or not. Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4701)
-