This commit erroneously kept the DTLS timer running after the end of the
handshake. This is not correct behaviour and shold be reverted.
This reverts commit f7506416b1.
Fixes#7998
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8047)
(cherry picked from commit bcc1f3e2ba)
Since 1fb9fdc30 we may attempt to buffer a record from the next epoch
that has already been buffered. Prior to that this never occurred.
We simply ignore a failure to buffer a duplicated record.
Fixes#6902
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7414)
(cherry picked from commit 840facc3cc)
Previously when a ClientHello arrives with a valid cookie using
DTLSv1_listen() we only "peeked" at the message and left it on the
underlying fd. This works fine for single threaded applications but for
multi-threaded apps this does not work since the fd is typically reused for
the server thread, while a new fd is created and connected for the client.
By "peeking" we leave the message on the server fd, and consequently we
think we've received another valid ClientHello and so we create yet another
fd for the client, and so on until we run out of fds.
In this new approach we remove the ClientHello and buffer it in the SSL
object.
Fixes#6934
Reviewed-by: Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7375)
(cherry picked from commit 079ef6bd53)
Rather than using init_buf we use the record layer read and write buffers
in DTLSv1_listen(). These seem more appropriate anyway and will help with
the next commit.
Reviewed-by: Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7375)
(cherry picked from commit 2fc4c77c3f)
If we've sent a close_notify then we are restricted about what we can do
in response to handshake messages that we receive. However we can sensibly
process NewSessionTicket messages. We can also process a KeyUpdate message
as long as we also ignore any request for us to update our sending keys.
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7114)
At certain points in the handshake we could receive either a plaintext or
an encrypted alert from the client. We should tolerate both where
appropriate.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6887)
If we sent early_data and then received back an HRR, the enc_write_ctx
was stale resulting in errors if an alert needed to be sent.
Thanks to Quarkslab for reporting this.
In any case it makes little sense to encrypt alerts using the
client_early_traffic_secret, so we add special handling for alerts sent
after early_data. All such alerts are sent in plaintext.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6887)
Previoulsy we just had max_early_data which controlled both the value of
max early_data that we advertise in tickets *and* the amount of early_data
that we are willing to receive from clients. This doesn't work too well in
the case where we want to reduce a previously advertised max_early_data
value. In that case clients with old, stale tickets may attempt to send us
more early data than we are willing to receive. Instead of rejecting the
early data we abort the connection if that happens.
To avoid this we introduce a new "recv_max_early_data" value. The old
max_early_data becomes the value that is advertised in tickets while
recv_max_early_data is the maximum we will tolerate from clients.
Fixes#6647
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6655)
Currently if you encounter application data while waiting for a
close_notify from the peer, and you have called SSL_shutdown() then
you will get a -1 return (fatal error) and SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL from
SSL_get_error(). This isn't accurate (it should be SSL_ERROR_SSL) and
isn't persistent (you can call SSL_shutdown() again and it might then work).
We change this into a proper fatal error that is persistent.
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6340)
In the case where we are shutdown for writing and awaiting a close_notify
back from a subsequent SSL_shutdown() call we skip over handshake data
that is received. This should not be treated as an error - instead it
should be signalled with SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ.
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6340)
If we've sent a close_notify and we're waiting for one back we drop
incoming records until we see the close_notify we're looking for. If
SSL_MODE_AUTO_RETRY is on, then we should immediately try and read the
next record.
Fixes#6262
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6340)
Commit 4aa5a5669 accidentally missed off the catch all case of ignoring all
warning alerts that are otherwise unhandled. This breaks the SSLv3 tests
which send a "no certificate" warning alert.
Fixes#6496
[extended tests]
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6509)
In TLSv1.3 we should ignore the severity level of an alert according to
the spec.
Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6370)
The TLS code marks records as read when its finished using a record. The DTLS code did
not do that. However SSL_has_pending() relies on it. So we should make DTLS consistent.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6159)
During a full handshake the server is the last one to "speak". The timer
should continue to run until we know that the client has received our last
flight (e.g. because we receive some application data).
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6170)
DTLS was not correctly returning the number of pending bytes left in
a call to SSL_pending(). This makes the detection of truncated packets
almost impossible.
Fixes#5478
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6020)
Since the public and private DRBG are per thread we don't need one
per ssl object anymore. It could also try to get entropy from a DRBG
that's really from an other thread because the SSL object moved to an
other thread.
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5547)
According to TLSv1.3 draft-24 the record version for ClientHello2 should
be TLS1.2, and not TLS1.0 as it is now.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5377)
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: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5190)
In the case of a protocol version alert being sent by a peer the record
version number may not be what we are expecting. In DTLS records with an
unexpected version number are silently discarded. This probably isn't
appropriate for alerts, so we tolerate a mismatch in the minor version
number.
This resolves an issue reported on openssl-users where an OpenSSL server
chose DTLS1.0 but the client was DTLS1.2 only and sent a protocol_version
alert with a 1.2 record number. This was silently ignored by the server.
Reviewed-by: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5018)
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: Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4701)
It's argued that /WX allows to keep better focus on new code, which
motivates its comeback...
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4721)
If SSL_read() is called with a zero length buffer, and we read a zero length
record then we should mark that record as read.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4685)
