Various functions got renamed. We need to rename the error codes too.
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
The _clienthello_ in the extensions parsing functions is overly specific.
Better to keep the convention to just _client_
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
This lays the foundation for a later move to have the extensions built and
placed into the correct message for TLSv1.3 (e.g. ServerHello or
EncryptedExtensions).
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
This builds on the work started in 1ab3836b3 and extends is so that
each extension has its own identified parsing functions, as well as an
allowed context identifying which messages and protocols it is relevant for.
Subsequent commits will do a similar job for the ServerHello extensions.
This will enable us to have common functions for processing extension blocks
no matter which of the multiple messages they are received from. In TLSv1.3
a number of different messages have extension blocks, and some extensions
have moved from one message to another when compared to TLSv1.2.
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
At this stage the message is just empty. We need to fill it in with
extension data.
Perl changes reviewed by Richard Levitte. Non-perl changes reviewed by Rich
Salz
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
There is a set of miscellaneous processing for OCSP, CT etc at the end of
the ServerDone processing. In TLS1.3 we don't have a ServerDone, so this
needs to move elsewhere.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
This is a major overhaul of the TLSv1.3 state machine. Currently it still
looks like TLSv1.2. This commit changes things around so that it starts
to look a bit less like TLSv1.2 and bit more like TLSv1.3.
After this commit we have:
ClientHello
+ key_share ---->
ServerHello
+key_share
{CertificateRequest*}
{Certificate*}
{CertificateStatus*}
<---- {Finished}
{Certificate*}
{CertificateVerify*}
{Finished} ---->
[ApplicationData] <---> [Application Data]
Key differences between this intermediate position and the final TLSv1.3
position are:
- No EncryptedExtensions message yet
- No server side CertificateVerify message yet
- CertificateStatus still exists as a separate message
- A number of the messages are still in the TLSv1.2 format
- Still running on the TLSv1.2 record layer
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
The previous commits put in place the logic to exchange key_share data. We
now need to do something with that information. In <= TLSv1.2 the equivalent
of the key_share extension is the ServerKeyExchange and ClientKeyExchange
messages. With key_share those two messages are no longer necessary.
The commit removes the SKE and CKE messages from the TLSv1.3 state machine.
TLSv1.3 is completely different to TLSv1.2 in the messages that it sends
and the transitions that are allowed. Therefore, rather than extend the
existing <=TLS1.2 state transition functions, we create a whole new set for
TLSv1.3. Intially these are still based on the TLSv1.2 ones, but over time
they will be amended.
The new TLSv1.3 transitions remove SKE and CKE completely. There's also some
cleanup for some stuff which is not relevant to TLSv1.3 and is easy to
remove, e.g. the DTLS support (we're not doing DTLSv1.3 yet) and NPN.
I also disable EXTMS for TLSv1.3. Using it was causing some added
complexity, so rather than fix it I removed it, since eventually it will not
be needed anyway.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
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: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
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: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
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: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Commit aea145e 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: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
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: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
