See also upstream's 9dcab127e14467733523ff7626da8906e67eedd6. The root problem
is dtls1_read_bytes is wrong, but we can get the right behavior now and add a
regression test for it before cleaning it up.
Change-Id: I4e5c39ab254a872d9f64242c9b77b020bdded6e6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5123
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
If we're going to have PSK and use standard cipher suites, this might be
the best that we can do for the moment.
Change-Id: I35d9831b2991dc5b23c9e24d98cdc0db95919d39
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5052
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is the best PSK cipher suite, but it's non-standard and nobody is
using it. Trivial to bring back in the future if we have need of it.
Change-Id: Ie78790f102027c67d1c9b19994bfb10a2095ba92
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5051
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The NULL checks later on notice, but failing with
SSL_R_UNABLE_TO_FIND_PUBLIC_KEY_PARAMETERS on accident is confusing.
Require that the message be non-empty.
Change-Id: Iddfac6a3ae6e6dc66c3de41d3bb26e133c0c6e1d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5046
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We shouldn't have protocol constraints that are sensitive to whether
data is returned synchronously or not.
Per https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/#/c/4112/, the original
limitation was to avoid OpenSSL ABI changes. This is no longer a
concern.
Add tests for the sync and async case. Send the empty records in two
batches to ensure the count is reset correctly.
Change-Id: I3fee839438527e71adb83d437879bb0d49ca5c07
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5040
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The client and server both have to decide on behaviour when resuming a
session where the EMS state of the session doesn't match the EMS state
as exchanged in the handshake.
Original handshake
| No Yes
------+--------------------------------------------------------------
|
R | Server: ok [1] Server: abort [3]
e No | Client: ok [2] Client: abort [4]
s |
u |
m |
e |
Yes | Server: don't resume No problem
| Client: abort; server
| shouldn't have resumed
[1] Servers want to accept legacy clients. The draft[5] says that
resumptions SHOULD be rejected so that Triple-Handshake can't be done,
but we'll rather enforce that EMS was used when using tls-unique etc.
[2] The draft[5] says that even the initial handshake should be aborted
if the server doesn't support EMS, but we need to be able to talk to the
world.
[3] This is a very weird case where a client has regressed without
flushing the session cache. Hopefully we can be strict and reject these.
[4] This can happen when a server-farm shares a session cache but
frontends are not all updated at once. If Chrome is strict here then
hopefully we can prevent any servers from existing that will try to
resume an EMS session that they don't understand. OpenSSL appears to be
ok here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg16570.html
[5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-session-hash-05#section-5.2
BUG=492200
Change-Id: Ie1225a3960d49117b05eefa5a36263d8e556e467
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4981
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Add expectResumeRejected to note cases where we expect a resumption
handshake to be rejected. (This was previously done by adding a flag,
which is a little less clear.)
Also, save the result of crypto/tls.Conn.ConnectionState() rather than
repeat that a lot.
Change-Id: I963945eda5ce1f3040b655e2441174b918b216b3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4980
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Make sure we don't break that on accident.
Change-Id: I22d58d35170d43375622fe61e4a588d1d626a054
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4960
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
9a41d1b946 broke handling of multiple records in
a single packet. If |extend| is true, not all of the previous packet should be
consumed, only up to the record length.
Add a test which stresses the DTLS stack's handling of multiple handshake
fragments in a handshake record and multiple handshake records in a packet.
Change-Id: I96571098ad9001e96440501c4730325227b155b8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4950
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The only case where renego is supported is if we are a client and the
server sends a HelloRequest. That is still needed to support the renego
+ client auth hack in Chrome. Beyond that, no other forms of renego will
work.
The messy logic where the handshake loop is repurposed to send
HelloRequest and the extremely confusing tri-state s->renegotiate (which
makes SSL_renegotiate_pending a lie during the initial handshake as a
server) are now gone. The next change will further simplify things by
removing ssl->s3->renegotiate and the renego deferral logic. There's
also some server-only renegotiation checks that can go now.
Also clean up ssl3_read_bytes' HelloRequest handling. The old logic relied on
the handshake state machine to reject bad HelloRequests which... actually that
code probably lets you initiate renego by sending the first four bytes of a
ServerHello and expecting the peer to read it later.
BUG=429450
Change-Id: Ie0f87d0c2b94e13811fe8e22e810ab2ffc8efa6c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4824
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Now that WebRTC honors packet boundaries (https://crbug.com/447431), we
can start enforcing them correctly. Configuring read-ahead now does
nothing. Instead DTLS will always set "read-ahead" and also correctly
enforce packet boundaries when reading records. Add tests to ensure that
badly fragmented packets are ignored. Because such packets don't fail
the handshake, the tests work by injecting an alert in the front of the
handshake stream and ensuring the DTLS implementation ignores them.
ssl3_read_n can be be considerably unraveled now, but leave that for
future cleanup. For now, make it correct.
BUG=468889
Change-Id: I800cfabe06615af31c2ccece436ca52aed9fe899
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4820
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Rather than duplicate all the various modifiers, which is quite
error-prone, write all the tests to a temporary array and then apply
modifiers afterwards.
Change-Id: I19bfeb83b722ed34e973f17906c5e071471a926a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4782
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We should be testing asynchronous renego.
BUG=429450
Change-Id: Ib7a5d42f2ac728f9ea0d80158eef63ad77cd77a4
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4781
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Since we hope to eventually lose server-side renegotiation support
altogether, get the client-side version of those tests. We should have
had those anyway to test that the default is to allow it.
BUG=429450
Change-Id: I4a18f339b55f3f07d77e22e823141e10a12bc9ff
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4780
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
DH groups less than 1024 bits are clearly not very safe. Ideally servers
would switch to ECDHE because 1024 isn't great either, but this will
serve for the short term.
BUG=490240
Change-Id: Ic9aac714cdcdcbfae319b5eb1410675d3b903a69
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4813
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This cuts down on one config knob as well as one case in the renego
combinatorial explosion. Since the only case we care about with renego
is the client auth hack, there's no reason to ever do resumption.
Especially since, no matter what's in the session cache:
- OpenSSL will only ever offer the session it just established,
whether or not a newer one with client auth was since established.
- Chrome will never cache sessions created on a renegotiation, so
such a session would never make it to the session cache.
- The new_session + SSL_OP_NO_SESSION_RESUMPTION_ON_RENEGOTIATION
logic had a bug where it would unconditionally never offer tickets
(but would advertise support) on renego, so any server doing renego
resumption against an OpenSSL-derived client must not support
session tickets.
This also gets rid of s->new_session which is now pointless.
BUG=429450
Change-Id: I884bdcdc80bff45935b2c429b4bbc9c16b2288f8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4732
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
“ECDHE-PSK-WITH-AES-128-GCM-SHA256” doesn't follow the standard naming
for OpenSSL: it was “-WITH-” in it and has a hyphen between “AES” and
“128”. This change fixes that.
Change-Id: I7465b1ec83e7d5b9a60d8ca589808aeee10c174e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4601
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This will be reverted in a minute. The bots should run both suites of tests and
report the names of all failing tests in the summary.
Change-Id: Ibe351017dfa8ccfd182b3c88eee413cd2cbdeaf0
See upstream's bd891f098bdfcaa285c073ce556d0f5e27ec3a10. It honestly seems
kinda dumb for a client to do this, but apparently the spec allows this.
Judging by code inspection, OpenSSL 1.0.1 also allowed this, so this avoids a
behavior change when switching from 1.0.1 to BoringSSL.
Add a test for this, which revealed that, unlike upstream's version, this
actually works with ecdh_auto since tls1_get_shared_curve also needs updating.
(To be mentioned in newsletter.)
Change-Id: Ie622700f17835965457034393b90f346740cfca8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4464
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Because RFC 6066 is obnoxious like that and IIS servers actually do this
when OCSP-stapling is configured, but the OCSP server cannot be reached.
BUG=478947
Change-Id: I3d34c1497e0b6b02d706278dcea5ceb684ff60ae
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4461
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This causes any unexpected handshake records to be met with a fatal
no_renegotiation alert.
In addition, restore the redundant version sanity-checks in the handshake state
machines. Some code would zero the version field as a hacky way to break the
handshake on renego. Those will be removed when switching to this API.
The spec allows for a non-fatal no_renegotiation alert, but ssl3_read_bytes
makes it difficult to find the end of a ClientHello and skip it entirely. Given
that OpenSSL goes out of its way to map non-fatal no_renegotiation alerts to
fatal ones, this seems probably fine. This avoids needing to account for
another source of the library consuming an unbounded number of bytes without
returning data up.
Change-Id: Ie5050d9c9350c29cfe32d03a3c991bdc1da9e0e4
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4300
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This drops in a copy of a subset of golang.org/x/crypto/poly1305 to implement
Poly1305. Hopefully this will keep them from regression as we rework the record
layer.
Change-Id: Ic1e0d941a0a9e5ec260151ced8acdf9215c4b887
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4257
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
After sharding the session cache for fallbacks, the numbers have been pretty
good; 0.03% on dev and 0.02% on canary. Stable is at 0.06% but does not have
the sharded session cache. Before sharding, stable, beta, and dev had been
fairly closely aligned. Between 0.03% being low and the fallback saving us in
all but extremely contrived cases, I think this should be fairly safe.
Add tests for both the cipher suite and protocol version mismatch checks.
BUG=441456
Change-Id: I2374bf64d0aee0119f293d207d45319c274d89ab
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3972
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This conceivably has a use, but NSS doesn't do this buffer either and it still
suffers from the same problems as the other uses of record_pqueue. This removes
the last use of record_pqueue. It also opens the door to removing pqueue
altogether as it isn't the right data structure for either of the remaining
uses either. (It's not clear it was right for record_pqueue either, but I don't
feel like digging into this code.)
Change-Id: If8a43e7332b3cd11a78a516f3e8ebf828052316f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4239
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Extend the False Start tests to optionally send an alert (thus avoiding
deadlock) before waiting for the out-of-order app data. Based on whether the
peer shuts off the connection before or after sending app data, we can
determine whether the peer False Started by observing purely external effects.
Change-Id: I8b9fecc29668e0b0c34b5fd19d0f239545011bae
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4213
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Based on whether -false-start is passed, we expect SSL_CB_HANDSHAKE_DONE to or
not to fire. Also add a flag that asserts SSL_CB_HANDSHAKE_DONE does *not* fire
in any False Start test where the handshake fails after SSL_connect returns.
Change-Id: I6c5b960fff15e297531e15b16abe0b98be95bec8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4212
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
That's a pretty obvious thing to test. I'm not sure how we forgot that one.
Change-Id: I7e1a7df6c6abbdd587e0f7723117f50d09faa5c4
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4211
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Partly inspired by the new state exposed in
dc3da93899, stress this codepath by spamming our
poor shim with warning alerts.
Change-Id: I876c6e52911b6eb57493cf3e1782b37ea96d01f8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4112
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Both on the client and the server.
Change-Id: I9892c6dbbb29938154aba4f53b10e8b5231f9c47
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4071
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is really just scar tissue with https://crbug.com/468889 being the real
underlying problem. But the test is pretty easy.
Change-Id: I5eca18fdcbde8665c0e6c3ac419a28152647d66f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4052
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
In verifying the fix for CVE-2015-0291, I noticed we don't actually have any
test coverage for full handshakes on renegotiation. All our tests always do
resumptions.
Change-Id: Ia9b701e8a50ba9353fefb8cc4fb86e78065d0b40
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4050
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This callback receives information about the ClientHello and can decide
whether or not to allow the handshake to continue.
Change-Id: I21be28335fa74fedb5b73a310ee24310670fc923
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3721
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This mostly[*] doesn't matter for TLS since the message would have been
rejected anyway, but, in DTLS, if the peer rejects our Finished, it will send
an encrypted alert. This will then cause it to hang, which isn't very helpful.
I've made the change on both TLS and DTLS so the two protocols don't diverge on
this point. It is true that we're accepting nominally encrypted and
authenticated alerts before Finished, but, prior to ChangeCipherSpec, the
alerts are sent in the clear anyway so an attacker could already inject alerts.
A consumer could only be sensitive to it being post-CCS if it was watching
msg_callback. The only non-debug consumer of msg_callback I've found anywhere
is some hostapd code to detect Heartbeat.
See https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=4403 for an instance
where the equivalent behavior in OpenSSL masks an alert.
[*] This does change behavior slightly if the peer sends a warning alert
between CCS and Finished. I believe this is benign as warning alerts are
usually ignored apart from info_callback and msg_callback. The one exception is
a close_notify which is a slightly new state (accepting close_notify during a
handshake seems questionable...), but they're processed pre-CCS too.
Change-Id: Idd0d49b9f9aa9d35374a9f5e2f815cdb931f5254
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3883
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Notably, drop all special cases around receiving a message in order and
receiving a full message. It makes things more complicated and was the source
of bugs (the MixCompleteMessageWithFragments tests added in this CL did not
pass before). Instead, every message goes through an hm_fragment, and
dtls1_get_message always checks buffered_messages to see if the next is
complete.
The downside is that we pay one more copy of the message data in the common
case. This is only during connection setup, so I think it's worth the
simplicity. (If we want to optimize later, we could either tighten
ssl3_get_message's interface to allow the handshake data being in the
hm_fragment's backing store rather than s->init_buf or swap out s->init_buf
with the hm_fragment's backing store when a mesasge completes.
This CL does not address ssl_read_bytes being an inappropriate API for DTLS.
Future work will revise the handshake/transport boundary to align better with
DTLS's needs. Also other problems that I've left as TODOs.
Change-Id: Ib4570d45634b5181ecf192894d735e8699b1c86b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3764
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
If the peer fragments Finished into multiple pieces, there is no need to
retransmit multiple times.
Change-Id: Ibf708ad079e1633afd420ff1c9be88a80020cba9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3762
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The old test just sent an empty ServerKeyExchange which is sufficient as we
reject the message early. But be more thorough and implement the actual
ephemeral key logic in the test server.
Change-Id: I016658762e4502c928c051e14d69eea67b5a495f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3650
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
That might be a reasonable check to make, maybe.
DTLS handshake message reading has a ton of other bugs and needs a complete
rewrite. But let's fix this and get a test in now.
Change-Id: I4981fc302feb9125908bb6161ed1a18288c39e2b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3600
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Test both asynchronous and synchronous versions. This callback is somewhat
different from others. It's NOT called a second time when the handshake is
resumed. This appears to be intentional and not a mismerge from the internal
patch. The caller is expected to set up any state before resuming the handshake
state machine.
Also test the early callback returning an error.
Change-Id: If5e6eddd7007ea5cdd7533b4238e456106b95cbd
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3590
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This involves more synchronization with child exits as the kernel no longer
closes the pre-created pipes for free, but it works on Windows. As long as
TCP_NODELAY is set, the performance seems comparable. Though it does involve
dealing with graceful socket shutdown. I couldn't get that to work on Windows
without draining the socket; not even SO_LINGER worked. Current (untested)
theory is that Windows refuses to gracefully shutdown a socket if the peer
sends data after we've stopped reading.
cmd.ExtraFiles doesn't work on Windows; it doesn't use fds natively, so you
can't pass fds 4 and 5. (stdin/stdout/stderr are special slots in
CreateProcess.) We can instead use the syscall module directly and mark handles
as inheritable (and then pass the numerical values out-of-band), but that
requires synchronizing all of our shim.Start() calls and assuming no other
thread is spawning a process.
PROC_THREAD_ATTRIBUTE_HANDLE_LIST fixes threading problems, but requires
wrapping more syscalls. exec.Cmd also doesn't let us launch the process
ourselves. Plus it still requires every handle in the list be marked
inheritable, so it doesn't help if some other thread is launching a process
with bInheritHandles TRUE but NOT using PROC_THREAD_ATTRIBUTE_HANDLE_LIST.
(Like Go, though we can take syscall.ForkLock there.)
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2011/12/16/10248328.aspx
The more natively Windows option seems to be named pipes, but that too requires
wrapping more system calls. (To be fair, that isn't too painful.) They also
involve a listening server, so we'd still have to synchronize with shim.Wait()
a la net.TCPListener.
Then there's DuplicateHandle, but then we need an out-of-band signal.
All in all, one cross-platform implementation with a TCP sockets seems
simplest.
Change-Id: I38233e309a0fa6814baf61e806732138902347c0
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3563
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Tighten up the requirements for False Start. At this point, neither
AES-CBC or RC4 are something that we want to use unless we're sure that
the server wants to speak them.
Rebase of original CL at: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/#/c/1980/
BUG=427721
Change-Id: I9ef7a596edeb8df1ed070aac67c315b94f3cc77f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3501
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
