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>
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>
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>
The client_version needs to be preserved, both for the RSA key exchange and
(when this codepath is used for TLS) for the SChannel renego workaround. Fix
the tests to enforce this so the cipher suite version tests catch this.
Change-Id: I0c42dc3ec4830f3724026b400e5066e7a7f1ee97
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/2551
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Ensure that the client rejects it with UNEXPECTED_MESSAGE, not by attempting to
decode it.
Change-Id: Ifc5613cf1152e0f7dcbee73e05df1ef367dfbfd5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/2232
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
pskKeyAgreement is now a wrapper over a base key agreement.
Change-Id: Ic18862d3e98f7513476f878b8df5dcd8d36a0eac
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/2053
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Only the three plain PSK suites for now. ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 will
be in a follow-up.
Change-Id: Iafc116a5b2798c61d90c139b461cf98897ae23b3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/2051
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
If this is part of SSL_OP_ALL, we should have a test for it.
Change-Id: Ia72422beb2da6434726e78e174f3416f90f7c897
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/1695
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The missing SSL 3.0 client support in runner.go was fairly minor.
Change-Id: Ibbd440c9b6be99be08a214dec6b93ca358d8cf0a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/1516
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Run against openssl s_client and openssl s_server. This seems to work for a
start, although it may need to become cleverer to stress more of BoringSSL's
implementation for test purposes.
In particular, it assumes a reliable, in-order channel. And it requires that
the peer send handshake fragments in order. Retransmit and whatnot are not
implemented. The peer under test will be expected to handle a lossy channel,
but all loss in the channel will be controlled. MAC errors, etc., are fatal.
Change-Id: I329233cfb0994938fd012667ddf7c6a791ac7164
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/1390
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
It's not part of SSL_OP_ALL and is unused, so remove it. Add a test that
asserts the version check works.
Change-Id: I917516594ec5a4998a8316782f035697c33d99b0
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/1418
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Use it to test DHE-RSA in BoringSSL.
Change-Id: I88f7bfa76507a6f60234d61d494c9f94b7df4e0a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/1377
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This works, but there's enough shared codepaths that it's worth a test to
ensure it stays that way.
Change-Id: I5d5a729811e35832170322957258304213204e3b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/1155
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Adam Langley
David Benjamin
Adam Langley