This made sense when the cipher might have been standardized as-is, so a
DHE_RSA variant could appease the IETF. Since the standardized variant is going
to have some nonce tweaks anyway, there's no sense in keeping this around. Get
rid of one non-standard cipher suite value early. (Even if they were to be
standardized as-is, it's not clear we should implement new DHE cipher suites at
this point.)
Chrome UMA, unsurprisingly, shows that it's unused.
Change-Id: Id83d73a4294b470ec2e94d5308fba135d6eeb228
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5750
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is a simpler implementation than OpenSSL's, lacking responder IDs
and request extensions support. This mirrors the client implementation
already present.
Change-Id: I54592b60e0a708bfb003d491c9250401403c9e69
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5700
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Rather than sniff for ClientHello, just fall through to standard logic
once weird cases are resolved.
This means that garbage will now read as WRONG_VERSION rather than
UNKNOWN_PROTOCOL, but the rules here were slightly odd anyway. This also
means we'll now accept empty records before the ClientHello (up to the
empty record limit), and process records of the wrong type with the
usual codepath during the handshake.
This shouldn't be any more risk as it just makes the ClientHello more
consistent with the rest of the protocol. A TLS implementation that
doesn't parse V2ClientHello would do the same unless it still
special-cased the first record. All newly-exposed states are reachable
by fragmenting ClientHello by one byte and then sending the record in
question.
BUG=468889
Change-Id: Ib701ae5d8adb663e158c391639b232a9d9cd1c6e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5712
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Due to a typo, when a server sent an unknown extension, the extension
number would be taken from a NULL structure rather than from the
variable of the same name that's in the local scope.
BUG=517935
Change-Id: I29d5eb3c56cded40f6155a81556199f12439ae06
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5650
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The existing tests only went monotonic. Allow an arbitrary mapping
function. Also test by sending more app data. The handshake is fairly
resilient to replayed packets, whereas our test code intentionally
isn't.
Change-Id: I0fb74bbacc260c65ec5f6a1ca8f3cb23b4192855
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5556
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
I don't think we had coverage for this check.
Change-Id: I5e454e69c1ee9f1b9760d2ef1431170d76f78d63
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5544
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
That got out of sync at some point.
Change-Id: I5a45f50f330ceb65053181afc916053a80aa2c5d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5541
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The RSA key exchange needs decryption and is still unsupported.
Change-Id: I8c13b74e25a5424356afbe6e97b5f700a56de41f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5467
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This change mirrors upstream's custom extension API because we have some
internal users that depend on it.
Change-Id: I408e442de0a55df7b05c872c953ff048cd406513
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5471
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
These were used in the upstream Go code to fuzz-test the handshake
marshal/unmarshal functions. But we don't do that there so best to
remove them.
(The ClientHello equals function is still used, however, to test DTLS
retransmission.)
Change-Id: I950bdf4f7eefa2bca13c10f5328d2e6c586604e2
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5470
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Fastradio was a trick where the ClientHello was padding to at least 1024
bytes in order to trick some mobile radios into entering high-power mode
immediately. After experimentation, the feature is being dropped.
This change also tidies up a bit of the extensions code now that
everything is using the new system.
Change-Id: Icf7892e0ac1fbe5d66a5d7b405ec455c6850a41c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5466
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This also removes support for the “old” Channel ID extension.
Change-Id: I1168efb9365c274db6b9d7e32013336e4404ff54
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5462
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Historically we had a bug around this and this change implements a test
that we were previously carrying internally.
Change-Id: Id181fedf66b2b385b54131ac91d74a31f86f0205
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5380
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This change also switches the behaviour of the client. Previously the
client would send the SCSV rather than the extension, but now it'll only
do that for SSLv3 connections.
Change-Id: I67a04b8abbef2234747c0dac450458deb6b0cd0a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5143
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This test shouldn't trigger a renegotiation: the test is trying to
assert that without the legacy-server flag set, a server that doesn't
echo the renegotiation extension can't be connected to.
Change-Id: I1368d15ebc8f296f3ff07040c0e6c48fdb49e56f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5141
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Rather than rely on Chromium to query SSL_initial_handshake_complete in the
callback (which didn't work anyway because the callback is called afterwards),
move the logic into BoringSSL. BoringSSL already enforces that clients never
offer resumptions on renegotiation (it wouldn't work well anyway as client
session cache lookup is external), so it's reasonable to also implement
in-library that sessions established on a renegotiation are not cached.
Add a bunch of tests that new_session_cb is called when expected.
BUG=501418
Change-Id: I42d44c82b043af72b60a0f8fdb57799e20f13ed5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5171
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
b4d65fda70 was written concurrently with
my updating runner to handle -resource-dir (in
7c803a65d5) and thus it didn't include the
needed change for the test that it added to handle it.
This change fixes that added test so that it can run with -resource-dir.
Change-Id: I06b0adfb3fcf3f11c061fe1c8332a45cd7cd2dbc
This adds a new API, SSL_set_private_key_method, which allows the consumer to
customize private key operations. For simplicity, it is incompatible with the
multiple slots feature (which will hopefully go away) but does not, for now,
break it.
The new method is only routed up for the client for now. The server will
require a decrypt hook as well for the plain RSA key exchange.
BUG=347404
Change-Id: I35d69095c29134c34c2af88c613ad557d6957614
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5049
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Turns out the safer/simpler method still wasn't quite right. :-)
session->sess_cert isn't serialized and deserialized, which is poor. Duplicate
it manually for now. Leave a TODO to get rid of that field altogether as it's
not especially helpful. The certificate-related fields should be in the
session. The others probably have no reason to be preserved on resumptions at
all.
Test by making bssl_shim.cc assert the peer cert chain is there or not as
expected.
BUG=501220
Change-Id: I44034167629720d6e2b7b0b938d58bcab3ab0abe
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5170
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
If gdb is attached, it's convenient to be able to continue running.
Change-Id: I3bbb2634d05a08f6bad5425f71da2210dbb80cfe
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5125
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This change adds flags to runner to allow it to be sufficiently
configured that it can run from any directory.
Change-Id: I82c08da4ffd26c5b11637480b0a79eaba0904d38
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/5130
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
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>
Currently far from passing and I haven't even tried with a leak checker yet.
Also bn_test is slow.
Change-Id: I4fe2783aa5f7897839ca846062ae7e4a367d2469
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4794
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>
We can't actually catch this with MSan because it requires all code be
instrumented, so it needs a NO_ASM build which no disables that code. valgrind
doesn't notice either, possibly because there's some computation being done on
it. Still, we shouldn't use uninitialized memory.
Also get us closer to being instrumentable by MSan, but the runner tests will
need to build against an instrumented STL and I haven't tried that yet.
Change-Id: I2d65697a3269b5b022899f361730a85c51ecaa12
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4760
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
SSL_get_current_cipher is documented by upstream to return the cipher actually
being used. However, because it reads s->session, it returns information
pertaining to the session to be offered if queried before ServerHello or early
in an abbreviated handshake.
Logic around s->session needs more comprehensive cleanup but for just this
function, defining it to be the current outgoing cipher is close to the current
semantics but for fixing the initial state (s->session->cipher is populated
when sending CCS). Store it in the SSL_AEAD_CTX which seems a natural place to
associate state pertaining to a connection half.
BUG=484744
Change-Id: Ife8db27a16615d0dbb2aec65359537243e08af7c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4733
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>
