In a USENIX WOOT '16 paper the authors warn about a security risk
of random Initialisation Vectors (IV) repeating values.
The MBEDTLS_SSL_AEAD_RANDOM_IV feature is affected by this risk and
it isn't compliant with RFC5116. Furthermore, strictly speaking it
is a different cipher suite from the TLS (RFC5246) point of view.
Removing the MBEDTLS_SSL_AEAD_RANDOM_IV feature to resolve the above
problems.
Hanno Böck, Aaron Zauner, Sean Devlin, Juraj Somorovsky and Philipp
Jovanovic, "Nonce-Disrespecting Adversaries: Practical Forgery Attacks
on GCM in TLS", USENIX WOOT '16
When the peer retransmits a flight with many record in the same datagram, and
we already saw one of the records in that datagram, we used to drop the whole
datagram, resulting in interoperability failure (spurious handshake timeouts,
due to ignoring record retransmitted by the peer) with some implementations
(issues with Chrome were reported).
So in those cases, we want to only drop the current record, and look at the
following records (if any) in the same datagram. OTOH, this is not something
we always want to do, as sometime the header of the current record is not
reliable enough.
This commit introduces a new return code for ssl_parse_header() that allows to
distinguish if we should drop only the current record or the whole datagram,
and uses it in mbedtls_ssl_read_record()
fixes#345
Not a security issue as here we know the buffer is large enough (unless
something else if badly wrong in the code), and the value cast to int is less
than 2^16 (again, unless issues elsewhere).
Still changing to a more correct check as a matter of principle
fixes#310
Actually all key exchanges that use a certificate use signatures too, and
there is no key exchange that uses signatures but no cert, so merge those two
flags.
Conflicts:
ChangeLog
Especially for resumed handshake, it's entirely possible for an epoch=0
ClientHello to be retransmitted or arrive so late that the server is already
at epoch=1. There is no good way to detect whether it's that or a reconnect.
However:
- a late ClientHello seems more likely that client going down and then up
again in the middle of a handshake
- even if that's the case, we'll time out on that handshake soon enough
- we don't want to break handshake flows that used to work
So the safest option is to not treat that as a reconnect.
Don't depend on srv.c in config.h, but add explicit checks. This is more
in line with other options that only make sense server-side, and also it
allows to test full config minus srv.c more easily.
Use a custom function that minimally parses the message an creates a reply
without the overhead of a full SSL context.
Also fix dependencies: needs DTLS_HELLO_VERIFY for the cookie types, and let's
also depend on SRV_C as is doesn't make sense on client.
This is not very useful for TLS as mbedtls_ssl_write() will automatically
fragment and return the length used, and the application should check for that
anyway, but this is useful for DTLS where mbedtls_ssl_write() returns an
error, and the application needs to be able to query the maximum length
instead of just guessing.
This is not required nor recommended by the protocol, and it's a layering
violation, but it's a know flaw in the protocol that you can't detect a PSK
auth error in any other way, so it is probably the right thing to do.
closes#227
We document that either of recv or recv_timeout may be NULL, but for TLS we
always used recv... Thanks Coverity for catching that.
(Not remotely trigerrable: local configuration.)
Also made me notice net_recv_timeout didn't do its job properly.
