The TLS client and server code was usually closing the connection in
case of a fatal error without sending an alert. This commit adds
alerts in many cases.
Added one test case to detect that we send the alert, where a server
complains that the client's certificate is from an unknown CA (case
tracked internally as IOTSSL-1330).
Separates platform time abstraction into it's own header from the
general platform abstraction as both depend on different build options.
(MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_C vs MBEDTLS_HAVE_TIME)
The server code parses the client hello extensions even when the
protocol is SSLv3 and this behaviour is non compliant with rfc6101.
Also the server sends extensions in the server hello and omitting
them may prevent interoperability problems.
By looking just at that test, it looks like 2 + dn_size could overflow. In
fact that can't happen as that would mean we've read a CA cert of size is too
big to be represented by a size_t.
However, it's best for code to be more obviously free of overflow without
having to reason about the bigger picture.
* development: (73 commits)
Bump yotta dependencies version
Fix typo in documentation
Corrected misleading fn description in ssl_cache.h
Corrected URL/reference to MPI library
Fix yotta dependencies
Fix minor spelling mistake in programs/pkey/gen_key.c
Bump version to 2.1.2
Fix CVE number in ChangeLog
Add 'inline' workaround where needed
Fix references to non-standard SIZE_T_MAX
Fix yotta version dependencies again
Upgrade yotta dependency versions
Fix compile error in net.c with musl libc
Add missing warning in doc
Remove inline workaround when not useful
Fix macroization of inline in C++
Changed attribution for Guido Vranken
Merge of IOTSSL-476 - Random malloc in pem_read()
Fix for IOTSSL-473 Double free error
Fix potential overflow in CertificateRequest
...
Conflicts:
include/mbedtls/ssl_internal.h
library/ssl_cli.c
This bug becomes noticeable when the extension following the "supported point
formats" extension has a number starting with 0x01, which is the case of the
EC J-PAKE extension, which explains what I noticed the bug now.
This will be immediately backported to the stable branches,
see the corresponding commits for impact analysis.
This is more consistent, as it doesn't make any sense for a user to be able to
set up an EC J-PAKE password with TLS if the corresponding key exchange is
disabled.
Arguably this is what we should de for other key exchanges as well instead of
depending on ECDH_C etc, but this is an independent issue, so let's just do
the right thing with the new key exchange and fix the other ones later. (This
is a marginal issue anyway, since people who disable all ECDH key exchange are
likely to also disable ECDH_C in order to minimize footprint.)
There is only one length byte but for some reason we skipped two, resulting in
reading one byte past the end of the extension. Fortunately, even if that
extension is at the very end of the ClientHello, it can't be at the end of the
buffer since the ClientHello length is at most SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN and the
buffer has some more room after that for MAC and so on. So there is no
buffer overread.
Possible consequences are:
- nothing, if the next byte is 0x00, which is a comment first byte for other
extensions, which is why the bug remained unnoticed
- using a point format that was not offered by the peer if next byte is 0x01.
In that case the peer will reject our ServerKeyExchange message and the
handshake will fail.
- thinking that we don't have a common point format even if we do, which will
cause us to immediately abort the handshake.
None of these are a security issue.
The same bug was fixed client-side in fd35af15
The Thread spec says we need those for EC J-PAKE too.
However, we won't be using the information, so we can skip the parsing
functions in an EC J-PAKE only config; keep the writing functions in order to
comply with the spec.
May happen with a faulty configuration (eg no allowed curve but trying to use
ECDHE key exchange), but not trigger able remotely.
(Found with Clang's scan-build.)
While at it, fix the following:
- on server with RSA_PSK, we don't want to set flags (client auth happens via
the PSK, no cert is expected).
- use safer tests (eg == OPTIONAL vs != REQUIRED)
