If RSA-CRT is used for signing, and if an attacker can cause a glitch
in one of the two computations modulo P or Q, the difference between
the faulty and the correct signature (which is not secret) will be
divisible by P or Q, but not by both, allowing to recover the private
key by taking the GCD with the public RSA modulus N. This is known as
the Bellcore Glitch Attack. Verifying the RSA signature before handing
it out is a countermeasure against it.
Fix the x509_get_subject_alt_name() function to not accept invalid
tags. The problem was that the ASN.1 class for tags consists of two
bits. Simply doing bit-wise and of the CONTEXT_SPECIFIC macro with the
input tag has the potential of accepting tag values 0x10 (private)
which would indicate that the certificate has an incorrect format.
This is the beginning of a series of commits refactoring the chain
building/verification functions in order to:
- make it simpler to understand and work with
- prepare integration of restartable ECC
Our current behaviour is a bit inconsistent here:
- when the bad signature is made by a trusted CA, we stop here and don't
include the trusted CA in the chain (don't call vrfy on it)
- otherwise, we just add NOT_TRUSTED to the flags but keep building the chain
and call vrfy on the upper certs
This ensures that the callback can actually clear that flag, and that it is
seen by the callback at the right level. This flag is not set at the same
place than others, and this difference will get bigger in the upcoming
refactor, so let's ensure we don't break anything here.
When a trusted CA is rolling its root keys, it could happen that for some
users the list of trusted roots contains two versions of the same CA with the
same name but different keys. Currently this is supported but wasn't tested.
Note: the intermediate file test-ca-alt.csr is commited on purpose, as not
commiting intermediate files causes make to regenerate files that we don't
want it to touch.
As we accept EE certs that are explicitly trusted (in the list of trusted
roots) and usually look for parent by subject, and in the future we might want
to avoid checking the self-signature on trusted certs, there could a risk that we
incorrectly accept a cert that looks like a trusted root except it doesn't
have the same key. This test ensures this will never happen.
The tests cover chains of length 0, 1 and 2, with one error, located at any of
the available levels in the chain. This exercises all three call sites of
f_vrfy (two in verify_top, one in verify_child). Chains of greater length
would not cover any new code path or behaviour that I can see.
So far there was no test ensuring that the flags passed to the vrfy callback
are correct (ie the flags for the current certificate, not including those of
the parent).
Actual tests case making use of that test function will be added in the next
commit.
md() already checks for md_info == NULL. Also, in the future it might also
return other errors (eg hardware errors if acceleration is used), so it make
more sense to check its return value than to check for NULL ourselves and then
assume no other error can occur.
Also, currently, md_info == NULL can never happen except if the MD and OID modules
get out of sync, or if the user messes with members of the x509_crt structure
directly.
This commit does not change the current behaviour, which is to treat MD errors
the same way as a bad signature or no trusted root.
The fact that self-signed end-entity certs can be explicitly trusted by
putting them in the CA list even if they don't have the CA bit was not
documented though it's intentional, and tested by "Certificate verification #73
(selfsigned trusted without CA bit)" in test_suite_x509parse.data
It is unclear to me whether the restriction that explicitly trusted end-entity
certs must be self-signed is a good one. However, it seems intentional as it is
tested in tests #42 and #43, so I'm not touching it for now.
