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
Two possible integer overflows (during << 2 or addition in BITS_TO_LIMB())
could result in far too few memory to be allocated, then overflowing the
buffer in the subsequent for loop.
Both integer overflows happen when slen is close to or greater than
SIZE_T_MAX >> 2 (ie 2^30 on a 32 bit system).
Note: one could also avoid those overflows by changing BITS_TO_LIMB(s << 2) to
CHARS_TO_LIMB(s >> 1) but the solution implemented looks more robust with
respect to future code changes.
Found by Guido Vranken.
Two possible integer overflows (during << 2 or addition in BITS_TO_LIMB())
could result in far too few memory to be allocated, then overflowing the
buffer in the subsequent for loop.
Both integer overflows happen when slen is close to or greater than
SIZE_T_MAX >> 2 (ie 2^30 on a 32 bit system).
Note: one could also avoid those overflows by changing BITS_TO_LIMB(s << 2) to
CHARS_TO_LIMB(s >> 1) but the solution implemented looks more robust with
respect to future code changes.
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
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.
