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.
This extension is quite costly to generate, and we don't want to re-do it
again when the server performs a DTLS HelloVerify. So, cache the result the
first time and re-use if/when we build a new ClientHello.
Note: re-send due to timeouts are different, as the whole message is cached
already, so they don't need any special support.
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.)
When we don't have a password, we want to skip the costly process of
generating the extension. So for consistency don't offer the ciphersuite
without the extension.
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.
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.
I'm not sure this is necessary, because it is only multiplied by xm2 which is
already random and secret, but OTOH, xm2 is related to a public value, so
let's add blinding with a random value that's only use for blinding, just to
be extra sure.
- reference handshake tests that we get the right values (not much now, but
much more later when we get to deriving the PMS)
- random handshake in addition tests our generate/write functions against our
read functions, that are tested by the reference handshake, and will be
further tested in the test suite later against invalid inputs
