Fix buffer overflow in RSA-PSS signature verification when the hash is
too large for the key size. Found by Seth Terashima, Qualcomm.
Added a non-regression test and a positive test with the smallest
permitted key size for a SHA-512 hash.
1) use `pk_get_rsapubkey` instead of reimplementing the parsing
2) rename the key files, according to their type and key size
3) comment in the data_files/Makefile hoe the keys were generated
4) Fix issue of failure parsing pkcs#1 DER format parsing, missed in previous commit
Previously, 2048-bit and 4096-bit RSA key files had their bitsize indicated in their filename, while the original
1024-bit keys hadn't. This commit unifies the naming scheme by always indicating the bitsize in the filename.
This commit adds the commands used to generate the various RSA keys to tests/Makefile so that they can be easily
regenerated or modified, e.g. if larger key sizes or other encryption algorithms need to be tested in the future.
For selection of test cases, see comments added in the commit.
It makes the most sense to test with chains using ECC only, so for the chain
of length 2 we use server10 -> int-ca3 -> int-ca2 and trust int-ca2 directly.
Note: server10.crt was created by copying server10_int3_int-ca2.crt and
manually truncating it to remove the intermediates. That base can now be used
to create derived certs (without or with a chain) in a programmatic way.
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.
We have code to skip them but didn't have explicit tests ensuring they are
(the corresponding branch was never taken).
While at it, remove extra copy of the chain in server10*.crt, which was
duplicated for no reason.
Inspired by test code provided by Nicholas Wilson in PR #351.
The test will fail if someone sets MAX_INTERMEDIATE_CA to a value larger than
18 (default is 8), which is hopefully unlikely and can easily be fixed by
running long.sh again with a larger value if it ever happens.
Current behaviour is suboptimal as flags are not set, but currently the goal
is only to document/test existing behaviour.
With SHA-1 deprecation, we need a few certificates using algorithms in
the default support list. Most tests still use SHA-1 though.
The generation process for the new certificates is recorded in the makefile.
Fixes a regression introduced by an earlier commit that modified
x509_crt_verify_top() to ensure that valid certificates that are after past or
future valid in the chain are processed. However the change introduced a change
in behaviour that caused the verification flags MBEDTLS_X509_BADCERT_EXPIRED and
MBEDTLS_BADCERT_FUTURE to always be set whenever there is a failure in the
verification regardless of the cause.
The fix maintains both behaviours:
* Ensure that valid certificates after future and past are verified
* Ensure that the correct verification flags are set.
The tests load certificate chains from files. The CA chains contain a
past or future certificate and an invalid certificate. The test then
checks that the flags set are MBEDTLS_X509_BADCERT_EXPIRED or
MBEDTLS_X509_BADCERT_FUTURE.
As we're about to change the chain construction logic, we want to make sure
the callback will still be called exactly when it should, and not on the
(upcoming) ignored certs in the chain.
Certificates announcing different PSS options than the ones actually used for
the signature. Makes sure the options are correctly passed to the verification
function.
Still todo:
- handle MGF-hash != sign-hash
- check effective salt len == announced salt len
- add support in the PK layer so that we don't have to bypass it here
