Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5826)
(cherry picked from commit 1518c55a796b058eff01f3cbf177f4b726c01d7c)
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5826)
(cherry picked from commit 16e1eea6a67c85c9d786f3c4448182b1aca101b8)
Thanks to Sem Voigtländer for reporting this issue.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5826)
(cherry picked from commit 752837e0664e990b5edf6f0b69e1b4612efadce0)
If we don't have OID data for an object then we should fail if we
are asked to encode the ASN.1 for that OID.
Fixes#5723
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5725)
(cherry picked from commit 53c9818e970fc0c22d77e19fda3b3e6f6c9e759d)
Constructed types with a recursive definition (such as can be found in
PKCS7) could eventually exceed the stack given malicious input with
excessive recursion. Therefore we limit the stack depth.
CVE-2018-0739
Credit to OSSFuzz for finding this issue.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5170)
(cherry picked from commit 7150a4720af7913cae16f2e4eaf768b578c0b298)
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5170)
(cherry picked from commit 011f82e66f4bf131c733fd41a8390039859aafb2)
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5170)
(cherry picked from commit 9db724cfede4ba7a3668bff533973ee70145ec07)
It is quite likely for there to be multiple certificates with empty
subjects, which are still distinct because of subjectAltName. Therefore
we allow multiple certificates with an empty Subject even if
unique_subject is set to yes.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5445)
Commit 87e8fec (16 years ago!) introduced a bug where if we are
attempting to insert a cert with a duplicate subject name, and
duplicate subject names are not allowed (which is the default),
then we get an unhelpful error message back (error number 2). Prior
to that commit we got a helpful error message which displayed details
of the conflicting entry in the database.
That commit was itself attempting to fix a bug with the noemailDN option
where we were setting the subject field in the database too early
(before extensions had made any amendments to it).
This PR moves the check for a conflicting Subject name until after all
changes to the Subject have been made by extensions etc.
This also, co-incidentally Fixes the ca crashing bug described in issue
5109.
Fixes#5109
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5445)
This reverts commit a3d684ffca282796511cb8f3593a59a80109eed8.
Empty Subjects are permissible
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5445)
This reverts commit dd37f6f12cc14cc4710289746b112eb0fed3b0b7.
Empty Subjects are permissible.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5445)
If a mem allocation failed we would ignore it. This commit fixes it to
always check.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5596)
(cherry picked from commit 4718f449a3ecd5efac62b22d0fa9a759a7895dbc)
99bb59d at ssl_scan_clienthello_tlsext
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5507)
CLA: trivial
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5458)
Fixes#5405, #1381
The base64 filter BIO reads its input in chunks of B64_BLOCK_SIZE bytes.
When processing input in PEM format it can happen in rare cases that
- the trailing PEM marker crosses the boundary of a chunk, and
- the beginning of the following chunk contains valid base64 encoded data.
This happened in issue #5405, where the PEM marker was split into
"-----END CER" and "TIFICATE-----" at the end of the first chunk.
The decoding of the first chunk terminated correctly at the '-' character,
which is treated as an EOF marker, and b64_read() returned. However,
when called the second time, b64_read() read the next chunk and interpreted
the string "TIFICATE" as valid base64 encoded data, adding 6 extra bytes
'4c 81 48 08 04 c4'.
This patch restores the assignment of the error code to 'ctx->cont', which
was deleted accidentally in commit 5562cfaca4f3 and which prevents b64_read()
from reading additional data on subsequent calls.
This issue was observed and reported by Annie Yousar.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5422)
Before reading first byte as length
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5410)
The memory pointed to by the 'push' is freed by the
X509_NAME_ENTRY_free() in do_body(). The second time
it is referenced to (indirectly) in certify_cert:X509_REQ_free().
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4896)
X509v3_add_ext: free 'sk' if the memory pointed to by it
was malloc-ed inside this function.
X509V3_EXT_add_nconf_sk: return an error if X509v3_add_ext() fails.
This prevents use of a freed memory in do_body:sk_X509_EXTENSION_num().
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4896)
This could in theory result in an overread - but due to the over allocation
of the underlying buffer does not represent a security issue.
Thanks to Fedor Indutny for reporting this issue.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5417)
when the data block ends with SPACEs or NULs.
The problem is, you can't see if the data ends
with SPACE or NUL or a combination of both.
This can happen for instance with
openssl rsautl -decrypt -hexdump
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5332)
(cherry picked from commit 751485c6522f10006ba9f6cf90d719ea190e2201)
BN_from_montgomery_word doesn't have a constant memory access pattern.
Replace the pointer trick with a constant-time select. There is, of
course, still the bn_correct_top leak pervasive in BIGNUM itself.
See also https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22904 from BoringSSL.
(backport from f345b1f39d9b4e4c9ef07e7522e9b2a870c9ca09 signed off by
David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>)
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
The exponent here is one of d, dmp1, or dmq1 for RSA. This value and its
bit length are both secret. The only public upper bound is the bit width
of the corresponding modulus (RSA n, p, and q, respectively).
Although BN_num_bits is constant-time (sort of; see bn_correct_top notes
in preceding patch), this does not fix the root problem, which is that
the windows are based on the minimal bit width, not the upper bound. We
could use BN_num_bits(m), but BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime is public API
and may be called with larger exponents. Instead, use all top*BN_BITS2
bits in the BIGNUM. This is still sensitive to the long-standing
bn_correct_top leak, but we need to fix that regardless.
This may cause us to do a handful of extra multiplications for RSA keys
which are just above a whole number of words, but that is not a standard
RSA key size.
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5154)
(cherry picked from commit 39eeb64f59ff838f976ad305de7d15747d47a41c)
(This patch was written by Andy Polyakov. I only wrote the commit
message. Mistakes in the analysis are my fault.)
BN_num_bits, by way of BN_num_bits_word, currently leaks the
most-significant word of its argument via branching and memory access
pattern.
BN_num_bits is called on RSA prime factors in various places. These have
public bit lengths, but all bits beyond the high bit are secret. This
fully resolves those cases.
There are a few places where BN_num_bits is called on an input where the
bit length is also secret. This does *not* fully resolve those cases as
we still only look at the top word. Today, that is guaranteed to be
non-zero, but only because of the long-standing bn_correct_top timing
leak. Once that is fixed, a constant-time BN_num_bits on such inputs
must count bits on each word.
Instead, those cases should not call BN_num_bits at all. In particular,
BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime uses the exponent bit width to pick windows,
but it should be using the maximum bit width. The next patch will fix
this.
Thanks to Dinghao Wu, Danfeng Zhang, Shuai Wang, Pei Wang, and Xiao Liu
for reporting this issue.
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5154)
(cherry picked from commit 972c87dfc7e765bd28a4964519c362f0d3a58ca4)
In TLS we have a check to make sure an incoming reneg ClientHello is
acceptable. The equivalent check is missing in the DTLS code. This means
that if a client does not signal the ability to handle secure reneg in the
initial handshake, then a subsequent reneg handshake should be rejected by
the server. In the DTLS case the reneg was being allowed if the the 2nd
ClientHello had a renegotiation_info extension. This is incorrect.
While incorrect, this does not represent a security issue because if
the renegotiation_info extension is present in the second ClientHello it
also has to be *correct*. Therefore this will only work if both the client
and server believe they are renegotiating, and both know the previous
Finished result. This is not the case in an insecure rengotiation attack.
I have also tidied up the check in the TLS code and given a better check
for determining whether we are renegotiating or not.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5192)
