The TLS code marks records as read when its finished using a record. The DTLS code did
not do that. However SSL_has_pending() relies on it. So we should make DTLS consistent.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6160)
During a full handshake the server is the last one to "speak". The timer
should continue to run until we know that the client has received our last
flight (e.g. because we receive some application data).
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6196)
DTLS was not correctly returning the number of pending bytes left in
a call to SSL_pending(). This makes the detection of truncated packets
almost impossible.
Fixes#5478
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6021)
This is based on a heavily modified version of commit db0f35dda by Todd
Short from the master branch.
We are adding this because it used to be possible to disable reneg using
the flag SSL3_FLAGS_NO_RENEGOTIATE_CIPHERS in 1.0.2. This is no longer
possible because of the opacity work.
A point to note about this is that if an application built against new
1.1.0 headers (that know about the new option SSL_OP_NO_RENEGOTIATION
option) is run using an older version of 1.1.0 (that doesn't know about
the option) then the option will be accepted but nothing will happen, i.e.
renegotiation will not be prevented. There's probably not much we can do
about that.
Fixes#4739
Reviewed-by: Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4901)
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/5191)
In the case of a protocol version alert being sent by a peer the record
version number may not be what we are expecting. In DTLS records with an
unexpected version number are silently discarded. This probably isn't
appropriate for alerts, so we tolerate a mismatch in the minor version
number.
This resolves an issue reported on openssl-users where an OpenSSL server
chose DTLS1.0 but the client was DTLS1.2 only and sent a protocol_version
alert with a 1.2 record number. This was silently ignored by the server.
Reviewed-by: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5018)
(cherry picked from commit 08455bc9b0e69ed5f25c16fc30cc2db57cdca842)
If SSL_read() is called with a zero length buffer, and we read a zero length
record then we should mark that record as read.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4686)
The check for SSL3_FLAGS_ALLOW_UNSAFE_LEGACY_RENEGOTIATION is
inconsistent. Most places check SSL->options, one place is checking
SSL_CTX->options; fix that.
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
GH: #3523
(cherry picked from commit dffdcc773ac0a294b1ce620131cb8d7401da9408)
We were allocating the write buffer based on the size of max_send_fragment,
but ignoring it when writing data. We should fragment handshake messages
if they exceed max_send_fragment and reject application data writes that
are too large.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3287)
There was code existing which attempted to handle the case where application
data is received after a reneg handshake has started in SCTP. In normal DTLS
we just fail the connection if this occurs, so there doesn't seem any reason
to try and work around it for SCTP. In practice it didn't work properly
anyway and is probably a bad idea to start with.
Fixes#3251
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3287)
Backport of 69687aa829bc8bdcaf5468eb3dd0ada13700b7aa
(Merged from #3069)
Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3079)
Found using various (old-ish) versions of gcc.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2940)
(cherry picked from commit aebe9e399109dcde63a1d0328ffdfc5619b49431)
Also updates SSL_has_pending() to use it. This actually fixes a bug in
SSL_has_pending() which is supposed to return 1 if we have any processed
or unprocessed data sitting in OpenSSL buffers. However it failed to return
1 if we had processed non-application data pending.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2875)
(cherry picked from commit b8c49611bc26c8f9a980b814496a3069cd524b79)
Following on from CVE-2017-3733, this removes the OPENSSL_assert() check
that failed and replaces it with a soft assert, and an explicit check of
value with an error return if it fails.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Changing the ciphersuite during a renegotiation can result in a crash
leading to a DoS attack. ETM has not been implemented in 1.1.0 for DTLS
so this is TLS only.
The problem is caused by changing the flag indicating whether to use ETM
or not immediately on negotiation of ETM, rather than at CCS. Therefore,
during a renegotiation, if the ETM state is changing (usually due to a
change of ciphersuite), then an error/crash will occur.
Due to the fact that there are separate CCS messages for read and write
we actually now need two flags to determine whether to use ETM or not.
CVE-2017-3733
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Remove duplicate defines from EVP source files.
Most of them were in evp.h, which is always included.
Add new ones evp_int.h
EVP_CIPH_FLAG_TLS1_1_MULTIBLOCK is now always defined in evp.h, so
remove conditionals on it
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2201)
(cherry picked from commit 9d6fcd4295fef7ebc4232aab85718a99d36cc50a)
Otherwise the client will try to process it again. The second time around
it will try and move the record data into handshake fragment storage and
realise that there is no data left. At that point it marks it as read
anyway. However, it is a bug that we go around the loop a second time, so
we prevent that.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2200)
(cherry picked from commit 290a0419f0c13a30fb3a1d1a279125c8aeafd17e)
SSL_clear() was resetting numwpipes to 0, but not freeing any allocated
memory for existing write buffers.
Fixes#2026
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit 4bf086005fe5ebcda5dc4d48ff701b41ab9b07f0)
Backport of beacb0f0c1ae7b0542fe053b95307f515b578eb7, revert of
122580ef71e4e5f355a1a104c9bfb36feee43759
Fixes: #1903
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
GH: #1966
TLS1.0 and TLS1.1 say you SHOULD ignore unrecognised record types, but
TLS 1.2 says you MUST send an unexpected message alert. We swap to the
TLS 1.2 behaviour for all protocol versions to prevent issues where no
progress is being made and the peer continually sends unrecognised record
types, using up resources processing them.
Issue reported by 郭志攀
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit 436a2a0179416d2cc22b678b63e50c2638384d5f)
The function ssl3_read_n() takes a parameter |clearold| which, if set,
causes any old data in the read buffer to be forgotten, and any unread data
to be moved to the start of the buffer. This is supposed to happen when we
first read the record header.
However, the data move was only taking place if there was not already
sufficient data in the buffer to satisfy the request. If read_ahead is set
then the record header could be in the buffer already from when we read the
preceding record. So with read_ahead we can get into a situation where even
though |clearold| is set, the data does not get moved to the start of the
read buffer when we read the record header. This means there is insufficient
room in the read buffer to consume the rest of the record body, resulting in
an internal error.
This commit moves the |clearold| processing to earlier in ssl3_read_n()
to ensure that it always takes place.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit a7faa6da317887e14e8e28254a83555983ed6ca7)
A zero return from BIO_read()/BIO_write() could mean that an IO operation
is retryable. A zero return from SSL_read()/SSL_write() means that the
connection has been closed down (either cleanly or not). Therefore we
should not propagate a zero return value from BIO_read()/BIO_write() back
up the stack to SSL_read()/SSL_write(). This could result in a retryable
failure being treated as fatal.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit 4880672a9b41a09a0984b55e219f02a2de7ab75e)
If we have a handshake fragment waiting then dtls1_read_bytes() was not
correctly setting the value of recvd_type, leading to an uninit read.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit 2f2d6e3e3ccd1ae7bba9f1af62f97dfca986e083)
If while calling SSL_peek() we read an empty record then we go into an
infinite loop, continually trying to read data from the empty record and
never making any progress. This could be exploited by a malicious peer in
a Denial Of Service attack.
CVE-2016-6305
GitHub Issue #1563
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Certain warning alerts are ignored if they are received. This can mean that
no progress will be made if one peer continually sends those warning alerts.
Implement a count so that we abort the connection if we receive too many.
Issue reported by Shi Lei.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit af58be768ebb690f78530f796e92b8ae5c9a4401)
This reverts commit 77a6be4dfc2ecf406c2559a99bea51317ce0f533.
There were some unexpected side effects to this commit, e.g. in SSLv3 a
warning alert gets sent "no_certificate" if a client does not send a
Certificate during Client Auth. With the above commit this causes the
connection to abort, which is incorrect. There may be some other edge cases
like this so we need to have a rethink on this.
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
A peer continually sending unrecognised warning alerts could mean that we
make no progress on a connection. We should abort rather than continuing if
we receive an unrecognised warning alert.
Thanks to Shi Lei for reporting this issue.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit 77a6be4dfc2ecf406c2559a99bea51317ce0f533)
It is never valid to call ssl3_read_bytes with
type == SSL3_RT_CHANGE_CIPHER_SPEC, and in fact we check for valid values
for type near the beginning of the function. Therefore this check will never
be true and can be removed.
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
Follow on from CVE-2016-2179
The investigation and analysis of CVE-2016-2179 highlighted a related flaw.
This commit fixes a security "near miss" in the buffered message handling
code. Ultimately this is not currently believed to be exploitable due to
the reasons outlined below, and therefore there is no CVE for this on its
own.
The issue this commit fixes is a MITM attack where the attacker can inject
a Finished message into the handshake. In the description below it is
assumed that the attacker injects the Finished message for the server to
receive it. The attack could work equally well the other way around (i.e
where the client receives the injected Finished message).
The MITM requires the following capabilities:
- The ability to manipulate the MTU that the client selects such that it
is small enough for the client to fragment Finished messages.
- The ability to selectively drop and modify records sent from the client
- The ability to inject its own records and send them to the server
The MITM forces the client to select a small MTU such that the client
will fragment the Finished message. Ideally for the attacker the first
fragment will contain all but the last byte of the Finished message,
with the second fragment containing the final byte.
During the handshake and prior to the client sending the CCS the MITM
injects a plaintext Finished message fragment to the server containing
all but the final byte of the Finished message. The message sequence
number should be the one expected to be used for the real Finished message.
OpenSSL will recognise that the received fragment is for the future and
will buffer it for later use.
After the client sends the CCS it then sends its own Finished message in
two fragments. The MITM causes the first of these fragments to be
dropped. The OpenSSL server will then receive the second of the fragments
and reassemble the complete Finished message consisting of the MITM
fragment and the final byte from the real client.
The advantage to the attacker in injecting a Finished message is that
this provides the capability to modify other handshake messages (e.g.
the ClientHello) undetected. A difficulty for the attacker is knowing in
advance what impact any of those changes might have on the final byte of
the handshake hash that is going to be sent in the "real" Finished
message. In the worst case for the attacker this means that only 1 in
256 of such injection attempts will succeed.
It may be possible in some situations for the attacker to improve this such
that all attempts succeed. For example if the handshake includes client
authentication then the final message flight sent by the client will
include a Certificate. Certificates are ASN.1 objects where the signed
portion is DER encoded. The non-signed portion could be BER encoded and so
the attacker could re-encode the certificate such that the hash for the
whole handshake comes to a different value. The certificate re-encoding
would not be detectable because only the non-signed portion is changed. As
this is the final flight of messages sent from the client the attacker
knows what the complete hanshake hash value will be that the client will
send - and therefore knows what the final byte will be. Through a process
of trial and error the attacker can re-encode the certificate until the
modified handhshake also has a hash with the same final byte. This means
that when the Finished message is verified by the server it will be
correct in all cases.
In practice the MITM would need to be able to perform the same attack
against both the client and the server. If the attack is only performed
against the server (say) then the server will not detect the modified
handshake, but the client will and will abort the connection.
Fortunately, although OpenSSL is vulnerable to Finished message
injection, it is not vulnerable if *both* client and server are OpenSSL.
The reason is that OpenSSL has a hard "floor" for a minimum MTU size
that it will never go below. This minimum means that a Finished message
will never be sent in a fragmented form and therefore the MITM does not
have one of its pre-requisites. Therefore this could only be exploited
if using OpenSSL and some other DTLS peer that had its own and separate
Finished message injection flaw.
The fix is to ensure buffered messages are cleared on epoch change.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
The DTLS implementation provides some protection against replay attacks
in accordance with RFC6347 section 4.1.2.6.
A sliding "window" of valid record sequence numbers is maintained with
the "right" hand edge of the window set to the highest sequence number we
have received so far. Records that arrive that are off the "left" hand
edge of the window are rejected. Records within the window are checked
against a list of records received so far. If we already received it then
we also reject the new record.
If we have not already received the record, or the sequence number is off
the right hand edge of the window then we verify the MAC of the record.
If MAC verification fails then we discard the record. Otherwise we mark
the record as received. If the sequence number was off the right hand edge
of the window, then we slide the window along so that the right hand edge
is in line with the newly received sequence number.
Records may arrive for future epochs, i.e. a record from after a CCS being
sent, can arrive before the CCS does if the packets get re-ordered. As we
have not yet received the CCS we are not yet in a position to decrypt or
validate the MAC of those records. OpenSSL places those records on an
unprocessed records queue. It additionally updates the window immediately,
even though we have not yet verified the MAC. This will only occur if
currently in a handshake/renegotiation.
This could be exploited by an attacker by sending a record for the next
epoch (which does not have to decrypt or have a valid MAC), with a very
large sequence number. This means the right hand edge of the window is
moved very far to the right, and all subsequent legitimate packets are
dropped causing a denial of service.
A similar effect can be achieved during the initial handshake. In this
case there is no MAC key negotiated yet. Therefore an attacker can send a
message for the current epoch with a very large sequence number. The code
will process the record as normal. If the hanshake message sequence number
(as opposed to the record sequence number that we have been talking about
so far) is in the future then the injected message is bufferred to be
handled later, but the window is still updated. Therefore all subsequent
legitimate handshake records are dropped. This aspect is not considered a
security issue because there are many ways for an attacker to disrupt the
initial handshake and prevent it from completing successfully (e.g.
injection of a handshake message will cause the Finished MAC to fail and
the handshake to be aborted). This issue comes about as a result of trying
to do replay protection, but having no integrity mechanism in place yet.
Does it even make sense to have replay protection in epoch 0? That
issue isn't addressed here though.
This addressed an OCAP Audit issue.
CVE-2016-2181
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
During a DTLS handshake we may get records destined for the next epoch
arrive before we have processed the CCS. In that case we can't decrypt or
verify the record yet, so we buffer it for later use. When we do receive
the CCS we work through the queue of unprocessed records and process them.
Unfortunately the act of processing wipes out any existing packet data
that we were still working through. This includes any records from the new
epoch that were in the same packet as the CCS. We should only process the
buffered records if we've not got any data left.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Run util/openssl-format-source on ssl/
Some comments and hand-formatted tables were fixed up
manually by disabling auto-formatting.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Feedback on the previous SSLv2 ClientHello processing fix was that it
breaks layering by reading init_num in the record layer. It also does not
detect if there was a previous non-fatal warning.
This is an alternative approach that directly tracks in the record layer
whether this is the first record.
GitHub Issue #1298
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
Thanks to Peter Gijsels for pointing out that if a CBC record has 255
bytes of padding, the first was not being checked.
(This is an import of change 80842bdb from BoringSSL.)
Reviewed-by: Emilia Käsper <emilia@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1431)
Baroque, almost uncommented code triggers behaviour which is undefined
by the C standard. You might quite reasonably not care that the code was
broken on ones-complement machines, but if we support a ubsan build then
we need to at least pretend to care.
It looks like the special-case code for 64-bit big-endian is going to
behave differently (and wrongly) on wrap-around, because it treats the
values as signed. That seems wrong, and allows replay and other attacks.
Surely you need to renegotiate and start a new epoch rather than
wrapping around to sequence number zero again?
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
DTLSv1_client_method() is deprecated, but it was the only way to obtain
DTLS1_BAD_VER support. The SSL_OP_CISCO_ANYCONNECT hack doesn't work with
DTLS_client_method(), and it's relatively non-trivial to make it work without
expanding the hack into lots of places.
So deprecate SSL_OP_CISCO_ANYCONNECT with DTLSv1_client_method(), and make
it work with SSL_CTX_set_{min,max}_proto_version(DTLS1_BAD_VER) instead.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
The MULTIBLOCK code uses a "jumbo" sized write buffer which it allocates
and then frees later. Pipelining however introduced multiple pipelines. It
keeps track of how many pipelines are initialised using numwpipes.
Unfortunately the MULTIBLOCK code was not updating this when in deallocated
its buffers, leading to a buffer being marked as initialised but set to
NULL.
RT#4618
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
