| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
We want to prepare the code for more advanced DTLS usage and possibility
to run over SCTP. First assumption was that the demultiplexer process
"dtls listener" was needed for UDP only and SCTP could be made more TLS
like. However the assumption seems not to hold. This commit prepares
for customization possibilities.
|
|
* ingela/dtls/abbreviated:
dtls: Trigger resend in abbreviated handshake if change_cipher_spec is received to early.
|
|
is received to early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also make tls code a little more direct for easier uderstanding
|
|
|
|
When handling merging of back ported
Counter measurements for Bleichenbacher attack
a line from DTLS was accidentally lost.
|
|
* maint-20:
Updated OTP version
Update release notes
Update version numbers
public_key: verify ip (both v4 and v6)
public_key: Added IP4 address checks to hostname_verification tests
ssl: Fix test cases to work on all test platforms
public_key: Fix dialyzer spec
ssl: Sessions must be registered with SNI if exists
ssl: Extend hostname check to fallback to checking IP-address
public_key, ssl: Handles keys so that APIs are preserved correctly
ssl: Use ?FUNCTION_NAME
ssl: Prepare for release
ssl: Countermeasurements for Bleichenbacher attack
Conflicts:
lib/public_key/doc/src/public_key.xml
lib/public_key/test/public_key_SUITE.erl
lib/public_key/test/public_key_SUITE_data/pkix_verify_hostname_subjAltName_IP.pem
lib/public_key/test/public_key_SUITE_data/verify_hostname_ip.conf
lib/ssl/src/dtls_connection.erl
lib/ssl/src/ssl_connection.erl
lib/ssl/src/ssl_handshake.erl
|
|
'ingela/maint-20/ssl/extend-hostname-check/OTP-14632/OTP-14655/OTP-14766' into maint-20
* ingela/maint-20/ssl/extend-hostname-check/OTP-14632/OTP-14655/OTP-14766:
ssl: Fix test cases to work on all test platforms
public_key: Fix dialyzer spec
ssl: Sessions must be registered with SNI if exists
ssl: Extend hostname check to fallback to checking IP-address
public_key, ssl: Handles keys so that APIs are preserved correctly
ssl: Use ?FUNCTION_NAME
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use ?FUNCTION_NAME macro to enhance code as we will not back-port this
version of the ssl application to versions pre OTP 19.
|
|
|
|
Use ?FUNCTION_NAME macro to enhance code as we will not back-port this
version of the ssl application to versions pre OTP 19.
|
|
|
|
From RFC 6347:
4.1.2.7. Handling Invalid Records
Unlike TLS, DTLS is resilient in the face of invalid records (e.g.,
invalid formatting, length, MAC, etc.). In general, invalid
records SHOULD be silently discarded, thus preserving the
association; however, an error MAY be logged for diagnostic
purposes. Implementations which choose to generate an alert
instead, MUST generate fatal level alerts to avoid attacks where
the attacker repeatedly probes the implementation to see how it
responds to various types of error. Note that if DTLS is run over
UDP, then any implementation which does this will be extremely
susceptible to denial-of-service (DoS) attacks because UDP forgery
is so easy. Thus, this practice is NOT RECOMMENDED for such
transports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ERL-434
RFC6347 says about hello_verify_request version field as follow
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6347#page-16
The server_version field has the same syntax as in TLS. However, in
order to avoid the requirement to do version negotiation in the
initial handshake, DTLS 1.2 server implementations SHOULD use DTLS
version 1.0 regardless of the version of TLS that is expected to be
negotiated.
But current DTLS server responses DTLS1.2 instead of DTLS1.0.
|
|
Consideration of which Epoch a message belongs to is needed in the
dtls_connection:next_record function too.
|
|
|
|
Using enter actions for retransmission timers makes the code easier to
understand. Previously the retransmission timer was incorrectly started in
the connection state. Using enter actions feels like a cleaner approach
than bloating the state with more flags.
|
|
Make sure to use current epoch as input to send_handshake_flight.
|
|
|
|
* ingela/dtls/opts:
ssl: Adopt setopts and getopts for DTLS
|
|
|
|
|
|
See RFC 6347 section 3.3
|
|
|
|
Note this is a change form how it works for earlier versions that will
send the first hello message on the lowest supported version.
From RFC 5246
Appendix E. Backward Compatibility
E.1. Compatibility with TLS 1.0/1.1 and SSL 3.0
Since there are various versions of TLS (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and any
future versions) and SSL (2.0 and 3.0), means are needed to negotiate
the specific protocol version to use. The TLS protocol provides a
built-in mechanism for version negotiation so as not to bother other
protocol components with the complexities of version selection.
TLS versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, and SSL 3.0 are very similar, and use
compatible ClientHello messages; thus, supporting all of them is
relatively easy. Similarly, servers can easily handle clients trying
to use future versions of TLS as long as the ClientHello format
remains compatible, and the client supports the highest protocol
version available in the server.
A TLS 1.2 client who wishes to negotiate with such older servers will
send a normal TLS 1.2 ClientHello, containing { 3, 3 } (TLS 1.2) in
ClientHello.client_version. If the server does not support this
version, it will respond with a ServerHello containing an older
version number. If the client agrees to use this version, the
negotiation will proceed as appropriate for the negotiated protocol.
If the version chosen by the server is not supported by the client
(or not acceptable), the client MUST send a "protocol_version" alert
message and close the connection.
If a TLS server receives a ClientHello containing a version number
greater than the highest version supported by the server, it MUST
reply according to the highest version supported by the server.
A TLS server can also receive a ClientHello containing a version
number smaller than the highest supported version. If the server
wishes to negotiate with old clients, it will proceed as appropriate
for the highest version supported by the server that is not greater
than ClientHello.client_version. For example, if the server supports
TLS 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, and client_version is TLS 1.0, the server will
proceed with a TLS 1.0 ServerHello. If server supports (or is
willing to use) only versions greater than client_version, it MUST
send a "protocol_version" alert message and close the connection.
Whenever a client already knows the highest protocol version known to
a server (for example, when resuming a session), it SHOULD initiate
the connection in that native protocol.
Note: some server implementations are known to implement version
negotiation incorrectly. For example, there are buggy TLS 1.0
servers that simply close the connection when the client offers a
version newer than TLS 1.0. Also, it is known that some servers will
refuse the connection if any TLS extensions are included in
ClientHello. Interoperability with such buggy servers is a complex
topic beyond the scope of this document, and may require multiple
connection attempts by the client.
Earlier versions of the TLS specification were not fully clear on
what the record layer version number (TLSPlaintext.version) should
contain when sending ClientHello (i.e., before it is known which
version of the protocol will be employed). Thus, TLS servers
compliant with this specification MUST accept any value {03,XX} as
the record layer version number for ClientHello.
TLS clients that wish to negotiate with older servers MAY send any
value {03,XX} as the record layer version number. Typical values
would be {03,00}, the lowest version number supported by the client,
and the value of ClientHello.client_version. No single value will
guarantee interoperability with all old servers, but this is a
complex topic beyond the scope of this document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new_options_in_accept test is not working yet, however DTLS is still
work in progress and we want to make a progress merge to avoid merge conflicts
with other progress of the ssl application.
|
|
Erlang distribution requiers a reliable transport, which udp is not.
Maybe could be interesting later when SCTP support is added to DTLS.
|
|
Change retransmissions timers to use gen_statem state timeouts. We do
not need a retransmission timer in the state connection as data traffic in
DTLS over UDP is not retransmitted. If the last flight before
transitioning into connection is lost, it will be resent when the peer
resends its last flight. This will also make hibernation testing more
straight forward.
We need more adjustments later to handle a reliable DTLS transport
such as SCTP.
|
|
|
|
DTLS does not support stream ciphers and needs diffrent
handling of the "#ssl_socket{}" handle .
|
|
|
|
Beta DTLS, not production ready. Only very basically tested, and
not everything in the SPEC is implemented and some things
are hard coded that should not be, so this implementation can not be consider
secure.
Refactor "TLS connection state" and socket handling, to facilitate
DTLS implementation.
Create dtls "listner" (multiplexor) process that spawns
DTLS connection process handlers.
Handle DTLS fragmentation.
Framework for handling retransmissions.
Replay Detection is not implemented yet.
Alerts currently always handled as in TLS.
|
