| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
* ingela/ssl/extend-hostname-check/OTP-14632/OTP-14655:
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
|
|
Use ?FUNCTION_NAME macro to enhance code as we will not back-port this
version of the ssl application to versions pre OTP 19.
|
|
|
|
If no SNI is available and the hostname is an IP-address also check
for IP-address match. This check is not as good as a DNS hostname check
and certificates using IP-address are not recommended.
|
|
|
|
It is desirable to be as specific as possible in the info message, so
there can be no mistake if the alert is form the peer or generated by
us. This use to be an error message, but it is better to make it an
info message as sending an ALERT ending the connection is an expected
behaviour.
|
|
Only DTLS specific code deals with DTLS version, when common code
is used the DTLS version should be converted to the corresponding TLS version.
|
|
Correct type specification in ssl:prf/5
|
|
Current implementation expects Seed to be a list.
Correct type specification to match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conflicts:
OTP_VERSION
lib/inets/vsn.mk
lib/ssl/vsn.mk
|
|
|
|
When the server_name_indication is sent automatize the
clients check of that the hostname is present in the
servers certificate. Currently server_name_indication shall
be on the dns_id format. If server_name_indication is disabled
it is up to the user to do its own check in the verify_fun.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Add session_id and remove undocumented ssl:session_info/1
Add client_random, server_random and master_secret, they will not be included
in ssl:connection_information/1 as they may affect the connections security if
used recklessly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 .
|
|
|
|
Use map instead of large tuple, which was not an option when the code
was written originally. More simplifications along these lines may
be done later to the state record.
|
|
When the terminate function is called explicitly, to make guarantees
that for instance the reuseaddr option works as expected, we must
make sure that the clean up code is not run again when gen_statem
calls terminate. This check was broken in the rewrite from gen_fsm to
gen_statem.
Caused PEM cache errors, that in some cases would
cause unexpected connection failures.
|
|
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.
|
|
As per RFC 4492 Sec 5.1, the preferred order of selection of named
curves is based on client preferences.
Currently, the SSL application only picks entries according to the
absolute order of entries as tracked in a hardcoded list in code.
This patch changes things so that the client-specified order is
preferred. It also allows a mode where the server can be configured to
override the client's preferred order with its own, although the chosen
ECC must still be within both lists.
The configuration is done through the following options:
- `eccs`, shared by clients and servers alike, allows the specification
of the supported named curves, in their preferred order, and may
eventually support more values for explicit primes and so on.
- `honor_ecc_order`, a server-only option, is similar to
`honor_cipher_order` and will, by default let the server pick the
client-preferred ECC, and otherwise pick the server-preferred one.
The default value for `eccs` is the same as before, although the
server-chosen ECC now defaults to the client rather than previous
choice.
A function `ssl:eccs()` has been added that returns the highest
supported ECCs for the library.
|
|
selected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We want to share more alert and application data handling code.
Some of the application data handling code, packet handling,
will not be relevant for dtls, but this code can be excluded from dtls
by options checking.
|
|
ssl_handshake:update_handshake_history
This proably a much bigger problem for DTLS than TLS, but should be
disabled for both unless explicitly configured for TLS.
|
|
When protocol version is proagated from the DTLS connection processes
state into general ssl functions it must be converted to the corresponding
TLS version.
|
|
Conflicts:
lib/ssl/src/ssl_handshake.erl
|
|
Conflicts:
lib/ssl/src/ssl_connection.erl
|
|
|
|
In TLS-1.2 the selection of the servers algorithms and the the
possible selection of algorithms for the client certificate verify
message have different requirements.
|
|
The flight concept was introduced by DTLS (RFC 4347) to optimize
the packing of DTLS records into UDP packets. This change
implments the flight concept in the the generic SSL connection
logic and add the queue logic to the TLS and DTLS stack.
The DTLS required resend handling is not implemented yet.
While the flight handling is only required for DTSL, it turns
out that the same mechanism can be usefull to TCP based TLS as
well.
With the current scheme each TLS record will be mapped into a
separate TCP frame. This causes more TCP frames to be generate
that necessary. On fast network this will have no impact, but
reducing the number of frames and thereby the number of
round trips can result in significant speedups on slow and
unreliable networks.
Conflicts:
lib/ssl/src/tls_connection.erl
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of cases where `ssl` application just returns unhelpful
`handshake failure` or `internal error`. This patch tries to provide
better diagnostics so operator can debug his SSL misconfiguration
without doing hardcore erlang debugging.
Here is an example escript that incorrectly uses server certificate as a
client one:
https://gist.github.com/binarin/35c34c2df7556bf04c8a878682ef3d67
With the patch it is properly reported as an error in "extended key
usage".
|
|
|
|
* kennethlakin/tls-use-negotiated-prf/PR-1042/OTP-13546:
ssl: Use cipher suite's PRF in prf/5
|
|
|
|
Use the negotiated cipher suite's PRF algorithm in calls to
ssl:prf/5, rather than a hard-coded one.
For TLS 1.0 the PRF algorithm was hard-coded to MD5/SHA1. This
was correct 100% of the time.
For TLS 1.1 and 1.2 the PRF algorithm was hard-coded to SHA256.
This was correct only some of the time for TLS 1.2 and none of the
time for TLS 1.1. Because the TLS handshake code calls tls_v1:prf/5
through another path, the handshaking process used the negotiated
PRF and did not encounter this bug.
A new test (prf) has been added to ssl_basic_SUITE to guard against future
breakage.
|
|
Also reduce timing issues in tests
|
|
ssl already used crypto:strong_rand_bytes/1 for most operations as
its use cases are mostly cryptographical. Now crypto:strong_rand_bytes/1
will be used everywhere.
However crypto:rand_bytes/1 was used as fallback if
crypto:strong_rand_bytes/1 throws low_entropy, this
will no longer be the case. This is a potential incompatibility.
The fallback was introduced a long time ago for interoperability reasons.
Now days this should not be a problem, and if it is, the security
compromise is not acceptable anyway.
|
|
* henrik/update-copyrightyear:
update copyright-year
|
|
In TLS-1.2 The signature algorithm and the hash function algorithm
used to produce the digest that is used when creating the digital signature
may be negotiated through the signature algorithm extension RFC 5246.
We want to make these algorithm pairs configurable.
In connections using lower versions of TLS these algorithms are
implicit defined and can not be negotiated or configured.
DTLS is updated to not cause dialyzer errors, but needs to get a real
implementation later.
|
|
|
