| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
OTP-14236 requires ssl runtime dependencies to update to latest public_key.
OTP-14181 makes ssl test cases dependent on latest version latest public_key.
|
|
ssl_pkix_db should not hard code names. On the other hand the names
are nicer with as <Prefix>_dist than <Prefix>dist.
|
|
* ingela/ssl/session-cache-max/OTP-14556:
ssl: Mend Max session handling
|
|
The commit 256e01ce80b3aadd63f303b9bda5722ad313220f was a misunderstanding
that actually broke the implementation.
It is not so important to keep specific max, rather max is a threshold
when the table should be shrinked as to not grow indefinitely.
New sessions are created when the id is created and may be short lived
it they are not registered for reuse due to handshake failure.
|
|
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.
|
|
* ingela/ssl/dtls-alert-handling/OTP-14078:
dtls: Customize alert handling for DTLS over UDP
|
|
Test that DTLS handles "high" level packet types as http-packet types.
Low level packet type as {packet, 2} we will consider later if they
should be relevant to support or not.
|
|
|
|
Only DTLS specific code deals with DTLS version, when common code
is used the DTLS version should be converted to the corresponding TLS version.
|
|
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.
|
|
* ingela/ssl/cert-handling:
ssl: Correct cipher suite handling
ssl: Modernize DSA cert chain generation
ssl: Clean
ssl: Remove test of OpenSSL
ssl: Use new cert generation
|
|
Correct type specification in ssl:prf/5
|
|
This is mainly fixing the test suites so that they test the intended cipher
suites, issue reported in ERL-460.
Also ssl_cipher:anonymous_suites was corrected for DTLS.
|
|
Current implementation expects Seed to be a list.
Correct type specification to match.
|
|
|
|
state can not be determined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Correct close semantics for active once connections. This was a timing dependent bug the resulted in the close message not always reaching the ssl user process.
OTP-14443
|
|
This is taken from
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1479#issuecomment-304667528 with
permission from Ingela Andin and improves commit 8abe16c22d.
|
|
The commit 8b10920 (OTP 19.3.1) fixed the non-delivery of final TLS
record in {active, once}, but this causes the ssl_closed message to be
lost when the TCP connection closes before ssl:close/1. The patch
restores the behavior of OTP 18.
This is the second part to fix https://bugs.erlang.org/browse/ERL-420
|
|
Make sure to use current epoch as input to send_handshake_flight.
|
|
|
|
An UDP socket does note have a connection and should
not recive econnreset, however this happens on on some windows versions.
Just ignoring it appears to make things work as expected!
|
|
|
|
* ingela/dtls/opts:
ssl: Adopt setopts and getopts for DTLS
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ingela/dtls/replay-protect/OTP-14077:
dtls: Implement replay protection
|
|
See RFC 6347 section 3.3
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ingela/ssl/cacha-default/OTP-14382:
ssl: Cacha is currently not tested enough to be most prefered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
AEAD handling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
