Skip to content
  1. Oct 29, 2018
  2. Oct 28, 2018
  3. Oct 27, 2018
    • Bernd Edlinger's avatar
      Fix data race in RAND_DRBG_generate · 1f985276
      Bernd Edlinger authored
      
      
      Fixes #7394
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarPaul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7399)
      
      (cherry picked from commit a83dc59afa2e0207180d7218efed19b20d48de95)
      1f985276
    • Dr. Matthias St. Pierre's avatar
      RAND_add()/RAND_seed(): fix failure on short input or low entropy · d597a9a8
      Dr. Matthias St. Pierre authored
      
      
      Commit 5b4cb385c18a (#7382) introduced a bug which had the effect
      that RAND_add()/RAND_seed() failed for buffer sizes less than
      32 bytes. The reason was that now the added random data was used
      exlusively as entropy source for reseeding. When the random input
      was too short or contained not enough entropy, the DRBG failed
      without querying the available entropy sources.
      
      This commit makes drbg_add() act smarter: it checks the entropy
      requirements explicitely. If the random input fails this check,
      it won't be added as entropy input, but only as additional data.
      More precisely, the behaviour depends on whether an os entropy
      source was configured (which is the default on most os):
      
      - If an os entropy source is avaible then we declare the buffer
        content as additional data by setting randomness to zero and
        trigger a regular   reseeding.
      
      - If no os entropy source is available, a reseeding will fail
        inevitably. So drbg_add() uses a trick to mix the buffer contents
        into the DRBG state without forcing a reseeding: it generates a
        dummy random byte, using the buffer content as additional data.
      
      Related-to: #7449
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarPaul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7456)
      
      (cherry picked from commit 8817215d5c52a76f2b184b624bde4df8556dee6d)
      d597a9a8
  4. Oct 26, 2018
  5. Oct 25, 2018
    • Richard Levitte's avatar
      Windows: Produce a static version of the public libraries, always · 85299451
      Richard Levitte authored
      
      
      When building shared libraries on Windows, we had a clash between
      'libcrypto.lib' the static routine library and 'libcrypto.lib' the
      import library.
      
      We now change it so the static versions of our libraries get '_static'
      appended to their names.  These will never get installed, but can
      still be used for our internal purposes, such as internal tests.
      
      When building non-shared, the renaming mechanism doesn't come into
      play.  In that case, the static libraries 'libcrypto.lib' and
      'libssl.lib' are installed, just as always.
      
      Fixes #7492
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7496)
      
      (cherry picked from commit b3023ced)
      85299451
  6. Oct 23, 2018
  7. Oct 22, 2018
    • Dr. Matthias St. Pierre's avatar
      RAND_add(): fix heap corruption in error path · ece482ff
      Dr. Matthias St. Pierre authored
      
      
      This bug was introduced by #7382 which enhanced RAND_add() to
      accept large buffer sizes. As a consequence, RAND_add() now fails
      for buffer sizes less than 32 bytes (i.e. less than 256 bits).
      In addition, rand_drbg_get_entropy() forgets to reset the attached
      drbg->pool in the case of an error, which leads to the heap corruption.
      
      The problem occurred with RAND_load_file(), which reads the file in
      chunks of 1024 bytes each. If the size of the final chunk is less than
      32 bytes, then RAND_add() fails, whence RAND_load_file() fails
      silently for buffer sizes n = k * 1024 + r with r = 1,...,31.
      
      This commit fixes the heap corruption only. The other issues will
      be addressed in a separate pull request.
      
      Thanks to Gisle Vanem for reporting this issue.
      
      Fixes #7449
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarPaul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7455)
      
      (cherry picked from commit 5b4cb385c18a5bb4e118e300f1c746bf7c2a5628)
      ece482ff
  8. Oct 21, 2018
  9. Oct 19, 2018
  10. Oct 18, 2018
    • armfazh's avatar
      Fix tls_cbc_digest_record is slow using SHA-384 and short messages · aa519853
      armfazh authored
      
      
      The formula used for this is now
      
      kVarianceBlocks = ((255 + 1 + md_size + md_block_size - 1) / md_block_size) + 1
      
      Notice that md_block_size=64 for SHA256, which results on the
      magic constant kVarianceBlocks = 6.
      However, md_block_size=128 for SHA384 leading to kVarianceBlocks = 4.
      
      CLA:trivial
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarPaul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7342)
      
      (cherry picked from commit cb8164b0)
      aa519853
    • Viktor Dukhovni's avatar
      Apply self-imposed path length also to root CAs · a190ea8a
      Viktor Dukhovni authored
      
      
      Also, some readers of the code find starting the count at 1 for EE
      cert confusing (since RFC5280 counts only non-self-issued intermediate
      CAs, but we also counted the leaf).  Therefore, never count the EE
      cert, and adjust the path length comparison accordinly.  This may
      be more clear to the reader.
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
      (cherry picked from commit dc5831da)
      a190ea8a
    • Viktor Dukhovni's avatar
      Only CA certificates can be self-issued · bb692394
      Viktor Dukhovni authored
      At the bottom of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#page-12 and
      top of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#page-13 (last paragraph
      of above https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-3.3), we see:
      
         This specification covers two classes of certificates: CA
         certificates and end entity certificates.  CA certificates may be
         further divided into three classes: cross-certificates, self-issued
         certificates, and self-signed certificates.  Cross-certificates are
         CA certificates in which the issuer and subject are different
         entities.  Cross-certificates describe a trust relationship between
         the two CAs.  Self-issued certificates are CA certificates in which
         the issuer and subject are the same entity.  Self-issued certificates
         are generated to support changes in policy or operations.  Self-
         signed certificates are self-issued certificates where the digital
         signature may be verified by the public key bound into the
         certificate.  Self-signed certificates are used to convey a public
         key for use to begin certification paths.  End entity certificates
         are issued to subjects that are not authorized to issue certificates.
      
      that the term "self-issued" is only applicable to CAs, not end-entity
      certificates.  In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.9
      
      
      the description of path length constraints says:
      
         The pathLenConstraint field is meaningful only if the cA boolean is
         asserted and the key usage extension, if present, asserts the
         keyCertSign bit (Section 4.2.1.3).  In this case, it gives the
         maximum number of non-self-issued intermediate certificates that may
         follow this certificate in a valid certification path.  (Note: The
         last certificate in the certification path is not an intermediate
         certificate, and is not included in this limit.  Usually, the last
         certificate is an end entity certificate, but it can be a CA
         certificate.)
      
      This makes it clear that exclusion of self-issued certificates from
      the path length count applies only to some *intermediate* CA
      certificates.  A leaf certificate whether it has identical issuer
      and subject or whether it is a CA or not is never part of the
      intermediate certificate count.  The handling of all leaf certificates
      must be the same, in the case of our code to post-increment the
      path count by 1, so that we ultimately reach a non-self-issued
      intermediate it will be the first one (not zeroth) in the chain
      of intermediates.
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
      (cherry picked from commit ed422a2d)
      bb692394
  11. Oct 17, 2018