Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Validate early TLS1.3 handshake types in s2n_conn_set_tls13_handshake_type #3047

Open
lrstewart opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 0 comments
Open
Labels

Comments

@lrstewart
Copy link
Contributor

Problem:

In TLS1.3, some handshake flags are set before SERVER_HELLO, so are set before s2n_conn_set_tls13_handshake_type. This is potentially a concern for the proofs, which now have to assume those flags are set in a reasonable way because they are set outside of the logic we prove.

See #3031 (comment)

Solution:

We could check in s2n_conn_set_tls13_handshake_type that the early handshake flags are set properly. For example, fail if EARLY_CLIENT_CCS is set but MIDDLEBOX_COMPAT isn't. That would bring the missing handshake type logic back into the scope of the proofs.

  • Does this change what S2N sends over the wire? If yes, explain.
  • Does this change any public APIs? If yes, explain.
  • Which versions of TLS will this impact?

Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:

What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?

  • RFC links: Links to relevant RFC(s)
  • Related Issues: Link any relevant issues
  • Will the Usage Guide or other documentation need to be updated?
  • Testing: How will this change be tested? Call out new integration tests, functional tests, or particularly interesting/important unit tests.
    • Will this change trigger SAW changes? Changes to the state machine, the s2n_handshake_io code that controls state transitions, the DRBG, or the corking/uncorking logic could trigger SAW failures.
    • Should this change be fuzz tested? Will it handle untrusted input? Create a separate issue to track the fuzzing work.

Out of scope:

Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants