You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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.
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?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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.
Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:
What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?
Out of scope:
Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: