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
Currently clients default to S2N_CERT_AUTH_NONE (reject any attempt at mutual auth). That makes sense for servers, but seems strange for clients, which don't necessarily know ahead of time if servers will request client auth or not.
Investigate reasoning behind old behavior.
Change the default behavior.
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:
Currently clients default to S2N_CERT_AUTH_NONE (reject any attempt at mutual auth). That makes sense for servers, but seems strange for clients, which don't necessarily know ahead of time if servers will request client auth or not.
See #4381
Solution:
Investigate reasoning behind old behavior.
Change the default behavior.
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: