GCC 4.6 is the default compiler on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and other LTS
distros so it isn't a complete waste of time to support it. Luckily, it
is easy to do so.
Later versions of GCC and Clang treat these as being equivalent to
`-std=c11` and `-std=c++11`, respectively. GCC 4.6 doesn't understand
the latter form, unfortunately.
GCC reports either 4 or 8 for `alignof(uint64_t)` depending on the
version, so adjust the test so that they all work by being liberal with
whichever value the C compiler uses.
Rust's core::mem::align_of<i64> and core::mem::align_of<u64> are 4
for i686-apple-darwin and i686-unknown-linux-gnu, but the C compiler
returns 8 for them. And, surprisingly, neither of them is 100% wrong.
`#[cfg(target_pointer_width)]` in a build script is the host pointer
width, not the end-target pointer width, because during the build of
the build script, the target is the host. Due to this confusion, the
calculation of the constants for P-224 was wrong when the
`sizeof(BN_ULONG)` on the host did not match `sizeof(BN_ULONG)`. To
solve this, limit the curves we support to P-256 and P-384, where
`sizeof(BN_ULONG)` doesn't affect the calculations.
These tests worked fine (somehow) in 64-bit builds and on Windows but
they didn't work on 32-bit Linux or 32-bit Mac OS X builds due to the
`ring_X_align` and `ring_X_size` functions having the wrong return type
in the C code.
Take the mappings for MD5 and SHA-224 values out of the code altogether. This
aligns with the current TLS 1.3 draft.
For MD5, this is a no-op. It is not currently possible to configure accepted
signature algorithms, MD5 wasn't in the hardcoded list, and we already had a
test ensuring we enforced our preferences correctly. MD5 also wasn't in the
default list of hashes our keys could sign and no one overrides it with a
different hash.
For SHA-224, this is not quite a no-op. The hardcoded accepted signature
algorithms list included SHA-224, so this will break servers relying on that.
However, Chrome's metrics have zero data points of servers picking SHA-224 and
no other major browser includes it. Thus that should be safe.
SHA-224 was also in the default list of hashes we are willing to sign. For
client certificates, Chromium's abstractions already did not allow signing
SHA-224, so this is a no-op there. For servers, this will break any clients
which only accept SHA-224. But no major browsers do this and I am not aware of
any client implementation which does such ridiculous thing.
(SHA-1's still in there. Getting rid of that one is going to take more effort.)
Change-Id: I6a765fdeea9e19348e409d58a0eac770b318e599
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/7020
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The |inline| must appear before the type.
Change-Id: Iecebbcc50024a846d7804228a858acfc33d68efd
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/7010
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
This is the BoringSSL version of *ring*'s
f111a76b8db2ab2ebf698d709933aa877591b3cd. The only difference is that
one statement is above a comment instead of below it.
This is the BoringSSL version of *ring*'s
4e7d5e348364cf31e08c525971f9bdb1f14cde7f.
crypto/modes/ctr.c has already been remoed in *ring*, and that was
the only difference.
Finally, we can stick ScopedFOO in containers.
Change-Id: I3ed166575822af9f182e8be8f4db723e1f08ea31
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6553
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
Although RFC 3279 allows both, per RFC 5912, keys must use a named curve
rather than spelling out the curve parameters. Although we do not allow
arbitrary curves, we do have to (pretty hackishly) recognize built-in
curves in ECPrivateKeys.
It seems the cause of this was that OpenSSL, unless you set asn1_flag on
the EC_GROUP, likes to encode keys by spelling out the parameters. This
is in violation of RFC 5915, though probably not in violation of one of
the other redundant ECC specifications. For more fun, it appears
asn1_flag defaults to *off* in the API and *on* in the command-line
tools.
I think the original cause was these defaults meant the pre-BoringSSL
Android/OpenSSL Chromium port wrote out Channel ID keys in this format.
By now this should no longer by an issue, but it'll warrant a bit more
investigation to be sure we can drop it.
For now, keep this logic out of SPKIs by not calling d2i_ECParameters.
d2i_ECParameters is a fairly pointless function when only named curves
are allowed. In testing other implementations, none of Firefox, Safari,
or IE11/Win will parse such certificates (i.e. the error is fatal and
unbypassable). Likewise, because Mac and Windows' underlying libraries
reject this, Chrome on Mac and Windows already rejects such things. Thus
this change should be compatible.
The following is the certificate and key I constructed to test with:
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
-----BEGIN EC PARAMETERS-----
MIH3AgEBMCwGByqGSM49AQECIQD/////AAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP//////////
/////zBbBCD/////AAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP///////////////AQgWsY12Ko6
k+ez671VdpiGvGUdBrDMU7D2O848PifSYEsDFQDEnTYIhucEk2pmeOETnSa3gZ9+
kARBBGsX0fLhLEJH+Lzm5WOkQPJ3A32BLeszoPShOUXYmMKWT+NC4v4af5uO5+tK
fA+eFivOM1drMV7Oy7ZAaDe/UfUCIQD/////AAAAAP//////////vOb6racXnoTz
ucrC/GMlUQIBAQ==
-----END EC PARAMETERS-----
-----BEGIN EC PRIVATE KEY-----
MHcCAQEEIAcPCHJ61KBKnN1ZyU2JaHcItW/JXTB3DujRyc4Ki7RqoAoGCCqGSM49
AwEHoUQDQgAE5itp4r9ln5e+Lx4NlIpM1Zdrt6keDUb73ampHp3culoB59aXqAoY
+cPEox5W4nyDSNsWGhz1HX7xlC1Lz3IiwQ==
-----END EC PRIVATE KEY-----
BUG=522228
Change-Id: I3723411a633dc07c4640027de07500293f8f7913
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6853
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
OpenSSL accepts both OID 2.5.8.1.1 and OID 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1 for RSA
public keys. The latter comes from RFC 3279 and is widely implemented.
The former comes from the ITU-T version of X.509. Interestingly,
2.5.8.1.1 actually has a parameter, which OpenSSL ignores:
rsa ALGORITHM ::= {
KeySize
IDENTIFIED BY id-ea-rsa
}
KeySize ::= INTEGER
Remove support for 2.5.8.1.1 completely. In tests with a self-signed
certificate and code inspection:
- IE11 on Win8 does not accept the certificate in a TLS handshake at
all. Such a certificate is fatal and unbypassable. However Microsoft's
libraries do seem to parse it, so Chrome on Windows allows one to
click through the error. I'm guessing either the X.509 stack accepts
it while the TLS stack doesn't recognize it as RSA or the X.509 stack
is able to lightly parse it but not actually understand the key. (The
system certificate UI didn't display it as an RSA key, so probably the
latter?)
- Apple's certificate library on 10.11.2 does not parse the certificate
at all. Both Safari and Chrome on Mac treat it as a fatal and
unbypassable error.
- mozilla::pkix, from code inspection, does not accept such
certificates. However, Firefox does allow clicking through the error.
This is likely a consequence of mozilla::pkix and NSS having different
ASN.1 stacks. I did not test this, but I expect this means Chrome on
Linux also accepts it.
Given IE and Safari's results, it should be safe to simply remove this.
Firefox's data point is weak (perhaps someone is relying on being able
to click-through a self-signed 2.5.8.1.1 certificate), but it does
further ensure no valid certificate could be doing this.
The following is the 2.5.8.1.1 certificate I constructed to test with.
The private key is key.pem from ssl/test/runner:
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
BUG=522228
Change-Id: I031d03c0f53a16cbc749c4a5d8be6efca50dc863
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6852
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
Normally this would be pretty scary:
if (...) {
} if (...) {
}
But it's an early return anyway.
Change-Id: I0a8965b5e294d3aaa803be47f4006ea0311c431d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6851
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
