Although this particular change doesn't affect me - rewriting history is a
bad idea.
Why not simply commit a revert back to a cleaner point on "master" branch
and then commit the new changes you want from there?
Then history is not lost on master branch.
Or, with the BLM movement some repos are stopping use of master branch.
github seems to be encourage it going forware:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-ter…
So another option: stop using "master" branch. You could even create a
tag/rename and then delete the branch name to avoid any confusions. History
won't be rewritten then, just a little "hidden".
And start using a new "main" branch. You can push you entire commit series
there without revering anything on master branch.
Regards,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Mbed-tls-announce
[mailto:mbed-tls-announce-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of
Janos Follath via Mbed-tls-announce
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 4:09 AM
To: mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: [Mbed-tls-announce] Force push on the master branch
Hi All,
The master branch used to track the latest development release. This changed
in early 2019 after the 2.16 LTS branch was released. Around this time the
cryptography library of Mbed TLS was moved to a separate repository and
since then it was used as a submodule. This was one of the main reasons
behind the decision to keep master pointing to the 2.16 LTS releases.
Recently we have merged the cryptography library back into Mbed TLS. We
don't have any reasons any more to keep master tracking the 2.16 LTS
release. Therefore we intend to update master to the latest development
release. This will happen on 3rd August.
The update will involve a force push, which can be disruptive to those users
who take Mbed TLS from master. We would like to give such users enough time
to adapt to this change. If you are relying on the master branch in a way
that this force push affects you, please let us know on the developer
mailing list<https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls>
and we will do our best to accommodate your needs.
Thanks and regards,
Janos
(on behalf of the Mbed TLS maintainer team)
--
Mbed-tls-announce mailing list
Mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls-announce
Hi All,
The master branch used to track the latest development release. This changed in early 2019 after the 2.16 LTS branch was released. Around this time the cryptography library of Mbed TLS was moved to a separate repository and since then it was used as a submodule. This was one of the main reasons behind the decision to keep master pointing to the 2.16 LTS releases.
Recently we have merged the cryptography library back into Mbed TLS. We don't have any reasons any more to keep master tracking the 2.16 LTS release. Therefore we intend to update master to the latest development release. This will happen on 3rd August.
The update will involve a force push, which can be disruptive to those users who take Mbed TLS from master. We would like to give such users enough time to adapt to this change. If you are relying on the master branch in a way that this force push affects you, please let us know on the developer mailing list<https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls> and we will do our best to accommodate your needs.
Thanks and regards,
Janos
(on behalf of the Mbed TLS maintainer team)
--
Mbed-tls-announce mailing list
Mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls-announce
Hi Jeff,
> Given the age of the version of mbedTLS I’m using, which is 2.13.1, plus the recent security alert, I think I need to upgrade the version of mbedTLS we have. The question is, which version to use?
Indeed upgrading to a maintained branch is very recommended! There are currently two actively maintained branches you could use:
* 2.16.x, which is our latest LTS branch, currently at 2.16.7. As an LTS branch, it only receives bug fixes and security updates, so it's pretty stable. In particular, since it doesn't receive any new feature, its footprint (code size) should remain mostly stable as well.
* 2.x.y, released from the development branch, currently at 2.23.0. This is the branch where new features land.
Both of these have full API compatibility with 2.13.1. We take great care not to break API compatibility between major releases - we haven't broken it since Mbed TLS 2.0.0 (release 2015-07-13), and the next release to break API compatibility with be 3.0.0 (now planned for early 2021). Until then, upgrading should be a simple matter of replacing the mbedtls directory in your source tree with the version of your choice, then rebuilding your project. (Moreover in the LTS branches we actually try maintain ABI compatibility as far as possible - that is, unless there's a security issue that can only be fixed by changing the ABI.)
Mbed TLS is designed bo be quite modular an integrate with the OS and networking stack via user-provided hooks and compile-time configuration (`include/mbedtls/config.h`). I'm not sure how the integration with LwIP and FreeRTOS was done by your MCU vendor, but I suggest you check:
* is the mbedtls directory in your source tree identical to our upstream release? If yes, you should be able to just replace it with the release of your choice and things should work.
* otherwise, what's the nature of the differences: are filed shuffled to a different directory structure? is the build system different? has the `mbedtls/config.h` file been modified? have other files been modified (which ideally really shouldn't be necessary)? In that case, you'll probably need to apply the same changes to the upgraded version of Mbed TLS. Hopefully the differences if any will be small, and otherwise perhaps you MCU vendor can provide documentation about it.
So I can't really say for this specific integration, but in principle upgrading Mbed TLS should be really painless - precisely so that people can upgrade easily in case of security fixes.
Hope this helps, and let us know how it went!
Regards,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Thompson, Jeff via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 14 July 2020 22:11
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Upgrading from 2.13.1.to ??.??.??
Given the age of the version of mbedTLS I’m using, which is 2.13.1, plus the recent security alert, I think I need to upgrade the version of mbedTLS we have. The question is, which version to use?
Because we got mbedTLS as example code from the MCU vendor, it was already integrated with lwIP and FreeRTOS. I’m sure this will not be a trivial effort, but I do need to present my management with some idea of the time it could take. Does anyone have a rough estimate of what to expect? I’m thinking on the order of 2 to 4 weeks for someone who is an experienced C programmer, but unfamiliar with either mbedTLS or lwIP. Or is that a pipe dream, with the actual time being closer to 3 or 4 months?
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D659E2.BE6C0700]
Given the age of the version of mbedTLS I'm using, which is 2.13.1, plus the recent security alert, I think I need to upgrade the version of mbedTLS we have. The question is, which version to use?
Because we got mbedTLS as example code from the MCU vendor, it was already integrated with lwIP and FreeRTOS. I'm sure this will not be a trivial effort, but I do need to present my management with some idea of the time it could take. Does anyone have a rough estimate of what to expect? I'm thinking on the order of 2 to 4 weeks for someone who is an experienced C programmer, but unfamiliar with either mbedTLS or lwIP. Or is that a pipe dream, with the actual time being closer to 3 or 4 months?
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D659E2.BE6C0700]
Hi;
For a while I've had a couple of projects pulling in mbed-tls from the
trustedfirmware.org git repository at
https://git.trustedfirmware.org/tls/mbed-tls.git
However, I just attempted to clone from that repository again only to
discover it's now empty! I've searched around and I can't find any
messaging on why this would be the case, so it's either an accident or my
search foo is failing me.
It looks like the majority of development for mbed-tls is still happening
on github at https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls.git but I'd rather point my
upstream to the canonical location.
Is this a temporary outage, or should github be considered the origin of
all things mbed-tls?
Thanks,
Matt Walker
Hi all,
I have been using Mbed TLS with mutual certificate-based authentication all the time.
Here is the configuration:
[cid:image004.jpg@01D65150.65DFD610]
Here is a link to a webinar where I talk about certificate-based authentication and show-case mutual authentication with a Keil development board:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH4v-aXQ2zQ<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH4v-aXQ2zQ&feature=emb_logo>
Slides are here: http://www2.keil.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/keil_mbed…
>From what I can tell (trying to connect to your test server myself) you haven't configured the auth_mode=required on the server side.
Without it the TLS server will not send a CertificateRequest message.
Ciao
Hannes
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Abhilash Iyer via mbed-tls
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 2:56 PM
To: Subramanian Gopi Krishnan <gopikrishnan.subramanian(a)kone.com>
Cc: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Mutual Authentication in TLS handshake - No client certificate passed
Hi Gopi,
Thank you very much for your feedback. I double checked all the recommended configuration that you mentioned but it did not help. I really suspect if I have hit a mbedTLS limitation here.
Following our conversation, I tried connecting to the server using openSSL.
Server: https://preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net/api/v1/device/auth<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.a…>
OpenSSL commands:
OpenSSL> s_client -connect preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net:443 -showcerts -debug -msg -state -tls1_2 -cert certificate1.pem -key privateKey1.pem
GET /api/v1/device/auth HTTP/1.1
HOST:preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net
With the above commands, I am able to send the client certificate to the server. I have attached the openSSL logs to show the flow of TLS activity.
As per the logs attached, this is the flow of activity:
1. In the first TLS handshake there is no certificate request and no client certificate sent. I see ClientHello, ServerHello, ServerCertificate, ServerKeyExchange, Server Done, ClientKeyExchange, Change cipher spec, Certificate chain information and Server Cert. Till here, I do see: No client certificate CA names sent.
2. Now when I do a Get call & pass the HOST, client writes that call to the server and in turn the server returns me a "HelloRequest" which is encrypted. Now, this chain of handshake has a CertificateRequest, ClientCertificate, CertificateVerify etc. I see that 1009 bytes of data been written on the server under the name of client certificate. There is no way to see this certificate because the channel is encrypted now.
3. Lastly, we get HTTP/1.1 200 OK.
Now when I do the same thing using the mbedTLS client on windows 10 PC, I see that the client gets reset during the renegotiation process. Note that the client cert was supposed to be exchanged in the renegotiation period, not the initial handshake. I have attached the logs for mbedTLS client as well and here are the commands that I use to communicate using mbedTLS client.
ssl_client2.exe server_name=preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net server_port=443 debug_level=5 auth_mode=required renegotiate=1 reconnect=1 request_page=/api/v1/device/auth crt_file=certificate1.pem key_file=privateKey1.pem ca_file=server_prev1.pem
I am wondering if this type of exchange of certs is not supported by mbedTLS at all. But it doesn't work with the remote server since this server looks for the client cert in the renegotiation phase to retain client certificate privacy. Can you confirm that this is a MBEDTLS limitation and have to move to a different library?
Thanks,
Abhilash
From: Subramanian Gopi Krishnan <gopikrishnan.subramanian(a)kone.com<mailto:gopikrishnan.subramanian@kone.com>>
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:58 PM
To: Abhilash Iyer <Abhilash.Iyer(a)microsoft.com<mailto:Abhilash.Iyer@microsoft.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [mbed-tls] Mutual Authentication in TLS handshake - No client certificate passed
Hi Abilash,
Few things to verify
1. On server side - make sure the authentication mode is set to required instead of optional.
* Test with browser, does Handshake is succeeding if cancelling to select Certificate.
* If the above were success, then proceed to modify auth_mode on server as below and test once again.
* mbedtls_ssl_conf_authmode( &conf, MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED ); - insisting Server to Request Certificate.
2. On client side - check does it has a valid Certificate & Key set to TLS Configuration
* mbedtls_ssl_conf_own_cert( &conf, &clicert, &pkey );
Thanks,
Gopi Krishnan
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Abhilash Iyer via mbed-tls
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 2:00 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Mutual Authentication in TLS handshake - No client certificate passed
This message is from an external sender. Be cautious, especially with links and attachments.
Hello,
I am trying to incorporate Mutual Authentication TLS in my hardware. For testing the mutual authentication in TLS, I setup a demo service which would request a client certificate in the TLS handshake. I used MS Edge, Google Chrome to test whether the service requests a client certificate during the TLS 1.2 handshake. When I ping the website, I do receive a request for a client certificate as shown in the image below. On selecting a certificate, I am able to access the website.
Link to the demo service: https://serviceforsomsecurity.azurewebsites.net/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservicefo…>
[A screenshot of a cell phone Description automatically generated]
The above validates that the service requires the client to provide the client certificate during the TLS handshake.
Now, when I test this with the sample mbedTLS ssl_client2.c program: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/programs/ssl/ssl_client…<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…>, the client does not send a certificate at all.
The following are the steps that I carry out to test the TLS connection with my service with the sample mbedTLS ssl_client2.exe :
1. Open the mbedTLS.sln and build the ssl_client2 project. This creates a ssl_client2.exe under the Debug folder.
2. ssl_client2.exe server_name=serviceforsomsecurity.azurewebsites.net server_port=443 debug_level=3 auth_mode=required reconnect=1 crt_file=cert.pem key_file=key.pem ca_file=Digicert.cer force_version=tls1_2
The above command to test whether the client sends the client certificate during handshake. Here's the log:
[A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated]
As you can see, in 3025 client receives: got no certificate request and then followed by server hello done at 3157. And then at 2080 & 2094, client skips writing certificate; during this handshake.
3. Then I tried including renegotiation flag:
ssl_client2.exe server_name=serviceforsomsecurity.azurewebsites.net server_port=443 debug_level=3 auth_mode=required reconnect=1 crt_file=cert.pem key_file=key.pem ca_file=Digicert.cer force_version=tls1_2 renegotiate=1
Even in this case, the client does not get the certificate and abruptly ends during renegotiation due to timeout.
I have included both the log files below for complete handshake review. [ssl_client_without_renegotiation.txt and ssl_client_with_renegotiation.txt]
Can you please let me know how to debug this client certificate problem? It will be really a great help!
Million thanks in advance.
Regards,
Abhilash
Hi Gopi,
Thank you very much for your feedback. I double checked all the recommended configuration that you mentioned but it did not help. I really suspect if I have hit a mbedTLS limitation here.
Following our conversation, I tried connecting to the server using openSSL.
Server: https://preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net/api/v1/device/auth<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.a…>
OpenSSL commands:
OpenSSL> s_client -connect preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net:443 -showcerts -debug -msg -state -tls1_2 -cert certificate1.pem -key privateKey1.pem
GET /api/v1/device/auth HTTP/1.1
HOST:preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net
With the above commands, I am able to send the client certificate to the server. I have attached the openSSL logs to show the flow of TLS activity.
As per the logs attached, this is the flow of activity:
1. In the first TLS handshake there is no certificate request and no client certificate sent. I see ClientHello, ServerHello, ServerCertificate, ServerKeyExchange, Server Done, ClientKeyExchange, Change cipher spec, Certificate chain information and Server Cert. Till here, I do see: No client certificate CA names sent.
2. Now when I do a Get call & pass the HOST, client writes that call to the server and in turn the server returns me a "HelloRequest" which is encrypted. Now, this chain of handshake has a CertificateRequest, ClientCertificate, CertificateVerify etc. I see that 1009 bytes of data been written on the server under the name of client certificate. There is no way to see this certificate because the channel is encrypted now.
3. Lastly, we get HTTP/1.1 200 OK.
Now when I do the same thing using the mbedTLS client on windows 10 PC, I see that the client gets reset during the renegotiation process. Note that the client cert was supposed to be exchanged in the renegotiation period, not the initial handshake. I have attached the logs for mbedTLS client as well and here are the commands that I use to communicate using mbedTLS client.
ssl_client2.exe server_name=preview.auth.edgeai.azure.net server_port=443 debug_level=5 auth_mode=required renegotiate=1 reconnect=1 request_page=/api/v1/device/auth crt_file=certificate1.pem key_file=privateKey1.pem ca_file=server_prev1.pem
I am wondering if this type of exchange of certs is not supported by mbedTLS at all. But it doesn't work with the remote server since this server looks for the client cert in the renegotiation phase to retain client certificate privacy. Can you confirm that this is a MBEDTLS limitation and have to move to a different library?
Thanks,
Abhilash
From: Subramanian Gopi Krishnan <gopikrishnan.subramanian(a)kone.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:58 PM
To: Abhilash Iyer <Abhilash.Iyer(a)microsoft.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [mbed-tls] Mutual Authentication in TLS handshake - No client certificate passed
Hi Abilash,
Few things to verify
1. On server side - make sure the authentication mode is set to required instead of optional.
* Test with browser, does Handshake is succeeding if cancelling to select Certificate.
* If the above were success, then proceed to modify auth_mode on server as below and test once again.
* mbedtls_ssl_conf_authmode( &conf, MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED ); - insisting Server to Request Certificate.
2. On client side - check does it has a valid Certificate & Key set to TLS Configuration
* mbedtls_ssl_conf_own_cert( &conf, &clicert, &pkey );
Thanks,
Gopi Krishnan
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Abhilash Iyer via mbed-tls
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 2:00 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Mutual Authentication in TLS handshake - No client certificate passed
This message is from an external sender. Be cautious, especially with links and attachments.
Hello,
I am trying to incorporate Mutual Authentication TLS in my hardware. For testing the mutual authentication in TLS, I setup a demo service which would request a client certificate in the TLS handshake. I used MS Edge, Google Chrome to test whether the service requests a client certificate during the TLS 1.2 handshake. When I ping the website, I do receive a request for a client certificate as shown in the image below. On selecting a certificate, I am able to access the website.
Link to the demo service: https://serviceforsomsecurity.azurewebsites.net/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservicefo…>
[A screenshot of a cell phone Description automatically generated]
The above validates that the service requires the client to provide the client certificate during the TLS handshake.
Now, when I test this with the sample mbedTLS ssl_client2.c program: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/programs/ssl/ssl_client…<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…>, the client does not send a certificate at all.
The following are the steps that I carry out to test the TLS connection with my service with the sample mbedTLS ssl_client2.exe :
1. Open the mbedTLS.sln and build the ssl_client2 project. This creates a ssl_client2.exe under the Debug folder.
2. ssl_client2.exe server_name=serviceforsomsecurity.azurewebsites.net server_port=443 debug_level=3 auth_mode=required reconnect=1 crt_file=cert.pem key_file=key.pem ca_file=Digicert.cer force_version=tls1_2
The above command to test whether the client sends the client certificate during handshake. Here's the log:
[A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated]
As you can see, in 3025 client receives: got no certificate request and then followed by server hello done at 3157. And then at 2080 & 2094, client skips writing certificate; during this handshake.
3. Then I tried including renegotiation flag:
ssl_client2.exe server_name=serviceforsomsecurity.azurewebsites.net server_port=443 debug_level=3 auth_mode=required reconnect=1 crt_file=cert.pem key_file=key.pem ca_file=Digicert.cer force_version=tls1_2 renegotiate=1
Even in this case, the client does not get the certificate and abruptly ends during renegotiation due to timeout.
I have included both the log files below for complete handshake review. [ssl_client_without_renegotiation.txt and ssl_client_with_renegotiation.txt]
Can you please let me know how to debug this client certificate problem? It will be really a great help!
Million thanks in advance.
Regards,
Abhilash