Good morning to all,
I am currently trying to perform RSA encryption, so I am using a file containing a public key (generated by OpenSSL) to do this.
So at the beginning I use the "mbedtls_pk_parse_keyfile" function to read it, as you can see on the image below. Unfortunately, I find the following error : ERROR 3E00 : Read/write of file failed.
Do someone have an idea of why I have this error ? Or should I change my way to read this file ?
Thanks a lot, have a nice Weekend
[cid:image002.png@01D68839.7B058100]
Hi,
Unrelated comment from my side, adding on to Manuel's comment:
It appears that ST supplies a binary blob which does make use of their
hardware crypto accelerator.
https://www.st.com/en/embedded-software/x-cube-cryptolib.html
Cheers,
Manu
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:21 PM Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard via mbed-tls
<mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On those CPUs, the AES implementation in Mbed TLS is pure C, it doesn't use any hand-written assembly. The only platforms where it does so so far are x86-64 (to take advantage of the AES-NI extension if available), and some Via CPUs (x86) that have AES acceleration as well.
>
> Regards,
> Manuel.
> ________________________________
> From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Areeb Asad via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Sent: 09 September 2020 08:32
> To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Subject: [mbed-tls] Query related to ARM - MbedTLS
>
> Hi,
>
> I hope you are doing well. I am using the mbedTLS AES library in my projects, part of my master thesis at Uppsala University.
>
> I would like to know whether the mbedTLS AES library uses any assemble specific code for operations? I am using this library on Cortex-M23 and Cortex M0+.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Hafiz Areeb Asad
> --
> mbed-tls mailing list
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
Hi,
On those CPUs, the AES implementation in Mbed TLS is pure C, it doesn't use any hand-written assembly. The only platforms where it does so so far are x86-64 (to take advantage of the AES-NI extension if available), and some Via CPUs (x86) that have AES acceleration as well.
Regards,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Areeb Asad via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 09 September 2020 08:32
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Query related to ARM - MbedTLS
Hi,
I hope you are doing well. I am using the mbedTLS AES library in my projects, part of my master thesis at Uppsala University.
I would like to know whether the mbedTLS AES library uses any assemble specific code for operations? I am using this library on Cortex-M23 and Cortex M0+.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Hafiz Areeb Asad
Hi,
I hope you are doing well. I am using the mbedTLS AES library in my
projects, part of my master thesis at Uppsala University.
I would like to know whether the mbedTLS AES library uses any assemble
specific code for operations? I am using this library on Cortex-M23 and
Cortex M0+.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Hafiz Areeb Asad
Hello,
As you may be aware, there is work in progress to implement support for
hardware drivers in Mbed TLS when using the PSA API. These are direct
calls from the PSA frontend layer to driver code, without going through
mbedtls_xxx APIs and the ALT implementations. The specifications are the
psa-driver-*.md files in
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/tree/development/docs/proposed and
you can watch the work in progress in the “Unified driver interface: API
design and prototype” epic
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-8543266 .
When an algorithm is implemented in hardware, in most cases, it is
unnecessary to include a software implementation, and it should be
possible to exclude the software implementation from the build to keep
the code size down. Unfortunately the current Mbed TLS configuration
mechanism does not support this, because it does not distinguish “I want
AES” from “I want mbedtls_aes_xxx”. So we need new compile-time options
to convey “I want PSA_KEY_TYPE_AES in my application but I don't care
whether it's done in hardware or mbedtls_aes_xxx”.
We are going to implement a configuration mechanism to select which
cryptographic algorithms are included in the PSA interface in a build of
Mbed TLS. It will rely on #define statements, like the existing
config.h, but with different naming conventions for PSA. You can see the
specification proposal at https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3628 .
Feedback is welcome. We're likely to merge this pull request soon, but
even after it's merged I'll keep watching comments, or you can post
feedback on the mailing list, or raise an issue on GitHub if you have a
specific feature request.
A major difference between the current MBEDTLS_xxx_C configuration and
the new PSA_WANT_xxx configuration is that PSA_WANT_xxx is additive: if
PSA_WANT_xxx depends on some other feature, enabling PSA_WANT_xxx will
automatically enable that feature in most cases (the exception being
when there's more than one way to enable the dependent feature, e.g.
when a hash algorithm is needed but it doesn't matter which hash). This
is in contrast with the current strict mechanism where enabling
MBEDTLS_xxx_C is an error if it depends on some other feature that isn't
enabled. We haven't decided yet, but we're thinking of changing to an
additive mechanism for the whole Mbed TLS configuration in Mbed TLS 3.0.
If you want to watch the implementation work in progress, it will be
under the “Driver Interface: Removing unused code” epic
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-9449707 .
Note that the #define-based mechanism is somewhat experimental and we
won't commit yet about its long-term stability in Mbed TLS. It is likely
to be complemented by a JSON-based mechanism in the future. This JSON
mechanism would be similar to the proposed mechanism for drivers and
would allow finer granularity (for example, RSA verification without RSA
signature). Arm is considering standardizing the (as yet non-existent)
JSON mechanism as a PSA specification.
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer (and PSA crypto architect)
Hi,
I hope everyone is doing well. I am a beginner on mbedtls and cryptography.
I hope you will understand if there is a lack of understanding or a rookie
mistake from my part.
So, My goal is to do a key-encryption key. I have an *RSA* private key file
"*private.pem*" generated by OpenSSL. I want to encrypt the content of
this "private.pem" with *AES* *encryption* and followed by *AES decryption
*on the encrypted data.
To do that, I read the "private.pem" file into a buffer and perform AES
encryption. The problem is when I perform the AES decryption operation I
get something else instead of the original "private.pem" data. I have a
working example of AES encryption/decryption working on plaintext
perfectly. So, I guess there is a flaw in my understanding of
encryption/decryption of byte64 encoded string.
Can someone please suggests me how can I encrypt RSA private key with AES?
Thanks,
Shariful
Mbed TLS version 2.24.0, 2.16.8 and 2.7.17 have been released recently. Version 2.7.17 is incorrectly marked as the latest release by github. Since this happens automatically based on the commit creation dates, this can’t be fixed until the next release.
We have extended the release notes of 2.7.17 to warn about this and changed the download links on the website.
We would like to confirm that version 2.24.0 is the latest release and the other two are the patch releases for the 2.16 and 2.7 long term support branches.
My apologies for the inconvenience and thank you for your support!
Best regards,
Janos
(On behalf of the Mbed TLS team)
--
Mbed-tls-announce mailing list
Mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls-announce
Hello,
4096 bytes is a lot larger than a typical public key. 4096 *bits* is
common for an RSA key. Are you sure you're using the correct units?
By default the library doesn't support the creation of MPI that are
larger than 1024 bytes. This is a configuration option
(MBEDTLS_MPI_MAX_SIZE), although it's uncommon to change it (a larger
value is hardly ever necessary, and a smaller value won't save memory
except in RSA which needs at least 512 bytes for 4096-bit keys). However
mbedtls_mpi_write_file itself doesn't have any size limit.
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 27/08/2020 13:27, youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I think you are fine during this crisis.
>
>
>
> I am working now with mbedtls modulee, and I wanted to print a
> function « mbedtls_mpi_write_file » to print the value of an MPI. This
> function works with common values.
>
>
>
> However, when I want to print an MPI which is very long (about 4096
> bytes, a public key), it doesn’t work. Someone knows how to solve this
> problem ?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot
>
>
>
> Best regards, YS
>
>
>
>
Hello everyone, I think you are fine during this crisis.
I am working now with mbedtls modulee, and I wanted to print a function « mbedtls_mpi_write_file » to print the value of an MPI. This function works with common values.
However, when I want to print an MPI which is very long (about 4096 bytes, a public key), it doesn’t work. Someone knows how to solve this problem ?
Thanks a lot
Best regards, YS
Hi Youssouf,
I think you're looking for mbedtls_mpi_write_file() - just pass NULL as the file argument to write to stdout. You can use the radix argument to print out hex or decimal.
Regards,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 25 August 2020 15:40
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Set an MPI and print it
Hi everyone, I think you all are fine.
I am a beginner on mbedtls, and I wanted to set a dhm context. So, at first, I just want to set the value of the prime P, and the generator G. So to that I wrote the function below : [cid:image001.png@01D67AF5.D43FDE60]
To check if it is correctly set, I wanted to print it to see. However, it is not the case. Do you know how to set and print the value ?
Thanks, and have a good day
Best regards, YS
Hi everyone, I think you all are fine.
I am a beginner on mbedtls, and I wanted to set a dhm context. So, at first, I just want to set the value of the prime P, and the generator G. So to that I wrote the function below : [cid:image001.png@01D67AF5.D43FDE60]
To check if it is correctly set, I wanted to print it to see. However, it is not the case. Do you know how to set and print the value ?
Thanks, and have a good day
Best regards, YS
Hello everybody, I hope you are going well
I am creating a diffie Hellman key exchange program, so I am using functions like « mbedtls_dhm_init() » or « mbedtls_ctr_drbg_init() « for example. However, even if I defined the CTR_DRBG & the DHM_C module in the config.h file, and the header in my C file, I Always have error like that :
[cid:image002.png@01D6770C.20370D40]
Can someone help me to find out where does it come from ? Because I don’t know at all.
Thanks, and have a good day
Hi all,
I am placing into review a patch (
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3579) which replaces some
invalid size printf format specifiers, mostly for size_t. This patch
utilises %zu and %hhu, both of which were only introduced in C99, which
I know caused some issues with compiler compatibility at the time. The
problem with printf and size_t as most will know, is that its a
different size in 32 bit and 64 bit, which is what %z was introduced to
safely fix.
My question is to whether there is anyone on the list that is using a
compiler that might not handle these specifiers, for whom this patch
would presumably be something of an issue. I am admittedly hoping this
is not the case, given the age of the spec, but thought it best to ask.
Thanks in advance,
Paul.
Hi Murat
What you request may be possible with invasive changes but it is not a design goal for the PSA Cryptography API implementation in Mbed TLS to be completely replaced with an alternative implementation, while allowing re-use of the Mbed TLS build system and tests.
The focus instead is to develop and implement a PSA Cryptoprocessor Driver Interface, which will allow drivers for custom secure environments to be plugged into the core PSA Cryptography API implementation in Mbed TLS. An early version of the specification of that interface can be found here:
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/docs/proposed/psa-drive…
That specification and its implementation is under active development. Let us know if you would like to get involved.
Regards
Dan.
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Murat Cakmak via mbed-tls
Sent: 14 August 2020 13:34
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [mbed-tls] Custom PSA API Implementation for mbedTLS tests
Hi all,
We have implemented the PSA Functional API for a custom secure environment which passes PSA Arch tests.
Now we would like to run mbedtls tests (make check) on the PSA API if possible.
When we run "make check", it includes and compiles library/psa_crypto.c file for mbedTLS's PSA API Implementation.
Herein, we would like to compile our own psa_crypto.c implementation, does mbedtls build system allow us to include custom PSA API Implementation to run tests?
Thank you.
Murat
Greetings,
I am new to the list, please do excuse me, in case of any list
specific etiquette issues.
Trying to use a 1.6.1 release with a Cortex M7 port, specifically a STM32H7.
After enabling MBEDTLS_ENTROPY_HARDWARE_ALT, did implement
mbedtls_hardware_poll()
It looks thus, and it does appear to work from a hardware perspective:
/**
* mbedtls_hardware_poll()
* Read random data from the Hardware RNG for entropy applications
*/
int mbedtls_hardware_poll(void *arg,
unsigned char *ent_buf,
size_t count,
size_t *ent_len)
{
register uint8_t i = 0;
uint32_t rand;
if (!LL_RNG_IsEnabled(RNG))
LL_RNG_Enable(RNG); /* Enable Random Number Generator */
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
while (!LL_RNG_IsActiveFlag_DRDY(RNG)) { } /* Wait for DRDY
flag to be raised */
if ((LL_RNG_IsActiveFlag_CECS(RNG)) ||
(LL_RNG_IsActiveFlag_SECS(RNG))) { /* Check error, if any */
/* Clock or Seed Error detected. Set Error */
printf(" (%d) %s: Clock/Seed Error!\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
}
rand = LL_RNG_ReadRandData32(RNG); /* Read RNG data */
memcpy(&(ent_buf[i * 4]), &rand, 4); /* *ent_len += 4 */
}
LL_RNG_Disable(RNG); /* Stop random numbers generation */
*ent_len = ((i + 1) * 4);
printf(" (%d) %s: Random Words: %d Word: %04d\r\n",
__LINE__,
__FUNCTION__,
count,
rand);
return 0;
}
The code which causes the problem is this, in my tls_init()
int tls_init(void)
{
int ret;
/* inspired by https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/mbedtls-tutorial */
const char *pers = "SYS-LWH7";
printf(" (%d) %s: Initializing\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
/* initialize descriptors */
mbedtls_ssl_init(&ssl);
printf(" (%d) %s: SSL initialize\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_ssl_config_init(&conf);
printf(" (%d) %s: SSL Config initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_x509_crt_init(&cacert);
printf(" (%d) %s: x509 CRT initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_ctr_drbg_init(&ctr_drbg);
printf(" (%d) %s: DRBG initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_entropy_init(&entropy);
printf(" (%d) %s: Entropy initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
ret = mbedtls_ctr_drbg_seed(&ctr_drbg,
mbedtls_entropy_func,
&entropy,
(const unsigned char *) pers,
strlen(pers));
if (ret) {
LWIP_DEBUGF(MQTT_APP_DEBUG_TRACE,
("failed !\n mbedtls_ctr_drbg_seed returned %d\n",
ret));
printf(" (%d) %s: DRBG seed failed, ret=%d\r\n", __LINE__,
__FUNCTION__, ret);
return -1;
}
printf(" (%d) %s: DRBG seed returned:%d\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
/**
* The transport type determines if we are using
* TLS (MBEDTLS_SSL_TRANSPORT_STREAM) or
* DTLS (MBEDTLS_SSL_TRANSPORT_DATAGRAM).
*/
ret = mbedtls_ssl_config_defaults(&conf,
MBEDTLS_SSL_IS_CLIENT,
MBEDTLS_SSL_TRANSPORT_STREAM,
MBEDTLS_SSL_PRESET_DEFAULT);
if (ret) {
LWIP_DEBUGF(MQTT_APP_DEBUG_TRACE,
("failed !\n mbedtls_ssl_config_defaults returned %d\n\n",
ret));
printf("(%d) %s: SSL config defaults failed, ret=%d\r\n",
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
return -1;
}
printf("(%d) %s: SSL config defaults returned:%d\r\n", __LINE__,
__FUNCTION__, ret);
ret = mbedtls_x509_crt_parse(&cacert,
(const unsigned char *)test_ca_crt,
test_ca_crt_len);
if (ret)
printf(" (%d) %s: failed!\n mbedtls_x509_crt_parse returned
%d\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
else
printf(" (%d) %s: mbedtls_x509_crt_parse returned %d\r\n",
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
mbedtls_ssl_conf_ca_chain(&conf, &cacert, NULL);
mbedtls_ssl_conf_authmode(&conf, MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED);
/**
* The library needs to know which random engine
* to use and which debug function to use as callback.
*/
mbedtls_ssl_conf_rng(&conf, mbedtls_ctr_drbg_random, &ctr_drbg);
mbedtls_ssl_conf_dbg(&conf, my_debug, stdout);
mbedtls_ssl_setup(&ssl, &conf);
}
The output of which looks thus, in a serial terminal:
(1217) print_dhcp_state: Try connect to Broker
(174) tls_init: Initializing
(178) tls_init: SSL initialize
(181) tls_init: SSL Config initialized
(184) tls_init: x509 CRT initialized
(187) tls_init: DRBG initialized
(190) tls_init: Entropy initialized
(1027) mbedtls_hardware_poll: Random Words: 128 Word: -558876895
Any thoughts/ideas, what could be wrong ?
Any kind soul in here ?
Thanks,
Manu
Hi Simon,
Indeed while the migration is underway things can be a bit confusing, so let me try to clarify:
* releases can be found at: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases - near the top you'll alwys find the latest development release followed by the latest LTS releases. At this point it is unclear if releases are going to stay on github or if they would move to trustedfrimware.org in the future, but if anything changes, we'll announce it.
* announcements about new releases and other important project events are made on the new Mbed-tls-announce mailing-list: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases - if you're already subscribed to mbed-tls (this list), you don't need to subscribe to the "announce" mailing list in addition, as any post to "announce" is automatically cross-posted here ("announce" is for people who want a lower volume list).
* I don't think we're currently making announcements about upcoming releases, but I know we considered that. Unfortunately I don't remember the details and the colleague who was working on improving our release process is on leave now. But it we start making such announcements, they'll be on the "announce" list.
* We're currently planning 2.16.8 early in September.
* If you have a large number of products deployed that depend on Mbed TLS (or indeed any other tf.org project) and would like to be notified in advance of upcoming security fixes, please see the following pages: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/security-center/https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/repor…https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/trust…
I hope this answers your questions, and feel free to ask otherwise.
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Simon Leet via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 14 August 2020 15:13
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] LTS roadmap and announcement channel?
Hi folks,
I understand that https://tls.mbed.org/ has migrated under the umbrella of https://www.trustedfirmware.org/ but it’s not clear where I should turn to for information about the updates to the LTS versions. The https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates blog used to announce LTS branch updates but seems defunct as of 2.16.7, and I can’t find equivalent information in https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/, https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2 or the generic https://www.trustedfirmware.org/blog/.
Is there a new channel for information about upcoming LTS mbedtls releases so that users can plan their appropriate upgrade cycles? E.g. when is 2.16.8 roughly expected to be released? Is the new model for monitoring release announcements reliably going to be as a new tag on https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/tags?
-Simon
Hi everyone,
Hope you are still going well
I am now working on MbedTLS to establish a key exchange with a BGM which has a TRNG
, and I read that I have to implement myself a function called «mbedTLS_hardware_poll »
But I have no idea to know how I can implement this function zlthough I read articles on the mbedtls.com about entropy site…. Can you help me, to know how I can implement this function ?
Hi all,
We have implemented the PSA Functional API for a custom secure environment
which passes PSA Arch tests.
Now we would like to run mbedtls tests (make check) on the PSA API if
possible.
When we run "make check", it includes and compiles library/psa_crypto.c file
for mbedTLS's PSA API Implementation.
Herein, we would like to compile our own psa_crypto.c implementation, does
mbedtls build system allow us to include custom PSA API Implementation to
run tests?
Thank you.
Murat
Hello,
The interface of the Diffie-Hellman (DHM) module is modeled on the way
it's used in TLS, which is a bit different from the classical
presentation. You can find code examples in programs/pkey/dh_client.c
and programs/pkey/dh_server.c .
Elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman (provided by the ECDH module) has similar
security properties and is significantly faster. If you don't need
interoperability with legacy software that only supports classical
(finite-field) Diffie-Hellman, you should use ECDH rather than DHM. With
the ECDH module, you can use either the same TLS-inspired interface as
the DHM module, or a more classical interface for which there is a usage
example in psa_crypto.c in the function psa_key_agreement_ecdh.
Hope this helps,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
You can find an example of the TLS-like inter
On 12/08/2020 14:02, youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hello, I hope you are going well during this Covid crisis.
>
>
>
> I'm sending you this message to find out how to generate a Diffie
> Hellman key using MbedTLS. Indeed, with all the documentation, I'm a
> bit lost.
>
>
>
> I think, you have to use the int mbedtls_dhm_set_group function to
> create p and g. And then, I don't know how to use which function...
> Moreover, I can't find any function that allows to set a and b,
> whereas they are 2 fundamental elements
>
> Can you help me? Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best regards, YS
>
>
>
Hello,
Short version: to use the official tools to configure Mbed TLS, or to
run the unit tests, you need Python. If we start requiring Python 3.5,
is this going to be a problem?
Detailed version:
Mbed TLS includes four Python scripts that are of interest to users,
with a fifth one in preparation:
* scripts/config.py : compile-time configuration (unless you prefer to
edit config.h directly).
* scripts/generate_psa_constants.py : to build
programs/psa/psa_constant_names (we have a pending task to commit the
result instead of requiring it during the build).
* tests/scripts/generate_test_code.py : necessary to build the unit tests.
* tests/scripts/mbedtls_test.py : does anyone use this? It's for testing
on platforms with Greentea, but some of the automation is missing.
* upcoming: a script to generate glue code for accelerator and secure
element drivers. We'll also provide a manual way, but it won't be as
convenient.
This is a question to everyone who's building Mbed TLS and using some of
these scripts: is it ok if they require Python 3.5?
Currently:
* scripts/config.py requires Python 3.5.
* scripts/generate_psa_constants.py requires Python 3.3.
* tests/scripts/generate_test_code.py still works with Python 2.7.
* tests/scripts/mbedtls_test.py still works with Python 2.7.
* the driver glue code generation script will require Python 3.5, or
Python 3.4 + typing.
Is there any demand for versions of Python before 3.5?
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
Hello, I hope you are going well during this Covid crisis.
I'm sending you this message to find out how to generate a Diffie Hellman key using MbedTLS. Indeed, with all the documentation, I'm a bit lost.
I think, you have to use the int mbedtls_dhm_set_group function to create p and g. And then, I don't know how to use which function... Moreover, I can't find any function that allows to set a and b, whereas they are 2 fundamental elements
Can you help me? Thank you!
Best regards, YS
Hi Frank,
We have now updated the links both on the download-archive and releases site and now they point to https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases, where all the releases are available.
We also have added checksums to the release notes on github and fixed the archive structure.
Thank you very much for pointing these issues out!
Cheers,
Janos
(Mbed TLS developer)
On 04/08/2020, 19:06, "mbed-tls on behalf of Frank Bergmann via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Hi,
2.16.7 was released on github more than one month ago (2020-07-01).
But it is not listed on
- download archive at https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive
- release news at https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates/releases
Questions about that:
- Is it an "official" release even if it is not mentioned on release news?
- When will it be available in download archive?
- If there will be no more addings to download archive because now we'll
have to use github:
* Will there be separate releases GPL/Apache available?
* Will a signed/unsigned check sum be provided?
* Will the "new structure" as provided by tarball on github be kept
in future or was it just an accident? (e.g. main dir is named
"mbedtls-mbedtls-2.16.7")
I started using mbed TLS with 2.16.6 but now I am confused. ;-)
cheers,
Frank
--
mbed-tls mailing list
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
Hi Frank,
I confirm that 2.16.7 is an official release of the 2.16 long-time
support branch of Mbed TLS, alongside 2.7.16 for the 2.7 branch and
2.23.0 for the latest features. Everyone should update to one of these
versions since they fix security issues and other bugs.
We're progressively transitioning the project from Arm infrastructure to
TrustedFirmware infrastructure. Eventually we'll decommission the
existing tls.mbed.org, and we intend to distribute releases via
trustedfirmware.org. We no longer intend to reference new releases
directly on https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive . For the time being,
we're distributing via GitHub. However, it isn't right that
https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive links to
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases/ which doesn't list LTS
branches. We need to link from https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive to
the place that has the latest LTS releases one way or the other.
There are no longer separate archives with Apache and GPL licenses.
These archives were always identical except for license headers. Now LTS
releases are distributed as a single archive in which the files are
dual-licensed.
The naming with mbedtls-mbedtls- must be a bug in our release script.
Thanks for noticing.
I don't think we made a conscious decision not to provide official
checksums. I can see the value of having them so let's try to
incorporate those in our new release process.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 04/08/2020 19:05, Frank Bergmann via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2.16.7 was released on github more than one month ago (2020-07-01).
> But it is not listed on
> - download archive at https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive
> - release news at https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates/releases
>
> Questions about that:
> - Is it an "official" release even if it is not mentioned on release news?
> - When will it be available in download archive?
> - If there will be no more addings to download archive because now we'll
> have to use github:
> * Will there be separate releases GPL/Apache available?
> * Will a signed/unsigned check sum be provided?
> * Will the "new structure" as provided by tarball on github be kept
> in future or was it just an accident? (e.g. main dir is named
> "mbedtls-mbedtls-2.16.7")
>
> I started using mbed TLS with 2.16.6 but now I am confused. ;-)
>
> cheers,
> Frank
>
>
Hi,
2.16.7 was released on github more than one month ago (2020-07-01).
But it is not listed on
- download archive at https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive
- release news at https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates/releases
Questions about that:
- Is it an "official" release even if it is not mentioned on release news?
- When will it be available in download archive?
- If there will be no more addings to download archive because now we'll
have to use github:
* Will there be separate releases GPL/Apache available?
* Will a signed/unsigned check sum be provided?
* Will the "new structure" as provided by tarball on github be kept
in future or was it just an accident? (e.g. main dir is named
"mbedtls-mbedtls-2.16.7")
I started using mbed TLS with 2.16.6 but now I am confused. ;-)
cheers,
Frank
Hi Youssouf,
This is Steven with Silicon Labs. It sounds like you have questions that are very device-specific, and relate to Silicon Labs products. We do provide TRNG drivers for mbed TLS through Simplicity Studio and our software SDK. Please contact our support staff at www.silabs.com/support<http://www.silabs.com/support>, and they’ll do their best to help you out with your questions.
Regards,
-- Steven
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: youssouf sokhona <youssouf.sokhona(a)hotmail.fr>
Date: Tuesday, 4 August 2020 at 12:59
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Entropy & TRNG on the BGM13P32
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, everyone,
First of all, I hope you are all healthy during this difficult time.
I am working with Simplicity Studio IDE with MbedTLS and I am currently working on a project with a BGM13P32. I plan to perform a key exchange via bluetooth with the Diffie Hellman protocol. To start my project, I need an entropy source. I read the following on the BGM13P32 documentation "The TRNG is a non-deterministic random number generator based on a full hardware solution. The TRNG is validated with NIST800-22and AIS-31 test suites as well as being suitable for FIPS 140-2 certification (for the purposes of cryptographic key generation)."
And I also read about the Random Number Generator "The Frame Controller (FRC) implements a random number generator that uses entropy gathered from noise in the RF receive chain.The data is suitable for use in cryptographic applications.Output from the random number generator can be used either directly or as a seed or entropy source for software-based random num-ber generator algorithms such as Fortuna"
Knowing this, how can we use this to create entropy and then create a sequence of random numbers? I need to implement the MbedTLS_hardware_poll() function? Do I have to add another entropy, like real timing for example
As you can see I am a bit confused actually. Can you help me out?
Thanks in advance, and take care of yourself !
Hi, everyone,
First of all, I hope you are all healthy during this difficult time.
I am working with Simplicity Studio IDE with MbedTLS and I am currently working on a project with a BGM13P32. I plan to perform a key exchange via bluetooth with the Diffie Hellman protocol. To start my project, I need an entropy source. I read the following on the BGM13P32 documentation "The TRNG is a non-deterministic random number generator based on a full hardware solution. The TRNG is validated with NIST800-22and AIS-31 test suites as well as being suitable for FIPS 140-2 certification (for the purposes of cryptographic key generation)."
And I also read about the Random Number Generator "The Frame Controller (FRC) implements a random number generator that uses entropy gathered from noise in the RF receive chain.The data is suitable for use in cryptographic applications.Output from the random number generator can be used either directly or as a seed or entropy source for software-based random num-ber generator algorithms such as Fortuna"
Knowing this, how can we use this to create entropy and then create a sequence of random numbers? I need to implement the MbedTLS_hardware_poll() function? Do I have to add another entropy, like real timing for example
As you can see I am a bit confused actually. Can you help me out?
Thanks in advance, and take care of yourself !
Morning,
First of all, I hope you are all healthy during this difficult time.
I am working with Simplicity Studio IDE and with Mbed TLS and I am currently working on a project with a BGM13P32. I plan to write in a file some parameters that will allow a key exchange by bluetooth (Diffie Hellman Protocol). I intend to make the BGM13P32 read this file, and these data to allow a key exchange. Is it possible to do that? If yes, how?
Because I'm a total beginner
Thank you, and take care of yourself !
Hi all,
I have configured the max fragment length at the client and server to both 512. With this setting when I try to reconnect using a saved session at the client side, the ssl handshake doesn’t seem to happen.
Below is the comment in the server code.
/* We don't support fragmentation of ClientHello (yet?) */
The mbedtls code I am using is version 2.16.6. Are there any plans to support fragmentation of clienthello? Do let me know
Regards,
Fariya
Hi,
I do not quite have enough knowledge on DTLS session resumption .. nevertheless here's my question:
a) Difference between the features: MBEDTLS_SSL_COOKIE_C and MBEDTLS_SSL_SESSION_TICKETS?
b) Enabling the feature MBEDTLS_SSL_SESSION_TICKETS would be sufficient to resume an earlier established DTLS session quickly (i.e avoid the whole TLS handshake done the last time)?
c) How do I test this - i.e initiate connection from client and server, break the connection and then make the client connect to the server again? Not sure what additional steps are required on client side. Any callbacks to be registered in the code?
Regards,
Fariya
Hi Gilles,
I checked one you recommended and looks like it is very complicated.
Do you have any sample project(SSH client) based on MbedTLS+LWIP?
Thanks,
Christie
-----Original Message-----
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of mbed-tls-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Sent: July-22-20 11:35 AM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: mbed-tls Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15
Send mbed-tls mailing list submissions to
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
mbed-tls-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
mbed-tls-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of mbed-tls digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Problem with decrypt aes 128 in ecb mode. HELP ME!
(dany_banik2000(a)yahoo.com)
2. Re: SSH client sample (Gilles Peskine)
3. Re: patches for low memory (Gilles Peskine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:42:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: "dany_banik2000(a)yahoo.com" <dany_banik2000(a)yahoo.com>
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [mbed-tls] Problem with decrypt aes 128 in ecb mode. HELP ME!
Message-ID: <1371131400.5486983.1595428953399(a)mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I developed a server application that obtains the data from a dht11 sensor, I encrypt it with aes 128 and publish it on the server. The client application makes a request to the server, and I would like to decrypt the answer.
When I want to display decrypted message, it shows garbage
The message retrieved from the server is in hex. I think that must to convert hex in binary, but i don’t know how can do it…
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/mbed-tls/attachments/20200722/a5…>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:10:18 +0200
From: Gilles Peskine <gilles.peskine(a)arm.com>
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] SSH client sample
Message-ID: <4a7265ac-7b3e-33ef-7222-4cd29c3cda08(a)arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Hi Christie,
Libssh2 (https://github.com/libssh2/libssh2) supports Mbed TLS.
I've never used it or investigated it, so I can't vouch for it, I just know that it's there.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 21/07/2020 18:40, Christie Su via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> �
>
> I am using FRDM-K64F with LWIP+mbedTLS for our control system. Now, I
> want to develop the SSH client(or telnet 22) to access my SSH server.
>
> �
>
> Could you give me some indications how to do it? Or do you have any
> sample project?
>
> �
>
> Thanks,
>
> �
>
> Christie
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:34:44 +0200
From: Gilles Peskine <gilles.peskine(a)arm.com>
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] patches for low memory
Message-ID: <152f6571-6972-8262-c38d-d200dcc7c0b7(a)arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Nick,
A TLS stack in 6kB of RAM sounds impressive, congratulations!
We'd certainly be interested in all the improvements you can contribute.
The process is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md). I just need to warn you that the limiting factor is reviewers' time. For a significant contribution, it may take a while before the Mbed TLS team can look at it in detail. Small patches are usually easier than large
ones: if something only takes half an hour to review, someone will probably do it when they're stuck on some other task. If a review takes several days, it needs to be scheduled.
It would probably be better to discuss the general nature of the changes on this mailing list first. Is a new compilation option needed? Is an API change needed? What is the risk that the change might break existing code? How is the new code tested? etc.
Which version of Mbed TLS have you been using? We've made a few changes that are of interest to low-memory platforms recently, such as the option MBEDTLS_SSL_VARIABLE_BUFFER_LENGTH to resize SSL buffers after the handshake (new in 2.22).
I don't know what the issue with the incoming SSL packet header length could be. If you could give precise steps to reproduce the issue, this would be very helpful. Eventually we'd want to construct a test in tests/ssl-opt.sh for this.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 17/07/2020 21:00, Nick Setzer via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi, I have been working with Mbed TLS for the last 6 months in an
> extremely low memory use case. This library has been an absolute joy
> to work with because of how flexible it is. I have an interesting use
> case with how little RAM I have to work with (around 6kb on one
> microprocessor) and I have made some changes that I thought would be
> of interest. I'm not sure if I should submit them as a single
> changeset or a set of changes. I'll describe the changes and if there
> is interest I can clean them up for submission.
>
> The first change that I made was for a scenario with two
> microprocessors communicating over a UART. I was already using TLS
> offloading so that the private key was on one processor (with only 6kb
> of RAM free) and the SSL context stored on the other. I required
> generating a CSR and thus made some changes to the CSR code to be able
> to generate the CSR using a similar private key offloading strategy.
>
> I found an issue with downloading firmware for OTA from openssl web
> servers. This is a little tricky to describe. The server was not
> responsive to requests for reducing the max fragment length, which
> forced me to use MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN set to 16384. But I
> needed to have multiple ssl sessions open for other activities and did
> not have enough RAM to hold multiple large buffers. I have made a set
> of changes to allow setting the content length when the ssl context is
> initialized, as well as setting different IN and OUT content lengths
> to save memory. This change allowed me to set up one session with 16kb
> for the IN content length, and then 4kb for OUT content length, while
> a second session could use 2kb for a total of 24kb instead of 64kb.
>
> Related to the openssl issue, I found that the incoming ssl packet
> header length can sometimes be 8 or 16 bytes larger than expected
> depending on which AES method is selected. I'm not actually sure what
> the best way to solve this is. One way may be to change
> MBEDTLS_SSL_HEADER_LEN from 13 to 29 bytes. However I ended up solving
> it by adding 16 to both MBEDTLS_SSL_IN_BUFFER_LEN and
> MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_BUFFER_LEN. This way I could handle the larger ssl
> header as well as receive the content body.
>
> If these three changes sound interesting I can start work on cleaning
> up the code to be less specific to my company and then submit the
> changes. Also I would like to know if there is any process I should be
> following when submitting these changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick Setzer
> SimpliSafe, Inc.
> 294 Washington Street, 9th Floor
> Boston, MA 02108
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
mbed-tls mailing list
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
------------------------------
End of mbed-tls Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15
***************************************
On 20/07/2020 12:21, Scott Branden via mbed-tls wrote:
> 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.
Mbed TLS used to follow the Git Flow model: day-to-day work happens on
the 'development' branch, and there's a 'master' branch which always
points to the latest commit on master that's a tagged release. A release
is done by tagging a commit on 'development' and fast-forwarding
'master' to it.
But after the 2.16 LTS release, we made 'master' follow the 2.16 LTS
branch rather than 'development'. I think this was a mistake, but it's
too late to change this, the question is what we do now with the
existing situation.
A force-push on 'master' would not erase history from the face of the
world. The history is still there in 'mbedtls-2.16'.
It is no longer possible to fast-forward 'master' to any commit on
'development'. No amount of revert or merge commits on 'master' will
make it be the same commit as some a release made from 'development'.
Without a force-push, all we can hope is to have 'master' have the same
content as a release. This means that getting the same release would
give you the same content, but different history, depending on whether
tyou get it from 'master' or 'development'. This would also mean a more
complicated release process.
Another solution would be to do a merge of 'master' into 'development',
ignoring all changes from the 'master' side. But this would mess up the
history on 'development'.
Is this more complicated release process, or this messy history, worth
it, just to avoid a force-push?
> 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.
Sure, we can create a new branch name. But then we'd still have to keep
a branch with the old name, for the sake of existing setups that pull
from 'master'. Or else we should make a commit on 'master' that removes
every file and instead adds a README that says "pull from 'main' instead".
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 22/07/2020 17:35, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote:
> I just need to warn you that the limiting factor is reviewers' time. For a
> significant contribution, it may take a while before the Mbed TLS team
> can look at it in detail. Small patches are usually easier than large
> ones: if something only takes half an hour to review, someone will
> probably do it when they're stuck on some other task. If a review takes
> several days, it needs to be scheduled.
As an aside, Mbed TLS is under the governance of TrustedFirmware.
Currently, only Arm employees are consider trusted reviewers, but this
is not by policy, it's only due to the history of the project (until a
few months ago, Mbed TLS was governed by Arm). We (as in, the Arm
employees working on Mbed TLS) welcome design and code reviews from
everyone.
We don't yet have a formal process for becoming a “trusted” reviewer,
beyond the general principles of TrustedFirmware. But a required part of
that process will undoubtedly be to have done some reviews before.
As every project, there is an informal, unwritten culture. If there's
interest, we can try to document our review culture in writing. If I had
to sum it up in one sentence, I'd say that if a reviewer should reject
code that they don't understand: it's the job of the patch author to
convince reviewers that the patch is good. “I don't see anything wrong”
is not a good enough standard.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
Hi Nick,
A TLS stack in 6kB of RAM sounds impressive, congratulations!
We'd certainly be interested in all the improvements you can contribute.
The process is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md
(https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md). I
just need to warn you that the limiting factor is reviewers' time. For a
significant contribution, it may take a while before the Mbed TLS team
can look at it in detail. Small patches are usually easier than large
ones: if something only takes half an hour to review, someone will
probably do it when they're stuck on some other task. If a review takes
several days, it needs to be scheduled.
It would probably be better to discuss the general nature of the changes
on this mailing list first. Is a new compilation option needed? Is an
API change needed? What is the risk that the change might break existing
code? How is the new code tested? etc.
Which version of Mbed TLS have you been using? We've made a few changes
that are of interest to low-memory platforms recently, such as the
option MBEDTLS_SSL_VARIABLE_BUFFER_LENGTH to resize SSL buffers after
the handshake (new in 2.22).
I don't know what the issue with the incoming SSL packet header length
could be. If you could give precise steps to reproduce the issue, this
would be very helpful. Eventually we'd want to construct a test in
tests/ssl-opt.sh for this.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 17/07/2020 21:00, Nick Setzer via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi, I have been working with Mbed TLS for the last 6 months in an
> extremely low memory use case. This library has been an absolute joy
> to work with because of how flexible it is. I have an interesting use
> case with how little RAM I have to work with (around 6kb on one
> microprocessor) and I have made some changes that I thought would be
> of interest. I'm not sure if I should submit them as a single
> changeset or a set of changes. I'll describe the changes and if there
> is interest I can clean them up for submission.
>
> The first change that I made was for a scenario with two
> microprocessors communicating over a UART. I was already using TLS
> offloading so that the private key was on one processor (with only 6kb
> of RAM free) and the SSL context stored on the other. I required
> generating a CSR and thus made some changes to the CSR code to be able
> to generate the CSR using a similar private key offloading strategy.
>
> I found an issue with downloading firmware for OTA from openssl web
> servers. This is a little tricky to describe. The server was not
> responsive to requests for reducing the max fragment length, which
> forced me to use MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN set to 16384. But I
> needed to have multiple ssl sessions open for other activities and did
> not have enough RAM to hold multiple large buffers. I have made a set
> of changes to allow setting the content length when the ssl context is
> initialized, as well as setting different IN and OUT content lengths
> to save memory. This change allowed me to set up one session with 16kb
> for the IN content length, and then 4kb for OUT content length, while
> a second session could use 2kb for a total of 24kb instead of 64kb.
>
> Related to the openssl issue, I found that the incoming ssl packet
> header length can sometimes be 8 or 16 bytes larger than expected
> depending on which AES method is selected. I'm not actually sure what
> the best way to solve this is. One way may be to change
> MBEDTLS_SSL_HEADER_LEN from 13 to 29 bytes. However I ended up solving
> it by adding 16 to both MBEDTLS_SSL_IN_BUFFER_LEN and
> MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_BUFFER_LEN. This way I could handle the larger ssl
> header as well as receive the content body.
>
> If these three changes sound interesting I can start work on cleaning
> up the code to be less specific to my company and then submit the
> changes. Also I would like to know if there is any process I should be
> following when submitting these changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick Setzer
> SimpliSafe, Inc.
> 294 Washington Street, 9th Floor
> Boston, MA 02108
>
Hi Christie,
Libssh2 (https://github.com/libssh2/libssh2) supports Mbed TLS.
I've never used it or investigated it, so I can't vouch for it, I just
know that it's there.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 21/07/2020 18:40, Christie Su via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> �
>
> I am using FRDM-K64F with LWIP+mbedTLS for our control system. Now, I
> want to develop the SSH client(or telnet 22) to access my SSH server.
>
> �
>
> Could you give me some indications how to do it? Or do you have any
> sample project?
>
> �
>
> Thanks,
>
> �
>
> Christie
>
>
I developed a server application that obtains the data from a dht11 sensor, I encrypt it with aes 128 and publish it on the server. The client application makes a request to the server, and I would like to decrypt the answer.
When I want to display decrypted message, it shows garbage
The message retrieved from the server is in hex. I think that must to convert hex in binary, but i don’t know how can do it…
Hi,
I am using FRDM-K64F with LWIP+mbedTLS for our control system. Now, I want to develop the SSH client(or telnet 22) to access my SSH server.
Could you give me some indications how to do it? Or do you have any sample project?
Thanks,
Christie
Hi, I have been working with Mbed TLS for the last 6 months in an extremely
low memory use case. This library has been an absolute joy to work with
because of how flexible it is. I have an interesting use case with how
little RAM I have to work with (around 6kb on one microprocessor) and I
have made some changes that I thought would be of interest. I'm not sure if
I should submit them as a single changeset or a set of changes. I'll
describe the changes and if there is interest I can clean them up for
submission.
The first change that I made was for a scenario with two microprocessors
communicating over a UART. I was already using TLS offloading so that the
private key was on one processor (with only 6kb of RAM free) and the SSL
context stored on the other. I required generating a CSR and thus made some
changes to the CSR code to be able to generate the CSR using a similar
private key offloading strategy.
I found an issue with downloading firmware for OTA from openssl web
servers. This is a little tricky to describe. The server was not responsive
to requests for reducing the max fragment length, which forced me to use
MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN set to 16384. But I needed to have multiple ssl
sessions open for other activities and did not have enough RAM to hold
multiple large buffers. I have made a set of changes to allow setting the
content length when the ssl context is initialized, as well as setting
different IN and OUT content lengths to save memory. This change allowed me
to set up one session with 16kb for the IN content length, and then 4kb for
OUT content length, while a second session could use 2kb for a total of
24kb instead of 64kb.
Related to the openssl issue, I found that the incoming ssl packet header
length can sometimes be 8 or 16 bytes larger than expected depending on
which AES method is selected. I'm not actually sure what the best way to
solve this is. One way may be to change MBEDTLS_SSL_HEADER_LEN from 13 to
29 bytes. However I ended up solving it by adding 16 to both
MBEDTLS_SSL_IN_BUFFER_LEN
and MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_BUFFER_LEN. This way I could handle the larger ssl
header as well as receive the content body.
If these three changes sound interesting I can start work on cleaning up
the code to be less specific to my company and then submit the changes.
Also I would like to know if there is any process I should be following
when submitting these changes.
Thanks,
Nick Setzer
SimpliSafe, Inc.
294 Washington Street, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
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
Welcome to the Mbed TLS Announcement list @ TrustedFirmware.org!
This mailing list is the primary channel for announcements about upcoming Mbed TLS releases and security advisories.
This mailing list includes all members of the higher traffic developer mailing list<https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls>. Therefore all announcements will also appear on the developer mailing list and there is no need to subscribe to both.
Thanks and regards
Janos
(on behalf of the Mbed TLS maintainer team)
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
--
Mbed-tls-announce mailing list
Mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls-announce
Hi all
The new TrustedFirmware.org security incident process is now live. This process is described here:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/repor…
Initially the process will be used for the following projects: TF-A, TF-M, OP-TEE and Mbed TLS. The security documentation for each project will be updated soon to reflect this change.
If you are part of an organization that believes it should receive security vulnerability information before it is made public then please ask your relevant colleagues to register as Trusted Stakeholders as described here:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/trust…
Note we prefer individuals in each organization to coordinate their registration requests with each other and to provide us with an email alias managed by your organization instead of us managing a long list of individual addresses.
Best regards
Dan.
(on behalf of the TrustedFirmware.org security team)
The TLS protocol has many options. A TLS connection starts with a
handshake whose role is mostly for the client and the server to agree on
these options. The ciphersuite is one of these options. It determines
which cryptographic primitives will be used for the various security
properties (data confidentiality, data integrity, server authentication,
etc.).
A ciphersuite mismatch, or more generally a mismatch of some option of
the protocol, or a certificate mismatch, would normally result in the
dissatisfied party closing the connection. For a ciphersuite mismatch,
the server should send an alert "handshake failure". For a certificate
mismatch, there are several alerts ("bad certificate", "certificate
expired", etc.).
The first tool to turn to when debugging a TLS connection is Wireshark.
Compare a failing connection with a successful connection with similar
settings (preferably to the same server). Keep in mind that there can be
many legitimate differences, so the first difference might not be the
source of the problem. You can try connecting with
programs/ssl/ssl_client2 from the mbedtls source tree with different
sets of options.
For some background on how a TLS connection should work, I suggest
starting with Wikipedia, then
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/20803/how-does-ssl-tls-work
and https://tls.ulfheim.net/ (The Illustrated TLS Connection — note that
while it's a very good explanation, it's for a specific choice of
ciphersuite and other options).
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 29/06/2020 03:02, Thompson, Jeff via mbed-tls wrote:
> Another baby step in discovering what's happening. The last message
> from the server tells the client to change ciphersuites. I don't even
> know what a ciohersuite actually is—something like RSA, AES, or
> DES?—never mind how to change mine, though I have seen the list; my,
> what a lot of conditionals it has.
>
> So, am I still dealing with a certificate issue? Where do I go from here?
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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:* Friday, June 26, 2020 12:52:27 PM
> *To:* mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [mbed-tls] Choosing a cipher
>
>
> A little progress. I figured out where—ssl_encrypt_buf() in
> ssl_tls.c—to output the name of the offending ciphersuite, which is
> included in all 3 of the preconfigure Google Cloud SSL policies.
>
>
>
> So what’s going on here? Why should the mbedTLS client wait forever
> for 5 bytes it will never get, stalling the connection, instead timing
> out or otherwise detecting an error it could return?
>
>
>
> I’m totally at a loss for what to do with this, other than looking for
> a commercially supported alternative, which I don’t think would be
> received very well by my manager.
>
>
>
> *Jeff Thompson* | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
> +1 704 752 6513 x1394
> www.invue.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Thompson, Jeff
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 09:40
> *To:* mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> *Subject:* Choosing a cipher
>
>
>
> The TLS handshake between my device and ghs.googlehosted.com gets
> stalled when the server sends the device a Change Cipher Spec
> message—the device waits forever, wanting 5 more bytes. From what I
> Google’d, I need to change the cipher suite I’m using. How do I know
> which cipher the server doesn’t like (so I can avoid that in future),
> and which one I should be using—there are scores of these available in
> the config file, though some of them clearly should not be used, as
> they are commented that way..
>
>
>
> *Jeff Thompson* | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
> +1 704 752 6513 x1394
> www.invue.com
>
>
>
>
Hi Jeff,
There is a specification document for the TLS 1.2 handshake (RFC 5246: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246) that I think might help finding out what is going on. There is a graph depicting the handshake on page 37 which I think can be particularly useful.
Regards,
Janos
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of "Thompson, Jeff via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: "Thompson, Jeff" <JeffThompson(a)invue.com>
Date: Monday, 29 June 2020 at 02:02
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Choosing a cipher
Another baby step in discovering what's happening. The last message from the server tells the client to change ciphersuites. I don't even know what a ciohersuite actually is—something like RSA, AES, or DES?—never mind how to change mine, though I have seen the list; my, what a lot of conditionals it has.
So, am I still dealing with a certificate issue? Where do I go from here?
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
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: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:52:27 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Choosing a cipher
A little progress. I figured out where—ssl_encrypt_buf() in ssl_tls.c—to output the name of the offending ciphersuite, which is included in all 3 of the preconfigure Google Cloud SSL policies.
So what’s going on here? Why should the mbedTLS client wait forever for 5 bytes it will never get, stalling the connection, instead timing out or otherwise detecting an error it could return?
I’m totally at a loss for what to do with this, other than looking for a commercially supported alternative, which I don’t think would be received very well by my manager.
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64DFD.447A03C0]
From: Thompson, Jeff
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 09:40
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Choosing a cipher
The TLS handshake between my device and ghs.googlehosted.com gets stalled when the server sends the device a Change Cipher Spec message—the device waits forever, wanting 5 more bytes. From what I Google’d, I need to change the cipher suite I’m using. How do I know which cipher the server doesn’t like (so I can avoid that in future), and which one I should be using—there are scores of these available in the config file, though some of them clearly should not be used, as they are commented that way..
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64DFD.447A03C0]
Another baby step in discovering what's happening. The last message from the server tells the client to change ciphersuites. I don't even know what a ciohersuite actually is—something like RSA, AES, or DES?—never mind how to change mine, though I have seen the list; my, what a lot of conditionals it has.
So, am I still dealing with a certificate issue? Where do I go from here?
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
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: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:52:27 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Choosing a cipher
A little progress. I figured out where—ssl_encrypt_buf() in ssl_tls.c—to output the name of the offending ciphersuite, which is included in all 3 of the preconfigure Google Cloud SSL policies.
So what’s going on here? Why should the mbedTLS client wait forever for 5 bytes it will never get, stalling the connection, instead timing out or otherwise detecting an error it could return?
I’m totally at a loss for what to do with this, other than looking for a commercially supported alternative, which I don’t think would be received very well by my manager.
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64BB6.03781220]
From: Thompson, Jeff
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 09:40
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Choosing a cipher
The TLS handshake between my device and ghs.googlehosted.com gets stalled when the server sends the device a Change Cipher Spec message—the device waits forever, wanting 5 more bytes. From what I Google’d, I need to change the cipher suite I’m using. How do I know which cipher the server doesn’t like (so I can avoid that in future), and which one I should be using—there are scores of these available in the config file, though some of them clearly should not be used, as they are commented that way..
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64BB6.03781220]
The TLS handshake between my device and ghs.googlehosted.com gets stalled when the server sends the device a Change Cipher Spec message-the device waits forever, wanting 5 more bytes. From what I Google'd, I need to change the cipher suite I'm using. How do I know which cipher the server doesn't like (so I can avoid that in future), and which one I should be using-there are scores of these available in the config file, though some of them clearly should not be used, as they are commented that way..
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64B9D.863E3220]
Much thanks to Manuel and Gilles for helping me get this far!
I'm trying to connect to endpoint hosted by Google for IoT devices. The handshake appears to progress through certificate verification and key exchange, encrypts a payload and then times out waiting for 5 expected bytes. I've attached the last part of the mbedTLS output generated with DEBUG_LEVEL 5 (the entrie thing is too big to include here). I'm sure the problem is either my code, network configuration, or somewhere else on my end. Can anyone give me a clue as to what might be wrong?
The starting point for attempting the connection is https_client_tls_xchg(), found in the attached snippet from the example httpsclient.c file as I've modified it.
FWIW, I'm using mbedTLS 2.13.1 running on an MIMXRT1062DVJ6A with MCUXpresso SDK 2.6.2. My HTTPS client is based on NXPs example project lwip_httpscli_mbedtls_freertos.
Thanks,
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64AE1.D6CB8F10]
[I assume you meant to reply to the list.]
If you don't have a filesystem, call mbedtls_x509_crt_parse instead of
mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_file.
To save static data size, you may want to store the data in binary form
instead of base64. To do this:
1. Split the PEM file into individual certificates.
2. Convert each file to DER (you can use programs/util/pem2der, but you
need to split the file first, because it only converts the first PEM chunk).
3. Convert each binary file to a C unsigned char array literal.
4. In your code, call mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_der in a loop over the array.
Your code might look something like this:
const uint8_t cert1_der[] = {0x30, …};
const uint8_t cert2_der[] = {0x30, …};
…
const struct {const uint8_t *data; size_t size;} root_certs_der = {
{cert1_der, sizeof(cert1_der)},
…
};
…
mbedtls_x509_crt roots;
mbedtls_x509_crt_init(&roots);
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(root_certs_der)/sizeof(root_certs_der[0]); i++)
mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_der(&roots, root_certs_der[i].data,
root_certs_der[i].size);
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 23/06/2020 23:31, Thompson, Jeff wrote:
> I did see that function, but it assumes a file system, doesn't it? I'm not using one, and that would be a really big change to make this late in the development cycle, if I can avoid it. I can program the PEM file into flash memory, where it can be addressed, for reading only, just like ROM. Is there a way to use it like that?
>
> Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
> +1 704 752 6513 x1394
> www.invue.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:38 PM
> To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Working with a PEM file
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Don't modify or use the certificates in certs.c. The certificates in the certs module are only intended for testing and they will be moved from the library to the test code soon. They are never used automatically and should never be used outside of tests.
>
> The easiest way to set these root certificates is to pass the file to mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_file(). This gives you an object that represents the certificates and you can use those as the trusted CAs for certificate verification through the X.509 or TLS API.
>
> Your code might look like this (error checking and rest of the code
> omitted):
>
> mbedtls_x509_crt roots; // head of the list of trusted CAs mbedtls_x509_crt_init(&roots); mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_file(&roots, "roots.pem"); … // Verify that there is a chain of trust from a certificate to one of the trusted CAs mbedtls_x509_crt_verify(&crt_to_verify, &roots, NULL, NULL, &flags, NULL, NULL); … // Use the trusted CAs for a TLS connection mbedtls_ssl_conf_ca_chain(&ssl_config, roots, NULL); … // Once the certificates are no longer used anywhere mbedtls_x509_crt_free(&roots);
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Gilles Peskine
> Mbed TLS developer
>
> On 23/06/2020 21:38, Thompson, Jeff via mbed-tls wrote:
>> I’ve downloaded https://pki.goog/roots.pem and want to use the
>> certificates in it with mbedTLS. Is there some documentation that
>> tells me how to do this?
>>
>>
>>
>> The certs.c file only contains only a handful of certs, while the PEM
>> file has nearly 40. How do I know which one to use for what purpose?
>> The certs.c file has these certificate char[]’s:
>>
>>
>>
>> mbedtls_test_ca_crt_ec
>>
>> mbedtls_test_srv_crt_ec
>>
>> mbedtls_test_cli_crt_ec
>>
>> mbedtls_test_ca_crt_rsa
>>
>> mbedtls_test_ca_crt_rsa
>>
>> mbedtls_test_srv_crt_rsa
>>
>> mbedtls_test_cli_crt_rsa
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m reasonably sure I don’t need to replace mbedtls_test_cli_crt_ec
>> and mbedtls_test_cli_crt_rsa, since I am not using a client
>> certificate. But I’m not at all sure about whether I need to replace
>> the 3 **_ca_crt_** certs, the 2 **_srv_crt_** certs, or all 5. And, if
>> so, using which certs from the PEM file to replace which certs in
>> certs.c?. How do I figure out what to do here? I’ve never dealt with
>> cloud communication like this before, so please pardon my ignorance;
>> I’m eager to learn, but overwhelmed by so much that is new to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jeff Thompson* | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
>> +1 704 752 6513 x1394
>> www.invue.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> mbed-tls mailing list
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
Hi Jeff,
Don't modify or use the certificates in certs.c. The certificates in the
certs module are only intended for testing and they will be moved from
the library to the test code soon. They are never used automatically and
should never be used outside of tests.
The easiest way to set these root certificates is to pass the file to
mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_file(). This gives you an object that represents
the certificates and you can use those as the trusted CAs for
certificate verification through the X.509 or TLS API.
Your code might look like this (error checking and rest of the code
omitted):
mbedtls_x509_crt roots; // head of the list of trusted CAs
mbedtls_x509_crt_init(&roots);
mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_file(&roots, "roots.pem");
…
// Verify that there is a chain of trust from a certificate to one of
the trusted CAs
mbedtls_x509_crt_verify(&crt_to_verify, &roots, NULL, NULL, &flags,
NULL, NULL);
…
// Use the trusted CAs for a TLS connection
mbedtls_ssl_conf_ca_chain(&ssl_config, roots, NULL);
…
// Once the certificates are no longer used anywhere
mbedtls_x509_crt_free(&roots);
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 23/06/2020 21:38, Thompson, Jeff via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> I’ve downloaded https://pki.goog/roots.pem and want to use the
> certificates in it with mbedTLS. Is there some documentation that
> tells me how to do this?
>
>
>
> The certs.c file only contains only a handful of certs, while the PEM
> file has nearly 40. How do I know which one to use for what purpose?
> The certs.c file has these certificate char[]’s:
>
>
>
> mbedtls_test_ca_crt_ec
>
> mbedtls_test_srv_crt_ec
>
> mbedtls_test_cli_crt_ec
>
> mbedtls_test_ca_crt_rsa
>
> mbedtls_test_ca_crt_rsa
>
> mbedtls_test_srv_crt_rsa
>
> mbedtls_test_cli_crt_rsa
>
>
>
> I’m reasonably sure I don’t need to replace mbedtls_test_cli_crt_ec
> and mbedtls_test_cli_crt_rsa, since I am not using a client
> certificate. But I’m not at all sure about whether I need to replace
> the 3 **_ca_crt_** certs, the 2 **_srv_crt_** certs, or all 5. And, if
> so, using which certs from the PEM file to replace which certs in
> certs.c?. How do I figure out what to do here? I’ve never dealt with
> cloud communication like this before, so please pardon my ignorance;
> I’m eager to learn, but overwhelmed by so much that is new to me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> *Jeff Thompson* | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
> +1 704 752 6513 x1394
> www.invue.com
>
>
>
>
I've downloaded https://pki.goog/roots.pem and want to use the certificates in it with mbedTLS. Is there some documentation that tells me how to do this?
The certs.c file only contains only a handful of certs, while the PEM file has nearly 40. How do I know which one to use for what purpose? The certs.c file has these certificate char[]'s:
mbedtls_test_ca_crt_ec
mbedtls_test_srv_crt_ec
mbedtls_test_cli_crt_ec
mbedtls_test_ca_crt_rsa
mbedtls_test_ca_crt_rsa
mbedtls_test_srv_crt_rsa
mbedtls_test_cli_crt_rsa
I'm reasonably sure I don't need to replace mbedtls_test_cli_crt_ec and mbedtls_test_cli_crt_rsa, since I am not using a client certificate. But I'm not at all sure about whether I need to replace the 3 *_ca_crt_* certs, the 2 *_srv_crt_* certs, or all 5. And, if so, using which certs from the PEM file to replace which certs in certs.c?. How do I figure out what to do here? I've never dealt with cloud communication like this before, so please pardon my ignorance; I'm eager to learn, but overwhelmed by so much that is new to me.
Thanks,
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64974.02162CD0]
Hi Jeff,
if you don't want to provision a client certificate in your TLS client, all you have to do is to not call `mbedtls_ssl_conf_own_cert()` in your client code. Then the library will send an empty certificate list as required by the standard.
Actually in the example code you have, if you look at the second and third argument in the call to `mbedtls_ssl_conf_own_cert()`, you should be able to remove all references to those arguments, and end up with a functional example without client certificates.
Also, you might want to have a look at this example from our source, which is a simple client without client-side certificates: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/programs/ssl/ssl_client…
Hope that helps,
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: 22 June 2020 16:03
To: 'mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Using mbed without a client certificate
I'm usiing:
#define MBEDTLS_VERSION_NUMBER 0x020D0100
#define MBEDTLS_VERSION_STRING "2.13.1"
#define MBEDTLS_VERSION_STRING_FULL "mbed TLS 2.13.1"
According to RFC5246:
If no suitable certificate is available,
the client MUST send a certificate message containing no
certificates. That is, the certificate_list structure has a
length of zero.
How do I do this with mbedTLS? The example code I have has certificates in it and calls mbedtls_x509_crt_parse(), which wants a list of certificates and will reject a zero-length list.
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64864.692FAD30]
Hi,
The packet size limitations can be accommodated by using the Maximum Fragment Length extension (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6066#section-4, enabled by MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_FRAGMENT_LENGTH
in Mbed TLS). In Mbed TLS this is only implemented for application data and DTLS handshake messages so far, and therefore you will need to use DTLS. Also the negotiation is driven by the client and it needs to be enabled both on the server and on the client.
(See the documentation of mbedtls_ssl_conf_max_frag_len() for more details.)
I hope that helps,
Janos
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of "Fatima, Fariya via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: "Fatima, Fariya" <Fariya.Fatima(a)Carrier.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 11:47
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] BLE and Mbed TLS
Hi,
Can anyone help if mbedTLS TLS/DTLS code would work on top of BLE (specifically SPP). I am not sure if the packet size limitation on SPP would make TLS work.. any pointers anyone? Would be really helpful.
Regards,
Fariya
From: Fatima, Fariya
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 9:21 AM
To: 'mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: BLE and Mbed TLS
Hi,
I wanted to use TLS over BLE application. When I googled, I figured out that MbedTLS can work on BLE. If someone can share a sample application where-in MbedTLS APIs are used as part of a BT/BLE application, it will be of great help.
Regards,
Fariya
Hi,
Can anyone help if mbedTLS TLS/DTLS code would work on top of BLE (specifically SPP). I am not sure if the packet size limitation on SPP would make TLS work.. any pointers anyone? Would be really helpful.
Regards,
Fariya
From: Fatima, Fariya
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 9:21 AM
To: 'mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: BLE and Mbed TLS
Hi,
I wanted to use TLS over BLE application. When I googled, I figured out that MbedTLS can work on BLE. If someone can share a sample application where-in MbedTLS APIs are used as part of a BT/BLE application, it will be of great help.
Regards,
Fariya
Hi Oleksandr,
I understand you want to validate your implementation against the test vectors in the cited reference. It's obvious, but just in case my reply is read out of context some day, I want to emphasize: what I'm recommending below is for testing purposes only, importing a private key from a public reference must never be done in production.
In your situation the simplest way to proceed is probably to directly import the private and public key from the test vector to your ECDH context.
For example (assuming the data in the reference is big-endian, and omitting error checking for brevity):
static unsigned char private_a[32] = { 0x3f, 0x49, /* ... from the reference */ };
static unsigned char public_a[65] = {
0x04, /* this special value marks the start of an uncompressed public key */
0x20, 0xb0, /* ... (public A(x) from the reference) */
0xdc, 0x80, /* ... (public B(x) from the reference) */
};
static mbedtls_ecdh_context ctx_a;
mbedtls_ecdh_init(&ctx_a);
/* load the private/public key pair
* this replaces mbedtls_ecdh_gen_public() */
mbedtls_mpi_read_binary( &ctx_a->d, private_a, sizeof( private_a ) ); /* should check errors! */
mbedtls_ecp_point_read_binary( &ctx_a->Q, public_a, sizeof( public_a ) ); /* should check errors! */
Doing the same with ctx_b and then exchanging public keys and computing the shared secret as usual, you should obtain values that match the reference.
Again, this is only for validating against known test vectors. Importing a private key from a public reference must never be done in production.
Hope that helps,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Oleksandr Nychyporuk via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 22 June 2020 15:33
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] ECDH set custom private key
Hi,
I wanna configure the ECDH algorithm to repeat the following keys:
[image.png]
I was able to configure the algorithm, generate private and public keys on both: client and server sides. And it works as expected. The secret keys are equal on both sides.
But I did not manage to calculate the secret key that is on the picture. I do not know how to set these private keys. Could someone help me to do that?
Thanks,
I'm usiing:
#define MBEDTLS_VERSION_NUMBER 0x020D0100
#define MBEDTLS_VERSION_STRING "2.13.1"
#define MBEDTLS_VERSION_STRING_FULL "mbed TLS 2.13.1"
According to RFC5246:
If no suitable certificate is available,
the client MUST send a certificate message containing no
certificates. That is, the certificate_list structure has a
length of zero.
How do I do this with mbedTLS? The example code I have has certificates in it and calls mbedtls_x509_crt_parse(), which wants a list of certificates and will reject a zero-length list.
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D64864.692FAD30]
Attaching the keys from the picture:
*7.1.2.1 P-256 Data Set 1*
*Private A*: 3f49f6d4 a3c55f38 74c9b3e3 d2103f50 4aff607b eb40b799 5899b8a6
cd3c1abd
*Private B*: 55188b3d 32f6bb9a 900afcfb eed4e72a 59cb9ac2 f19d7cfb 6b4fdd49
f47fc5fd
*Public A(x):* 20b003d2 f297be2c 5e2c83a7 e9f9a5b9 eff49111 acf4fddb
cc030148 0e359de6
*Public A(y)*: dc809c49 652aeb6d 63329abf 5a52155c 766345c2 8fed3024
741c8ed0 1589d28b
*Public B(x)*: 1ea1f0f0 1faf1d96 09592284 f19e4c00 47b58afd 8615a69f
559077b2 2faaa190
*Public B(y)*: 4c55f33e 429dad37 7356703a 9ab85160 472d1130 e28e3676
5f89aff9 15b1214a
*DHKey*: ec0234a3 57c8ad05 341010a6 0a397d9b 99796b13 b4f866f1 868d34f3
73bfa698
пн, 22 черв. 2020 о 16:33 <mbed-tls-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> пише:
> Send mbed-tls mailing list submissions to
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> mbed-tls-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> mbed-tls-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of mbed-tls digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. ECDH set custom private key (Oleksandr Nychyporuk)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:33:15 +0300
> From: Oleksandr Nychyporuk <olexandr.nychyporuk(a)gmail.com>
> To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: [mbed-tls] ECDH set custom private key
> Message-ID:
> <CAAjyQQ4kQ8J-iVSV_yputKD83G9Aj65fYEWJ=
> ObPTeptXogghw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> I wanna configure the ECDH algorithm to repeat the following keys:
> [image: image.png]
>
> I was able to configure the algorithm, generate private and public keys on
> both: client and server sides. And it works as expected. The secret keys
> are equal on both sides.
> But I did not manage to calculate the secret key that is on the picture. I
> do not know how to set these private keys. Could someone help me to do
> that?
>
> Thanks,
>
Hi,
I wanna configure the ECDH algorithm to repeat the following keys:
[image: image.png]
I was able to configure the algorithm, generate private and public keys on
both: client and server sides. And it works as expected. The secret keys
are equal on both sides.
But I did not manage to calculate the secret key that is on the picture. I
do not know how to set these private keys. Could someone help me to do that?
Thanks,
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/
[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…, 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
Hello Sir/Madam,
I work in Espressif Systems. I am currently working on providing an alternate hardware RSA sign implementation for mbedtls software sign for Espressif's new chip ESP32S2. I have gone through mbedTLS API in detail but I dont see any option where I can only replace mbedTLS software sign function with our hardware sign function .
I have gone through the issue https://tls.mbed.org/discussions/generic/using-an-external-rsa-private-key I have seen that there is a function named `mbedtls_pk_setup_rsa_alt` where we only register private key related function to the ALT_CTX which mbedtls uses to perform RSA sign. but this is not supported for TLS connections.
I have seen that there is MBEDTLS_RSA_ALT option in mbedTLS where we can provide alternate function to many of mbedTLS API, but we do not want to change any of the other functions, just provide alternate implementation of hardware sign. If we go with this way, there will be lot of duplicate code which will be needed to be maintained.
can mbedTLS provide option to use mbedtls_rsa_alt context in its file `pkparse.c` so as to allow rsa sign using an extrnal private key.
Thanks and Regards,
Aditya
P.S. - I raised the same issue yesterday, my issue was rejected stating I have not subscribed to the mailing-list. But I had already done that. I tried to subscribe again and it also said you are already subscribed.
These defines are needed when the platform doesn’t have standard functions like `calloc()` and `free()`. (You can find more details on the macros in `config.h`.)
Regards,
Janos
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of songwei fu via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: "songwei.fu(a)web.de" <songwei.fu(a)web.de>
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 13:41
To: "Kaul, Martin" <Martin.Kaul(a)leuze.com>
Cc: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Link error when calling "altcp_tls_create_config_client"
Thanks Martin.
It solved my problem! By adding $(CHIBIOS)/os/various/syscalls.c in the makefile and removing following defines, the linker error is gone.
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_C
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_MEMORY
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_CALLOC_MACRO chHeapAlloc
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_FREE_MACRO chHeapFree
Now I wonder when these defines are needed? I thought I need to port them to the OS-specific memory allocation. like in freeRTOS, it would be "pvPortCalloc", and for chibios it would be chHeapAlloc. Anybody can give me some hint?
-- Songwei
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2020 um 12:12 Uhr
Von: "Kaul, Martin" <Martin.Kaul(a)leuze.com>
An: "songwei.fu(a)web.de" <songwei.fu(a)web.de>
Betreff: AW: [mbed-tls] Link error when calling "altcp_tls_create_config_client"
Hi,
_sbrk is need when you using heap memory, for example using malloc() – see following discussion in stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32446814/undefined-reference-to-sbrk-in…
Maybe that helps.
Best regards
Martin
Von: mbed-tls [mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] Im Auftrag von songwei fu via mbed-tls
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2020 11:49
An: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Betreff: [mbed-tls] Link error when calling "altcp_tls_create_config_client"
Hi guys,
I am new to the list and also to mbedTLS. Now I am trying to port mbedTLS to chibiOS. And when I called altcp_tls_create_config_client(cert, sizeof(cert)), I got a link error like following:
c:/chibistudio/tools/gnu tools arm embedded/7.0 2017q4/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/7.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/lib/thumb/v7e-m\libg.a(lib_a-sbrkr.o): In function `_sbrk_r':
sbrkr.c:(.text._sbrk_r+0xc): undefined reference to `_sbrk'
And these are my settings:
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_C
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_MEMORY
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_CALLOC_MACRO chHeapAlloc
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_FREE_MACRO chHeapFree
where chHeapAlloc and chHeapFree are the memory allocation functions from chibios.
(1) Did I miss some settings? or i did something wrong?
(2) I did not find much information about the porting from chibios side. Does anybody know where I can look for reference projects/docs?
Any suggestion will be appreciated. Thanks.
Songwei
Hi Songwei,
Welcome to the list and thank you for your interest in Mbed TLS!
I found a similar issue on stack overflow:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28895703/sbrk-function-not-found-when-p…
Is this the same issue as yours?
Regards,
Janos
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of songwei fu via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: "songwei.fu(a)web.de" <songwei.fu(a)web.de>
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 10:49
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Link error when calling "altcp_tls_create_config_client"
Hi guys,
I am new to the list and also to mbedTLS. Now I am trying to port mbedTLS to chibiOS. And when I called altcp_tls_create_config_client(cert, sizeof(cert)), I got a link error like following:
c:/chibistudio/tools/gnu tools arm embedded/7.0 2017q4/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/7.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/lib/thumb/v7e-m\libg.a(lib_a-sbrkr.o): In function `_sbrk_r':
sbrkr.c:(.text._sbrk_r+0xc): undefined reference to `_sbrk'
And these are my settings:
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_C
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_MEMORY
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_CALLOC_MACRO chHeapAlloc
#define MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_FREE_MACRO chHeapFree
where chHeapAlloc and chHeapFree are the memory allocation functions from chibios.
(1) Did I miss some settings? or i did something wrong?
(2) I did not find much information about the porting from chibios side. Does anybody know where I can look for reference projects/docs?
Any suggestion will be appreciated. Thanks.
Songwei
Hi All,
I am working on Renesas RZA2M embedded board with Linux. It has limited memory of 6MB flash(R-Only)
I am using mbedtls version 2.16.5 for aws iot sdk for embedded c according to
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/iot/latest/developerguide/iot-embedded-c-sdk.ht…
When I run sample application, it is taking 15 secs for "Seeding random generator number..." and throwing below error
$ ./subscribe_publish_sample
AWS IoT SDK Version 3.0.1-
DEBUG: main L#159 rootCA /root/../certs/AmazonRootCA1.pem
DEBUG: main L#160 clientCRT /root/../certs/774a17950a-certificate.pem.crt
DEBUG: main L#161 clientKey /root/../certs/774a17950a-private.pem.key
Connecting...
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#130
. Seeding the random number generator...
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#138 . Loading the CA root certificate ...
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#144 ok (0 skipped)
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#146 . Loading the client cert. and key...
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#159 ok
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#161 . Connecting to a2g7twmqo7hg82-ats.iot.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/443...
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#180 ok
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#182 . Setting up the SSL/TLS structure...
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#223
SSL state connect : 0
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#226 ok
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#228
SSL state connect : 0
DEBUG: iot_tls_connect L#229 . Performing the SSL/TLS handshake...
ERROR: iot_tls_connect L#232 failed
! mbedtls_ssl_handshake returned -0x50
ERROR: main L#190 Error(-4) connecting to a2g7twmqo7hg82-ats.iot.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com:443
For detailed debug log using ssl_client2, go through https://pastebin.com/mNXhB0xj<https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/url>
https://pastebin.com/mNXhB0xj
my client device specifications
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
model name : ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l)
BogoMIPS : 1056.00
Features : half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpd32
CPU implementer : 0x41
CPU architecture: 7
CPU variant : 0x4
CPU part : 0xc09
CPU revision : 1
Hardware : Generic R7S9210 (Flattened Device Tree)
Revision : 0000
Serial : 0000000000000000
$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 7544 4484 3060 40 0 304
-/+ buffers/cache: 4180 3364
Swap: 0 0 0
I am not getting any help to resolve this issue and spending days and days. I am suspecting the issue might be timing related (or) cpu clock related (or) memory footprint related (or) something else
I need this forum help badly to resolve the issue. Please ping me if you need any other data.
Thanks in advance,
Srinivas.
Regards,
Srinivas.
[cid:1eddf249-06f8-4cbd-a3e2-9c22437fd27f]
Hi,
I wanted to use TLS over BLE application. When I googled, I figured out that MbedTLS can work on BLE. If someone can share a sample application where-in MbedTLS APIs are used as part of a BT/BLE application, it will be of great help.
Regards,
Fariya
Hi,
we have an application which uses ASIO. And now we want to add mbed TLS to
provide a TLS layer.
ASIO can be used with OpenSSL and wolfSSL. But how to do this with mbed TLS?
Any hints on that?
See also this question at SO:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61875404/asio-c-with-mbed-tls-library
best regards,
Frank
I want to connect an ESP32 to a DTLS server using mbedtls' dtls_server demo. The code I used for the client is very similar to the dtls_client example, but is unable to finish the handshake process for some reason. According to Wireshark, the client is not responding to the "Server hello done" frame, causing a timeout that makes the server to send the certificate again and again until it gives up the connection. The dtls_client demo works correctly on the computer, but not on the ESP32. Has anyone tested DTLS on the ESP32?
I have attached the following files for further reference:
- dtls_esp32.pcapng: Wireshark file with the DTLS packets between client and server.
- mbedtls.tar.bz2: compressed (> 7k lines) plain text log as reported by the board. On line 7131, where the last message from the server is received, it looks like the client never receives the whole message, so it never reaches the "Server hello done" state. Could anyone please confirm this?
- dtls.c: client source code. Slightly modified from the dtls_client example.
Thank you very much for your help.
Xavi
Hi,
I was reviewing the proposal and had a few questions on usage of the new params.
1) When using plaintext keys, is the "attributes" param unused and should/could it be set to NULL?
2) If using key store (i.e. opaque), is the key ID the only attribute field which needs to be set? My assumption is attributes would be populated from the key store using the key ID?
3) If using key store, are the "key_buffer" and "key_buffer_size" params typically unused (i.e. can be set to null and zero respectively)? I do the proposal says the buffer content is up to the driver. Are there any usage cases in mind?
4) For drivers that support both opaque and transparent operation, which param would be used to determine the mode? (I had assumed key ID = 0 would be transparent, and non-zero is opaque)
I'm unclear how persistent_state for opaque driver's is used. Could you elaborate on how it's used by the driver and core and why it isn't needed for transparent drivers?
Key management with opaque drivers
Transparent drivers may provide the following key management functions:
Should this be "Opaque"?
Regards,
Brian Quach
SimpleLink MCU
Texas Instruments Inc.
12500 TI Blvd, MS F-4000
Dallas, TX 75243
214-479-4076
> On 11 Jun 2020, at 12:09, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/06/2020 11:24, Martin Man via mbed-tls wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a bug and the dn_gets should simply leave the UTF-8
>> multibyte untouched when parsing it out from a field tagged with ASN.1
>> tag 12 (utf-8).
>
> We are not going to do Unicode normalization in Mbed TLS: that would be
> far too complex for a library that runs on systems with ~1e5 bytes
> available for code. So Unicode strings would only be processed correctly
> if the application passes normalized strings and CAs only generate
> certificates with normalized strings. But that would be an improvement
> on converting non-ASCII characters to '?'.
Definitely agree that normalization is not needed. I think this problem could be split into two parts:
1) When a const char* is passed into mbedtls_x509write_crt_set_subject_name, the mbedtls will currently encode it into ASN tag 12 UTF8. Not sure what validation is done. But it could perhaps do at least a basic validation of what the C string passed in is to avoid generating a cert with crippled DN. Alternatively you can simply trust the developer to pass in correct UTF8 and document this. This is a API design decision of what input is allowed to be passed into the method and what validation is done on this.
2) When the mbedtls_x509_dn_gets extracts a C string from the ASN.1 tagged as 12, it could validate that it is indeed valid UTF-8, or just leave it as is and push it out. Again, this is about what we expect the library to do.
I’m not an expert on whether this can in any way be used to trick MBEDLTS to do bad things when sending in a malformed certificate, say a one where DN is encoded as UTF-8 but contains illegal UTF-8 in the payload.
thanks for listening,
Martin
On 11/06/2020 11:24, Martin Man via mbed-tls wrote:
> The code in mbedtls_x509_dn_gets fails to properly handle the UTF-8
> multibyte sequence 0xe2 0x80 0x99 and turns it into 0xe2 0x80 0x3f.
>
> There is a fix floating around development branch mentioned
> here https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3326/files which
> essentially replaces all control chars with question marks.
>
> I think this is a bug and the dn_gets should simply leave the UTF-8
> multibyte untouched when parsing it out from a field tagged with ASN.1
> tag 12 (utf-8).
That code is from an earlier era (mid 2000s, I think) when most systems
used an 8-bit encoding, but non-8-bit-clean systems were still common. A
'\x80' in text might be transformed to '\x00' with disastrous consequences.
But over a decade later, I don't think non-8-bit-clean systems are a
concern anymore. Leaving all non-ASCII characters alone sounds
reasonable to me.
We are not going to do Unicode normalization in Mbed TLS: that would be
far too complex for a library that runs on systems with ~1e5 bytes
available for code. So Unicode strings would only be processed correctly
if the application passes normalized strings and CAs only generate
certificates with normalized strings. But that would be an improvement
on converting non-ASCII characters to '?'.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
Hi guys,
I’m new to the list and bringing the discussion over here from https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3413 <https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3413>.
I’m creating a certificate using mbedtls and setting it’s issuer and and subject using the mbedtls_x509write_crt_set_subject_name, and mbedtls_x509write_crt_set_issuer_name.
The name passed in is in UTF8 and contains a sequence 0xe2 0x80 0x99 (apostrophe) in the CN string. If I debugged this correctly, the underlying sequence of bytes is correctly encoded in ASN.1 and tagged as 12 (UTF-8).
When I later parse the cert and try to extract its subject back using mbedtls_x509_dn_gets from crt.subject and crt.issuer the UTF-8 gets corrupted.
The code in mbedtls_x509_dn_gets fails to properly handle the UTF-8 multibyte sequence 0xe2 0x80 0x99 and turns it into 0xe2 0x80 0x3f.
There is a fix floating around development branch mentioned here https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3326/files <https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3326/files> which essentially replaces all control chars with question marks.
I think this is a bug and the dn_gets should simply leave the UTF-8 multibyte untouched when parsing it out from a field tagged with ASN.1 tag 12 (utf-8).
What’s your opinion?
Martin
Hi Palomo
All the documentation we have to share is already available, either in the upstream codebase, the wiki (https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/) or the legacy website (https://tls.mbed.org/). Some of the info on the latter is out of date.
The core development team at Arm do not offer training. Arm has a Partner Enablement Group that does this kind of thing but I don't think they offer Mbed TLS specific training currently. I've asked them if they would consider this in future but I guess that's not going to help you in the short term.
Good luck with your learning and we'll try to answer any specific questions you have.
Regards
Dan.
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls
Sent: 08 June 2020 04:46
To: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine(a)arm.com>
Cc: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] support mbedTLS no entropy source
Hi Gilles.
Thanks for follow my questions and attend it, regarding trainings, I want to understand how the encryption works, how the algorithms works inside the library, I can read the code and google the concepts but I want to accelerate the knowledge transfer, maybe for implement some optimization, I don't if that is possible, at the moment my PoC using uClinux works perfectly and the TLS 1.2 ir running over 80Mhz, so that is pretty awesome, but I want to learn more about encryption, maybe if you can share me some literature regarding this point?
Thank you very much and regards from Mexico!
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:21 PM Gilles Peskine <gilles.peskine(a)arm.com<mailto:gilles.peskine@arm.com>> wrote:
Hi Palomo,
I don't think there's any other way at the moment. The patch in my email
is one possible solution, but I'm not sure if it's right, because not
all platforms with a Linux kernel have /dev/urandom.
I think the best solution would be to make the existence of /dev/urandom
a platform configuration option. But platform options are a little messy
already, between the MBEDTLS_HAVE_xxx options, the
MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_STD_xxx options, the MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_xxx_MACRO
options, the MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_xxx_ALT options. And this new option
wouldn't behave like any of the existing ones since it should have three
settings: guess (the default, identical to the current behavior of
observing preprocessor symbols like __unix__), off and on. We should
figure out what to do about platform options in 3.0 before making this
even more complex.
me.todo.add("collect my thoughts on simplifying platform customization
and post them to the list")
Regarding trainings, my team doesn't normally do that, but there are
other teams in Arm that do. What topic are you interested in?
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 31/05/2020 20:06, Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia wrote:
> Hello Gilles thanks for your support, yes finally I could compile the
> library in the architecture that I used, I forced the compilation to
> entry in the "if _unix_" conditional compilation, but I assume that
> exist another way to do this. Do you have a example for enable that
> conditional compilation flags?
>
> regarding to my dev/urandom, yes my platform has this feature, the
> library runs very well, but I just have the point related to "force"
> the compilation because the library doesn't recognize the unix
> architecture.
>
> Thanks and we keep in touch!
>
> Regards from Mexico!
>
> BTW If I want to professional training, Do you offered this service?
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:07 AM Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls
> <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>> wrote:
>
> Hi Palomo,
>
> You seem to be compiling for a system with a Linux kernel, but
> with only
> a partial Unix userland. The “Unix” code in the entropy_poll module
> might work on your system, but it is only enabled if __unix__ or
> __unix
> (or a few others) is defined.
>
> Can you please try the attached patch? Does your runtime environment
> have /dev/urandom ?
>
> Regarding the knowledge base article, you need to remove the "."
> character at the end of the URL:
> https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator--
>
> Gilles Peskine
> Mbed TLS developer
>
> On 19/05/2020 21:43, Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls wrote:
> > Hello Hanno, Thanks for your thanks for you quickly replay.
> >
> > I have an error compilation, I'm using nios2-linux-uclibc for my
> cross
> > compilation and uclinux architecture,
> > the linux kernel is 2.60 but I have this error when I try to compile
> > the library, I want to use the library as a simple client using
> TLS1.2
> >
> > $ make static
> > CC aes.c
> > CC aesni.c
> > CC arc4.c
> > CC aria.c
> > CC asn1parse.c
> > CC asn1write.c
> > CC base64.c
> > CC bignum.c
> > CC blowfish.c
> > CC camellia.c
> > CC ccm.c
> > CC chacha20.c
> > CC chachapoly.c
> > CC cipher.c
> > CC cipher_wrap.c
> > CC cmac.c
> > CC ctr_drbg.c
> > CC des.c
> > CC dhm.c
> > CC ecdh.c
> > CC ecdsa.c
> > CC ecjpake.c
> > CC ecp.c
> > CC ecp_curves.c
> > CC entropy.c
> > CC entropy_poll.c
> > entropy_poll.c:56:2: #error "Platform entropy sources only work on
> > Unix and Windows, see MBEDTLS_NO_PLATFORM_ENTROPY in config.h"
> > Makefile:285: recipe for target 'entropy_poll.o' failed
> > make: *** [entropy_poll.o] Error 1
> >
> > BTW the article is not
> > found https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator.
> > <https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator.>
> >
> > Many thanks!!
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:01 AM Hanno Becker
> <Hanno.Becker(a)arm.com<mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com> <mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com<mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com>>
> > <mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com<mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com> <mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com<mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com>>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Palomo,
> >
> > Please take a look at the recent
> >
> thread https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/mbed-tls/2020-April/000069.html
> > which should give you a better understanding of how Mbed TLS
> > manages and uses entropy from the underlying system.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hanno
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> > <mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>>> on behalf of
> > Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls
> > <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> > <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>>>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:56 PM
> > *To:* mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> > <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>>
> > <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> > <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>>>
> > *Subject:* [mbed-tls] support mbedTLS no entropy source
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I'm Palomo and I've been working with your library a few weeks
> > ago, I'm using Linux kernel 2.60 but my embedded system has a
> > limit entropy source, i now that this is a critical point,
> but How
> > can I use your library if I want to use a other entropy source?
> >
> > Thanks and waiting for you!
> >
> > --
> > *¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > /*Jesus** Palomo*/
> >
> > México, D.F.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > /*Jesus** Palomo*/
> >
> > México, D.F.
> >
> > *
> >
>
> --
> mbed-tls mailing list
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
>
>
>
> --
> *¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
> *
> *
> *
> /*Jesus** Palomo*/
>
> México, D.F.
>
> *
--
¡Saludos! Best wishes!
Jesus Palomo
México, D.F.
Hello Gilles thanks for your support, yes finally I could compile the
library in the architecture that I used, I forced the compilation to entry
in the "if _unix_" conditional compilation, but I assume that exist another
way to do this. Do you have a example for enable that conditional
compilation flags?
regarding to my dev/urandom, yes my platform has this feature, the library
runs very well, but I just have the point related to "force" the
compilation because the library doesn't recognize the unix architecture.
Thanks and we keep in touch!
Regards from Mexico!
BTW If I want to professional training, Do you offered this service?
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:07 AM Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls <
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hi Palomo,
>
> You seem to be compiling for a system with a Linux kernel, but with only
> a partial Unix userland. The “Unix” code in the entropy_poll module
> might work on your system, but it is only enabled if __unix__ or __unix
> (or a few others) is defined.
>
> Can you please try the attached patch? Does your runtime environment
> have /dev/urandom ?
>
> Regarding the knowledge base article, you need to remove the "."
> character at the end of the URL:
> https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator--
>
> Gilles Peskine
> Mbed TLS developer
>
> On 19/05/2020 21:43, Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls wrote:
> > Hello Hanno, Thanks for your thanks for you quickly replay.
> >
> > I have an error compilation, I'm using nios2-linux-uclibc for my cross
> > compilation and uclinux architecture,
> > the linux kernel is 2.60 but I have this error when I try to compile
> > the library, I want to use the library as a simple client using TLS1.2
> >
> > $ make static
> > CC aes.c
> > CC aesni.c
> > CC arc4.c
> > CC aria.c
> > CC asn1parse.c
> > CC asn1write.c
> > CC base64.c
> > CC bignum.c
> > CC blowfish.c
> > CC camellia.c
> > CC ccm.c
> > CC chacha20.c
> > CC chachapoly.c
> > CC cipher.c
> > CC cipher_wrap.c
> > CC cmac.c
> > CC ctr_drbg.c
> > CC des.c
> > CC dhm.c
> > CC ecdh.c
> > CC ecdsa.c
> > CC ecjpake.c
> > CC ecp.c
> > CC ecp_curves.c
> > CC entropy.c
> > CC entropy_poll.c
> > entropy_poll.c:56:2: #error "Platform entropy sources only work on
> > Unix and Windows, see MBEDTLS_NO_PLATFORM_ENTROPY in config.h"
> > Makefile:285: recipe for target 'entropy_poll.o' failed
> > make: *** [entropy_poll.o] Error 1
> >
> > BTW the article is not
> > found https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator.
> > <https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator.>
> >
> > Many thanks!!
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:01 AM Hanno Becker <Hanno.Becker(a)arm.com
> > <mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Palomo,
> >
> > Please take a look at the recent
> > thread
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/mbed-tls/2020-April/000069.html
>
> > which should give you a better understanding of how Mbed TLS
> > manages and uses entropy from the underlying system.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hanno
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> > <mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of
> > Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls
> > <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> > <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:56 PM
> > *To:* mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> > <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> > <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> > <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> > *Subject:* [mbed-tls] support mbedTLS no entropy source
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I'm Palomo and I've been working with your library a few weeks
> > ago, I'm using Linux kernel 2.60 but my embedded system has a
> > limit entropy source, i now that this is a critical point, but How
> > can I use your library if I want to use a other entropy source?
> >
> > Thanks and waiting for you!
> >
> > --
> > *¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > /*Jesus** Palomo*/
> >
> > México, D.F.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > /*Jesus** Palomo*/
> >
> > México, D.F.
> >
> > *
> >
>
> --
> mbed-tls mailing list
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
>
--
*¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
*Jesus PalomoMéxico, D.F.*
Hello,
Arm is seeking early feedback on a proposed interface for cryptographic
drivers that can be plugged into an implementation of the PSA
Cryptography API. A copy of the current specification is attached. You
can find the current draft of the specification of this interface at
https://github.com/gilles-peskine-arm/mbedtls/blob/psa-unified-driver-proto…
Please note that this is work in progress. The document is not complete
yet. At this stage, it is intended to offer a general overview of the
design, not as an implementable specification. Our intention is to
continue refining this design, however we may change it based on the
feedback that we will receive and there is even a small chance that we
will abandon it.
The primary intent of this specification is to allow manufacturers of
cryptographic hardware to distribute drivers that can be added to a
pure-software, portable implementation of the PSA Cryptography API such
as Mbed TLS. The interface was designed to support three types of hardware:
* Cryptographic accelerators that operate on a key which is provided in
cleartext at the beginning of the operation. This type of driver can
also be used to plug in software engines.
* Protected environments that operate on a wrapped key which is stored
outside the protected environment.
* Protected environments that have internal key storage and operate on
keys designated by an identifier.
Concretely, a driver manufacturer would distribute:
* A JSON file specifying the driver's capabilities.
* C headers declaring the types and functions provided by the driver.
* The implementation of the functions provided by the driver, either in
the form of C source code or in the form of compiled code.
Then when an application uses a key:
* If the key is in the memory or local storage of the PSA crypto
subsystem and a driver is available for the requested cryptographic
mechanism, the core (e.g. Mbed TLS) dispatches the cryptographic
operation to the driver.
* If the key is in local storage and no driver is available, the core
performs the cryptographic operation itself.
* If the key is in some other location (as specified by its lifetime),
the core invokes the protected environment driver corresponding to that
location.
This proposal supersedes the previous drafts “PSA cryptographic
accelerator interface” (psa_crypto_accel.h) and “PSA secure element
driver interface” (crypto_se_driver.h).
We intend to implement this specification in Mbed TLS in such a way that
a platform distributor can combine drivers and distribute C source code,
object files or a mixture of the two in their system development kit. In
the long term, the accelerator interface defined here will replace the
current MBEDTLS_xxx_ALT mechanism.
Comments are welcome through the following venues:
* Public email to the psa-crypto or mbed-tls mailing list at
TrustedFirmware.
* Public comments on GitHub on the pull request
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3313 .
* Private email to <mbed-crypto(a)arm.com>. These emails will only be
shared inside Arm. We may use your feedback to influence the design of
PSA Crypto, but your identity and the specifics will be kept confidential.
We do not have a specific deadline for feedback, however we intend to
start implementing this interface in Mbed TLS in June 2020, so feedback
received later will have a reduced chance of influencing the design if
it would entail major changes.
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer and PSA Cryptography architect
Hi Palomo,
You seem to be compiling for a system with a Linux kernel, but with only
a partial Unix userland. The “Unix” code in the entropy_poll module
might work on your system, but it is only enabled if __unix__ or __unix
(or a few others) is defined.
Can you please try the attached patch? Does your runtime environment
have /dev/urandom ?
Regarding the knowledge base article, you need to remove the "."
character at the end of the URL:
https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 19/05/2020 21:43, Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello Hanno, Thanks for your thanks for you quickly replay.
>
> I have an error compilation, I'm using nios2-linux-uclibc for my cross
> compilation and uclinux architecture,
> the linux kernel is 2.60 but I have this error when I try to compile
> the library, I want to use the library as a simple client using TLS1.2
>
> $ make static
> CC aes.c
> CC aesni.c
> CC arc4.c
> CC aria.c
> CC asn1parse.c
> CC asn1write.c
> CC base64.c
> CC bignum.c
> CC blowfish.c
> CC camellia.c
> CC ccm.c
> CC chacha20.c
> CC chachapoly.c
> CC cipher.c
> CC cipher_wrap.c
> CC cmac.c
> CC ctr_drbg.c
> CC des.c
> CC dhm.c
> CC ecdh.c
> CC ecdsa.c
> CC ecjpake.c
> CC ecp.c
> CC ecp_curves.c
> CC entropy.c
> CC entropy_poll.c
> entropy_poll.c:56:2: #error "Platform entropy sources only work on
> Unix and Windows, see MBEDTLS_NO_PLATFORM_ENTROPY in config.h"
> Makefile:285: recipe for target 'entropy_poll.o' failed
> make: *** [entropy_poll.o] Error 1
>
> BTW the article is not
> found https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator.
> <https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/add-a-random-generator.>
>
> Many thanks!!
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:01 AM Hanno Becker <Hanno.Becker(a)arm.com
> <mailto:Hanno.Becker@arm.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Palomo,
>
> Please take a look at the recent
> thread https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/mbed-tls/2020-April/000069.html
> which should give you a better understanding of how Mbed TLS
> manages and uses entropy from the underlying system.
>
> Regards,
> Hanno
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> <mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of
> Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls
> <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:56 PM
> *To:* mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> *Subject:* [mbed-tls] support mbedTLS no entropy source
>
> Hi all!
>
> I'm Palomo and I've been working with your library a few weeks
> ago, I'm using Linux kernel 2.60 but my embedded system has a
> limit entropy source, i now that this is a critical point, but How
> can I use your library if I want to use a other entropy source?
>
> Thanks and waiting for you!
>
> --
> *¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
> *
> *
> *
> /*Jesus** Palomo*/
>
> México, D.F.
>
> *
>
>
>
> --
> *¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
> *
> *
> *
> /*Jesus** Palomo*/
>
> México, D.F.
>
> *
>
Hi Palomo,
Please take a look at the recent thread https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/mbed-tls/2020-April/000069.html
which should give you a better understanding of how Mbed TLS manages and uses entropy from the underlying system.
Regards,
Hanno
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Jesus Gualberto Palomo Garcia via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:56 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] support mbedTLS no entropy source
Hi all!
I'm Palomo and I've been working with your library a few weeks ago, I'm using Linux kernel 2.60 but my embedded system has a limit entropy source, i now that this is a critical point, but How can I use your library if I want to use a other entropy source?
Thanks and waiting for you!
--
¡Saludos! Best wishes!
Jesus Palomo
México, D.F.
Hi all!
I'm Palomo and I've been working with your library a few weeks ago, I'm
using Linux kernel 2.60 but my embedded system has a limit entropy source,
i now that this is a critical point, but How can I use your library if I
want to use a other entropy source?
Thanks and waiting for you!
--
*¡Saludos! Best wishes!*
*Jesus PalomoMéxico, D.F.*
Hello,
If you enable the use PSA for cryptography in TLS
(MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO) and configure the PSK with
mbedtls_ssl_conf_psk_opaque(), the key derivation is done through the
PSA API. You can then keep your key in the secure world. You'll need to
have a PSA crypto implementation where the PSA crypto core is in the
secure world and the frontend is in the application that performs the
TLS handshake. PSA crypto is designed for this, but you or your TEE
vendor will need to port the Mbed TLS code to your platform.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 13/05/2020 11:10, mayuri janawad via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am currently trying to establish pre shared key based tls handshake
> using mbedtls. However, I want to store the pre shared key in the
> trustzone and derive the session key inside the trustzone. Is it
> possible using mbedtls? Can I provide alternate implementation for psk
> based tls in mbedtls library?
>
> It would be really helpful if this could be answered as soon as
> possible. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
>
> Regards,
> Mayuri Janawad
>
Hello,
I am currently trying to establish pre shared key based tls handshake using
mbedtls. However, I want to store the pre shared key in the trustzone and
derive the session key inside the trustzone. Is it possible using mbedtls?
Can I provide alternate implementation for psk based tls in mbedtls library?
It would be really helpful if this could be answered as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Regards,
Mayuri Janawad
Hi Abhilash,
> I am trying to do the ECDH shared secret computation using the mbedTLS
> library. I am referring to multiple examples such as ecdh_curve25519.c
> and ecdh_main.c.
>
Ok. You should probably know a few things about those examples:
1. They both perform what's known as "ephemeral ECDH" (or sometimes ECDHE).
2. They're both using the low-level part of our ECDH API. For ecdh_curve25519,
that is because that curve is not supported by the higher-level API yet - for
the other example, I don't know what the reason is.
3. Curve25519 is quite different from other curves regarding how public keys
are represented.
> In my case, in my application firmware, I already have a device _priv
> key and I receive a server_public key; both generated using a curve
> ECP_DP_SECP256R1 in the bootloader itself. So in the application
> firmware, I would like to do generate a shared secret from here on and
> preserve it for future use.
>
Ok, so you want to do what's known as "static ECDH". So the example
ecdh_curve25519 is not a great example, due to points 1 and 3 above. Also,
since the curve you're using supports it, you may want to use the higher-level
part of our ECDH API (the functions that accept a context as an argument).
> The following is the steps that I do:
>
> 1. Create a new client context, entropy context, ctr_drbg context variables.
> 2. use mbedtls_"respective"_init() to initalize all the three variables
> 3. Seed a random number using mbedtls_ctr_drbg_seed() function.
> 4. load the P256 elliptic curve in client context using mbedtls_ecp_group_load()
All this looks absolutely correct.
> 5. Then use mbedtls_mpi_lset() to set Qp.Z =1
> 6. Then read the server pub key using mbedtls_mpi_read_binary(&ctx_cli.Qp.X, server_pub, 65);
>From the 65 I assume that the server public key as encoded as an uncompressed
point. Then you can read it with:
mbedtls_ecp_point_read_binary(&ctx_cli.grp, &ctx_cli.Qp, server_pub, 65);
(For Curve25519 mbedtls_ecp_point_read_binary() isn't implemented yet which is
why the example does a direct call to an MPI function and accesses individual
point coordinates, but Curve25519 and P-256 don't use the same coordinate
systems.)
> 7. Now the question is: Should I initialize the ctx_cli with my already generated device_priv key using
> mbedtls_mpi_read_binary(&ctx_cli.d, device_priv_key, 50) ?
That looks almost correct, except 50 does not look like a valid size for a
private key for the curve you're using.
> 8. Then I use mbedtls_ecdh_compute_shared(&ctx_cli.grp, &ctx_cli.z, &ctx_cli.Qp, &ctx_cli.d, mbedtls_ctr_drbg_random, &ctr_drbg); to compute the shared secret in z.
>
That's correct, but you could also call
mbedtls_ecdh_calc_secret( &ctx_cli, &olen, buf, blen,
mbedtls_ctr_drbg_random, &ctr_drbg );
which also serializes the secret to a buffer.
> Questions:
> 1. Do I need to generate a keypair for client context using
> mbedtls_ecdh_gen_public(&ctx_cli.grp, &ctx_cli.d, &ctx_cli.Q,
> mbedtls_ctr_drbg_random, &ctrDrbg)? And then set pvtkey as device priv
> key and pub key as service pub key?
>
I'm not sure I understand the context of the question, so I'll distinguish
two cases:
- When provisioning the device, you need to generate a key pair for it, which
can indeed be done as show.
- Once the device is working, it doesn't need to generate new key pairs, just
load the one that was provisioned as described below.
> 2. I see that ctx_cli.Q has two components, Q.x and Q.y. How do I
> extract these two values from a public key? Do I need to separately
> initialize them?
>
I don't recommend you manipulate those directly, but use the
`mbedtls_ecp_point_{read,write}_binary()` functions instead.
> Please let me know if the flow is correct. In all the examples, they
> generate a key pair and just update the public key part (Qp.X) of the
> key. They do not touch the private key part (d) of the key. Please
> confirm if I can upload my private key directly in my case.
>
Your flow looks correct, and the difference from the examples is that they're
demonstrating ephemeral ECDH while it looks like you want to do static ECDH.
> Also if my platform is a little endian, is there a recommended step
> before using mbedtls_mpi_read_binary_le functions?
Then endianness of your plaftorm should not matter, and you shouldn't need to
use that function.
Regards,
Manuel.
Hi Aurélien,
> I have submitted PR#3245 in order to add Edwards curves support to Mbed
> TLS, with the eventual goal to add support for the EdDSA algorithm.
> There are still a few things to fix that require discussion.
>
Thank you very much for your contribution, and for opening this discussion!
> Let's start the discussion with the first one. Adding a new curve type
> requires to add a new entry to the mbedtls_ecp_curve_type enum. The
> curve type used by a group is returned by the mbedtls_ecp_get_type
> function. It currently uses the coordinates type of the base point to
> determine the curve type. Montgomery curves are lacking the y
> coordinate, and the Short Weierstrass curves use the three x, y and z
> coordinates.
>
> The Edwards arithmetic implementation in this PR uses the projective
> coordinates. As such it also uses the x, y and z coordinates and this
> gives no way to differentiate a Short Weierstrass from an Edwards curve.
>
Indeed, the current implementation of `ecp_curve_type()` is a bit of a hack
and needs changing now that you're adding Edwards curves.
> I have currently implemented that by checking if the curves are the
> Ed25519 or Ed448 ones using the group id [1]. I am not sure it's very
> clean and it won't scale if more curves are added later. Another
> alternative would be to add another entry to mbedtls_ecp_group to hold
> the curve type.
>
> What do you think is the best option? Any other idea?
Honestly I think both options are fine. In the medium term (in 3.0 or 3.x) I'd
like to entirely rework the `ecp_group` structure, which currently potentially
wastes memory by having multiple instances for the same curve around (for
example, when verifying a chain of N certificates all signed with the same
curve, we'll have N instances of the `ecp_group` structure for that curve in
RAM, which is quite wasteful). So I think in the meantime we don't need to
sweat it too much.
I have a slight preference for the option you currently implemented (checking
the group ID), for two reasons:
1. Lack of scaling is not an issue, as it's unlikely a large number of Edwards
curves are going to be added soon (in particular, not before the rework of
ecp_group), since these last few years the tendency seems to be to focus on a
small number of trusted curves [1].
2. Adding a new member to `mbedtls_ecp_group` would be an ABI break, and while
we don't have a strict policy of ABI stability, it tends to cause pain to
packagers if we change the ABI too often, so it's probably better to avoid it
if we can.
Thanks,
Manuel.
[1] For example, compare https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4492#section-5.1.1 to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8422#section-5.1.1
Hi Simon,
> I appreciate I'm coming very late to this discussion, but I want to make a
> point and suggestion.
>
Well, I don't think we had reached a clear consensus yet, so it's not too
late to explore more options!
> These are very similar points to those Manuel was making to remove the feature
> in the first place - however - short of investing the time in rewriting the
> asymmetric functions, what we could do as a quick fix is to replace the
> existing memory code with a block allocation scheme - which should be much
> faster, speed up the asymmetric functions (in theory), avoid fragmentation, be
> more deterministic, and a better fit for embedded applications. That could
> then become the basis of the library for other projects too.
>
I think compared to our existing allocator, that would indeed be an
improvement, and as you say possibly a "quick fix" for some of the
performance issues of our asymmetric crypto (esp. ECC)... for people who
use our allocator. I'm still under the impression they're a minority of
users, even in the embedded world.
I think it comes back to a point we touched on earlier in the thread:
what other allocators are available, and how do they compare to the
design you have in mind? If existing allocators in popular embedded libc
implementations already handle small allocations efficiently, then
people are probably better off using them.
> I wouldn't mind contributing such a feature, as I had to write something very
> similar last week anyway.
>
> If I do it - will you accept it?
Thanks for the offer! Unfortunately I think it's hard to give you a
clear yes or no answer at this point.
Speaking only for myself (others in the team may disagree and are
welcome to say so in reply), I'm a bit concerned that for a "quick fix"
it would represent a significant review effort: there are obvious
security implications, it would be a complete re-design of a whole
module, and I'm not sure how many of the potential reviewers are very
familiar with allocators (I know I'm not). Considering we already have
a number of significant contributions that we just can't review as soon
as we'd like, I'd be concerned adding another one.
Adding to that concern is the fact that at this point it's still not
clear to me if in the long-term we want to keep maintaining this, or use
some existing allocator, or move it to a separate project possibly maintained by another team.
Would your offer still stand in a couple of months, when the future of
the module is perhaps a bit clearer, and when we've hopefully cleared a
few of the long-standing large PR awaiting review?
Thanks,
Manuel.