- mbed-tls - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Fwd: Working on TLS handshake record fragmentation (#1840)

by Omer Shapira

Hi Dave, Thanks for your reply. The particular reasons for bringing up 2.7 and 2.16 first is that my employer is currently using 2.7 and would prefer using a small increment. Having said that, if adding features to LTS is not advisable (especially given that 2.7 has less than 6 months of projected life), I think I can present the arguments against using the 2.7. Additional consideration is the timing. My employer needs fragmentation support as soon as possible, with the intent of running it on a desktop environment. Historically, when the engineers are able to provide my employer with what is needed now, they are allowed more time for incremental improvements. The third consideration involves the MPS project by Hanno Becker. I've been collaborating with Hanno, and with Hannes Tschofenig and Thomas Fosetti on the project of adding QUIC support to mbedTLS. This goal depends on TLS 1.3 support (Hannes has written a prototype, which I was able to add QUIC in an internal version), and on MPS. I would like to avoid putting a duplicate effort into non-MPS fragmentation support. Unfortunately, if I want to meet the timing requirements of my employer, I will not be able to use MPS, since it needs more maturing. Because of the above considerations, I would like to suggest the following plan of actions: As the first step, I would like to add the MVP (minimal viable product) fragmentation to the development version. The MVP takes the following assumptions: 1. The RAM footprint is not a concern for the MVP (my employer is going to run it in the desktop environment). 2. Unification of the fragmentation between TLS and DTLS is not a concern for the MVP 3. LTS is not a concern for the MVP (potentially not at all) Because of the above simplifying assumptions, I believe that the change can be small and focused. I think I can have code ready for review in a couple of weeks. As the second step, I would like to put my effort into helping Hanno Becker with his MPS system. Once sufficiently mature, the MPS will supersede the MVP fragmentation, and will open the doors for adding support for QUIC. The simplifying assumptions 1. (RAM) and 2. (TLS <=> DTLS) will be addressed by MPS. Addressing the last assumption may not be required. What are your thoughts? On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:28 AM Dave Rodgman <dave.rodgman(a)arm.com> wrote: > Hi Omer, > > > > Thanks for offering to help us with this feature. > > > > Normally, we wouldn’t add new features directly to an older branch, for a > few reasons. 2.7 is quite old and is in fact only guaranteed to be > supported until Feb 21, so it’s not the ideal place to spend effort on new > features. Introducing new features here would also create the situation > where 2.7 has features not in development, and vice-versa, creating an > upgrade dilemma for users (unless we were to port the feature to all > supported branches). And adding significant new features to LTS branches > can always introduce some risk of destabilising it. > > > > So for these reasons, we would normally recommend targeting the > development branch for new features (with backports only where there is a > strong reason to do so), and then picking up the next stable release that > contains the new feature. > > > > Is there a particular reason you’re focusing on 2.7, rather than > development, or would it be viable for you to add this to development and > pick up the next release? > > > > Thanks > > > > Dave > > > > *From: *mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf > of Omer Shapira via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> > *Reply to: *Omer Shapira <omer.shapira(a)gmail.com> > *Date: *Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:04 > *To: *"mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" < > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> > *Subject: *[mbed-tls] Working on TLS handshake record fragmentation > (#1840) > > > > Hello, > > My employer (Facebook) is willing to give me some time to TLS handshake > fragmentation support to MbedTLS 2.7 [0] . This would be my first > contribution to MbedTLS, and I have several novice questions: > > 1. What is the best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7? > 2. Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the > branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. > > > Question 1: Best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7 > > One constraint that I am facing is the code must be added to the upstream > branch that is as close as possible to the 2.7.xx. My understanding of the > Contribution Guidelines[1] is that while the LTS branches are mostly meant > for the bug fixes, backporting of the new features is welcomed as long as > the API/ABI compatibility is maintained and the disruption to the users is > minimized. > > If adding support to the LTS branches is not advisable, are there any > other possibilities of contributing the code to an upstream branch that is > very close to the 2.7.xx? > > Question 2: Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code > across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. > > Assuming that adding features to 2.7 (and 2.16) *is* possible, there is a > trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the > branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. The `development` branch > supports variable-length buffers[2] . Variable messages sizes would make > the fragmentation easier in the development branch. In addition, there is > the MPS effort by Hanno Becker which would make the fragmentation support > even easier in the development branch. None of that is present in the 2.7 > or the 2.16 branches. > > What is the preferable trade-off in such a situation: > a. Minimizing the change to the "host" version (2.7 or 2.16), on the > expense the implementation of the feature differ between 2.7 and > `development`, or > b. Minimizing the differences in the implementation of the feature, on > the expense of more intrusive changes to the earlier versions? > > > [0] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/1840 > [1] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md > [2] > https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/include/mbedtls/config.… > > -- > > Sincerely Yours, > Omer Shapira > -- Sincerely Yours, Omer Shapira -- Sincerely Yours, Omer Shapira

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Working on TLS handshake record fragmentation (#1840)

by Dave Rodgman

Hi Omer, Thanks for offering to help us with this feature. Normally, we wouldn’t add new features directly to an older branch, for a few reasons. 2.7 is quite old and is in fact only guaranteed to be supported until Feb 21, so it’s not the ideal place to spend effort on new features. Introducing new features here would also create the situation where 2.7 has features not in development, and vice-versa, creating an upgrade dilemma for users (unless we were to port the feature to all supported branches). And adding significant new features to LTS branches can always introduce some risk of destabilising it. So for these reasons, we would normally recommend targeting the development branch for new features (with backports only where there is a strong reason to do so), and then picking up the next stable release that contains the new feature. Is there a particular reason you’re focusing on 2.7, rather than development, or would it be viable for you to add this to development and pick up the next release? Thanks Dave From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Omer Shapira via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Reply to: Omer Shapira <omer.shapira(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:04 To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [mbed-tls] Working on TLS handshake record fragmentation (#1840) Hello, My employer (Facebook) is willing to give me some time to TLS handshake fragmentation support to MbedTLS 2.7 [0] . This would be my first contribution to MbedTLS, and I have several novice questions: 1. What is the best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7? 2. Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. Question 1: Best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7 One constraint that I am facing is the code must be added to the upstream branch that is as close as possible to the 2.7.xx. My understanding of the Contribution Guidelines[1] is that while the LTS branches are mostly meant for the bug fixes, backporting of the new features is welcomed as long as the API/ABI compatibility is maintained and the disruption to the users is minimized. If adding support to the LTS branches is not advisable, are there any other possibilities of contributing the code to an upstream branch that is very close to the 2.7.xx? Question 2: Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. Assuming that adding features to 2.7 (and 2.16) *is* possible, there is a trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. The `development` branch supports variable-length buffers[2] . Variable messages sizes would make the fragmentation easier in the development branch. In addition, there is the MPS effort by Hanno Becker which would make the fragmentation support even easier in the development branch. None of that is present in the 2.7 or the 2.16 branches. What is the preferable trade-off in such a situation: a. Minimizing the change to the "host" version (2.7 or 2.16), on the expense the implementation of the feature differ between 2.7 and `development`, or b. Minimizing the differences in the implementation of the feature, on the expense of more intrusive changes to the earlier versions? [0] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/1840 [1] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md [2] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/include/mbedtls/config.… -- Sincerely Yours, Omer Shapira

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Working on TLS handshake record fragmentation (#1840)

by Omer Shapira

While waiting for opinions regarding the question of adding features to the LTS versions, I have written a draft design doc. I discussed the "design review process" with Hanno Becker, and we decided to try and use GitHub for the design review. I have created PR #3783 [0], which includes `docs/proposed/hs_fragmentation.md` [1]. I will appreciate your comments, and will update the design doc following the feedback. Once there is clarity on the approach, I will proceed with the implementation PRs. [0] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3783 [1] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3783/commits/8be34f22237ee3cd3c1db2… On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:04 PM Omer Shapira via mbed-tls < mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hello, > > My employer (Facebook) is willing to give me some time to TLS handshake > fragmentation support to MbedTLS 2.7 [0] . This would be my first > contribution to MbedTLS, and I have several novice questions: > > 1. What is the best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7? > 2. Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the > branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. > > Question 1: Best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7 > > One constraint that I am facing is the code must be added to the upstream > branch that is as close as possible to the 2.7.xx. My understanding of the > Contribution Guidelines[1] is that while the LTS branches are mostly meant > for the bug fixes, backporting of the new features is welcomed as long as > the API/ABI compatibility is maintained and the disruption to the users is > minimized. > > If adding support to the LTS branches is not advisable, are there any > other possibilities of contributing the code to an upstream branch that is > very close to the 2.7.xx? > > Question 2: Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code > across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. > > Assuming that adding features to 2.7 (and 2.16) *is* possible, there is a > trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the > branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. The `development` branch > supports variable-length buffers[2] . Variable messages sizes would make > the fragmentation easier in the development branch. In addition, there is > the MPS effort by Hanno Becker which would make the fragmentation support > even easier in the development branch. None of that is present in the 2.7 > or the 2.16 branches. > > What is the preferable trade-off in such a situation: > a. Minimizing the change to the "host" version (2.7 or 2.16), on the > expense the implementation of the feature differ between 2.7 and > `development`, or > b. Minimizing the differences in the implementation of the feature, on > the expense of more intrusive changes to the earlier versions? > > > [0] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/1840 > [1] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md > [2] > https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/include/mbedtls/config.… > > -- > Sincerely Yours, > Omer Shapira > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > -- Sincerely Yours, Omer Shapira

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Working on TLS handshake record fragmentation (#1840)

by Omer Shapira

Hello, My employer (Facebook) is willing to give me some time to TLS handshake fragmentation support to MbedTLS 2.7 [0] . This would be my first contribution to MbedTLS, and I have several novice questions: 1. What is the best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7? 2. Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. Question 1: Best way to add the feature to MbedTLS 2.7 One constraint that I am facing is the code must be added to the upstream branch that is as close as possible to the 2.7.xx. My understanding of the Contribution Guidelines[1] is that while the LTS branches are mostly meant for the bug fixes, backporting of the new features is welcomed as long as the API/ABI compatibility is maintained and the disruption to the users is minimized. If adding support to the LTS branches is not advisable, are there any other possibilities of contributing the code to an upstream branch that is very close to the 2.7.xx? Question 2: Trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. Assuming that adding features to 2.7 (and 2.16) *is* possible, there is a trade-off between the consistency of the fragmentation code across the branches, vs. the consistency of the branches. The `development` branch supports variable-length buffers[2] . Variable messages sizes would make the fragmentation easier in the development branch. In addition, there is the MPS effort by Hanno Becker which would make the fragmentation support even easier in the development branch. None of that is present in the 2.7 or the 2.16 branches. What is the preferable trade-off in such a situation: a. Minimizing the change to the "host" version (2.7 or 2.16), on the expense the implementation of the feature differ between 2.7 and `development`, or b. Minimizing the differences in the implementation of the feature, on the expense of more intrusive changes to the earlier versions? [0] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/1840 [1] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md [2] https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/include/mbedtls/config.… -- Sincerely Yours, Omer Shapira

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop on Nov. 3rd

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi All, Trustedfirmware.org community project would like to invite you to the Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop on November 3rd (Tuesday) from 2pm to 6pm GMT. The purpose of the workshop is to bring together the Mbed TLS community including maintainers, contributors and users to discuss * The future direction of the project and * Ways to improve community collaboration The workshop will be hosted in Zoom open to all. The invitation with the zoom link will be send in the Mbed TLS, PSA Crypto* mailing lists in the coming days. Here are some of the proposed agenda topics. Please reply if there is anything else you would like us or you to present during the workshop that will be interesting to the community * Constant-time code * How to be an effective Mbed TLS reviewer * Processes - how does work get scheduled? * Roadmap, Mbed TLS3.0 * PSA Crypto APIs * How Do I contribute my first review. Thanks, Shebu (TrustedFirmware.org Co-Chair, Mbed TLS Technology Manager) * https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/psa-crypto

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Official bug list

by Janos Follath

Hi Innocenti, The official list of defects is available on github: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Abug The revision of fixing is in the Bugfix sections of the ChangeLog file in the source. Eg. for the latest release: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/mbedtls-2.24.0/ChangeLog The entries here usually reference the issue number they fixed. Is this something that you can use for your evaluation? Regards, Janos From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of "Innocenti, Michele via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Reply to: "Innocenti, Michele" <michele_innocenti(a)baxter.com> Date: Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 14:04 To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [mbed-tls] Official bug list Hi, We are evaluating Mbed TLS library and we need to know if it’s available an official list of defects and revision of fixing. I’m not looking for CVEs but for bugs in the library. Thanks! Michele

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Official bug list

by Innocenti, Michele

Hi, We are evaluating Mbed TLS library and we need to know if it's available an official list of defects and revision of fixing. I'm not looking for CVEs but for bugs in the library. Thanks! Michele

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] FIPS

by Janos Follath

Hi, There is no FIPS validated/certified version of Mbed TLS. In general most of the components should be very close to FIPS/NIST standards, but I don’t know of any that would have undergone a validation/certification process. Regards, Janos (Mbed TLS developer) From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Subramanian Gopi Krishnan via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Reply to: Subramanian Gopi Krishnan <gopikrishnan.subramanian(a)kone.com> Date: Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 07:38 To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [mbed-tls] FIPS Hi, Do we have FIPS compliant for mbedtls; similar to openssl fips? Thanks, Gopi Krishnan

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

FIPS

by Subramanian Gopi Krishnan

Hi, Do we have FIPS compliant for mbedtls; similar to openssl fips? Thanks, Gopi Krishnan

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Building a collaborative Mbed TLS community

by Frank Bergmann

Hi Gilles, actually I meant that the creator of the PR tries to make a first estimation. Maybe even this could be helpful. :-) Frank On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:47:41AM +0000, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote: > Hi Frank, > > Thanks for the suggestion. Sorry for not replying earlier. A time > estimate can help with scheduling, but our problem isn't so much > scheduling as a lack of bandwidth. Also we've found it very difficult to > estimate the time a review will take: some innocuous-looking patches end > up raising time-consuming questions about security or compatibility, > while some large patches turn out to be easy because they don't affect > risky areas much. > > The way we currently work is to schedule large contributions as part of > our sprint planning, but for most reviews we put them in a queue > (https://github.com/orgs/ARMmbed/projects/3). We've found that for our > team, having people pull from that queue works better than designating > reviewers a priori. > > -- > Gilles Peskine > Mbed TLS developer > > On 21/09/2020 07:35, Frank Bergmann via mbed-tls wrote: > > Hi Gilles, > > > > when I ask in our team to review a PR I usually provide an estimation about > > it. Of course a time base estimation and not an agile one in values of > > complexity. ;-) > > One could also provide an estimation about priority. > > Maybe these tiny rules may help somewhat. At least it can provide a better > > overview if you have tons of PRs. > > > > sincerely, > > Frank > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 10:27:44PM +0000, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> Historically, Mbed TLS has been maintained by Arm as an open-source > >> project, accepting external contributions, but with with priorities and > >> plans mostly driven only by Arm. Since earlier this year, Mbed TLS is an > >> open governance project under the umbrella of TrustedFirmware, with the > >> objective of making it a community led project, allowing community to > >> contribute and collaborate on the design and development of the project. > >> In practice, however, the project effectively still has some barriers of > >> entry. We would like to lift these barriers. > >> > >> The Mbed TLS team at Arm have already identified some concrete actions, > >> filed on the Mbed TLS epic board > >> https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-10667107 > >> under “Facilitating community contributions”. A few more should be up > >> soon as the result of some internal brainstorming. > >> > >> We've also identified some problem areas which we're tracking as > >> separate topics. > >> > >> * Probably the biggest topic: review was and is a bottleneck. We are > >> working to streamline the review process where possible, without > >> lowering the quality bar, and to prioritize reviews better over new > >> work. (Having personally often been on both sides of the coin, I can > >> confirm that having a pull request sit around for years without getting > >> reviews is frustrating, and so is seeing all these pull request and not > >> having the time to review them all.) We would also like to enable, > >> encourage and value reviews from people who are not project maintainers. > >> > >> * We will migrate the CI to a publicly available platform hosted by > >> TrustedFirmware. However this platform will not be available until 2021. > >> > >> * We are working on a new documentation platform, where we'll transfer > >> both the information available on the current website and information > >> that is currently recorded in an Arm internal wiki. > >> > >> To all of you who have contributed to Mbed TLS, who have tried, or who > >> are considering it, what difficulties have you encountered? What else > >> can we do to make contributing easier? > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> -- > >> Gilles Peskine > >> Mbed TLS developer > >> > >> > >> -- > >> mbed-tls mailing list > >> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > >> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > > > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls -- Frank Bergmann, Pödinghauser Str. 5, D-32051 Herford, Tel. +49-5221-9249753 SAP Hybris & Linux LPIC-3, E-Mail tx2014(a)tuxad.de, USt-IdNr DE237314606 http://tdyn.de/freel -- Redirect to profile at freelancermap http://www.gulp.de/freiberufler/2HNKY2YHW.html -- Profile at GULP

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Building a collaborative Mbed TLS community

by Gilles Peskine

Hi Frank, Thanks for the suggestion. Sorry for not replying earlier. A time estimate can help with scheduling, but our problem isn't so much scheduling as a lack of bandwidth. Also we've found it very difficult to estimate the time a review will take: some innocuous-looking patches end up raising time-consuming questions about security or compatibility, while some large patches turn out to be easy because they don't affect risky areas much. The way we currently work is to schedule large contributions as part of our sprint planning, but for most reviews we put them in a queue (https://github.com/orgs/ARMmbed/projects/3). We've found that for our team, having people pull from that queue works better than designating reviewers a priori. -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer On 21/09/2020 07:35, Frank Bergmann via mbed-tls wrote: > Hi Gilles, > > when I ask in our team to review a PR I usually provide an estimation about > it. Of course a time base estimation and not an agile one in values of > complexity. ;-) > One could also provide an estimation about priority. > Maybe these tiny rules may help somewhat. At least it can provide a better > overview if you have tons of PRs. > > sincerely, > Frank > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 10:27:44PM +0000, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Historically, Mbed TLS has been maintained by Arm as an open-source >> project, accepting external contributions, but with with priorities and >> plans mostly driven only by Arm. Since earlier this year, Mbed TLS is an >> open governance project under the umbrella of TrustedFirmware, with the >> objective of making it a community led project, allowing community to >> contribute and collaborate on the design and development of the project. >> In practice, however, the project effectively still has some barriers of >> entry. We would like to lift these barriers. >> >> The Mbed TLS team at Arm have already identified some concrete actions, >> filed on the Mbed TLS epic board >> https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-10667107 >> under “Facilitating community contributions”. A few more should be up >> soon as the result of some internal brainstorming. >> >> We've also identified some problem areas which we're tracking as >> separate topics. >> >> * Probably the biggest topic: review was and is a bottleneck. We are >> working to streamline the review process where possible, without >> lowering the quality bar, and to prioritize reviews better over new >> work. (Having personally often been on both sides of the coin, I can >> confirm that having a pull request sit around for years without getting >> reviews is frustrating, and so is seeing all these pull request and not >> having the time to review them all.) We would also like to enable, >> encourage and value reviews from people who are not project maintainers. >> >> * We will migrate the CI to a publicly available platform hosted by >> TrustedFirmware. However this platform will not be available until 2021. >> >> * We are working on a new documentation platform, where we'll transfer >> both the information available on the current website and information >> that is currently recorded in an Arm internal wiki. >> >> To all of you who have contributed to Mbed TLS, who have tried, or who >> are considering it, what difficulties have you encountered? What else >> can we do to make contributing easier? >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- >> Gilles Peskine >> Mbed TLS developer >> >> >> -- >> mbed-tls mailing list >> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Proposed change: no longer credit contributors in the ChangeLog file

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, We're going ahead with this new process. For changes made since the last release (2.24.0 and corresponding updates to long-time support branches), the ChangeLog file will only record user-visible changes, and entries will not be used to credit contributors. We're updating ChangeLog.d/00README.md accordingly (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3726). -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer On 20/09/2020 23:41, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote: > Hello, > > The Mbed TLS team is soliciting feedback on a proposed change of our > contributor acknowledgement policy. > > Background: our current policy is to acknowledge all contributors who > are not Arm employees in the ChangeLog files. This is a tradition that > dates back from when the version control history of Mbed TLS (then > PolarSSL) was not public. > > Proposed change: the ChangeLog file will no longer mention who > contributed a patch (“Contributed by …”). A patch will require a > ChangeLog entry only if it makes a user-visible changes, regardless of > who contributed it. We will still credit reporters in the ChangeLog > file, at least for security issues. > > Rationale: the ChangeLog file had a dual purpose: informing users, and > acknowledging contributors. It will now have the single purpose of > informing users. There are better ways of acknowledging contributors > nowadays: the Git history is public, and your contributions are visible > from your GitHub profile. (Note that we don't squash commits, and > attempt to preserve authorship as much as possible when we have to > rebase a patch.) Furthermore, writing a good ChangeLog entry often turns > out to require some back-and-forth, so lessening this requirement will > make it easier to accept contributions and to merge them faster (this is > in fact our primary motivation for the change). > > We are also thinking of creating an acknowledgement page out-of-tree. It > isn't clear yet what its scope would be, but it would include > acknowledging contributions in the form of reviews, which we wish to > encourage. (Please stay tuned for future announcements and discussions > regarding the Mbed TLS review process.) > > Question to potential contributors, or people who have participated in > other open-source projects: do you think that there is any value in > keeping acknowledgements in a file that is distributed with Mbed TLS? Is > there any value in maintaining an exhaustive list of contributors in a > form other than the Git history? > > Best regards, >

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Information about CI failures on pull requests to Mbed TLS

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, If you've made a pull request to Mbed TLS, you've noticed that some of the continuous integration happens on a private server run by Arm. For jobs that ran since yesterday, if there are failures, you can now see the name of the failed tasks next to “PR-NNN-head TLS Testing” or “PR-NNN-merge TLS Testing”. See https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/testing/ci/#identifying-je… for more details. If this isn't enough, an Arm employee can copy the logs from the server. Please ask in a comment. We hope to post logs automatically (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3633) but I can't give a due date for that. We are planning to move to a public server run by TrustedFirmware, but this can't happen until some time in 2021. Please bear with us in the meantime, and thank you for your contributions. -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

MbedTLS Webserver

by Thomas Schwarz

Hello everyone, I want to set up a webserver on my ESP32 Dev Module based von MbedTLS. Therefore I view the ssl_server example on github. Now my question: How can I connect the ssl_server to my local WIFI-network. What extra code do I need? And where is the SSID and the password configurable? Thanks for your help! Best regards Thomas Tel.: +49833460134418 MULTIVAC Info Box MULTIVAC Sepp Haggenmüller SE & Co. KG - Bahnhofstr. 4 - D-87787 Wolfertschwenden - Germany Tel.: +49(0)8334/601-0 - Fax: +49(0)8334/601-199 - multivac(a)multivac.de Kommanditgesellschaft Sitz: 87787 Wolfertschwenden Amtsgericht: Memmingen HRA 8040 USt-IdNr.: DE 129082475 - Steuer-Nr.: 138/169/51105 - WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE 16576440 Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin: MULTIVAC Sepp Haggenmüller Verwaltungs SE Sitz: 87787 Wolfertschwenden Amtsgericht: Memmingen HRB 16659 Geschäftsführende Direktoren: Guido Spix, Christian Traumann Verwaltungsratsvorsitzender: Elmar Fischer Bankverbindung: Deutsche Bank Memmingen . IBAN: DE 31 7337 0008 0123 6330 00 . BIC: DEUT DE MM 733 Banner

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

DTLS server

by Mehdi Karimi

I am using v16 of the mbedTLS library to setup DTLS server. However, I observe that the handshake does not work well and there are several issues starting with the cookie exchange. Do I necessarily have to update to the latest version of mbedTLS? Are there known issues with DTLS server setup using previous versions (as far as I could tell from the ChangeLog). Thanks Mehdi

5 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Proposed change: no longer credit contributors in the ChangeLog file

by Frank Bergmann

Hi Gilles, as you said: Git is public. As long as it is kept public there's no reason to "duplicate details". My 2 cents. sincerely, Frank On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 09:41:26PM +0000, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote: > Hello, > > The Mbed TLS team is soliciting feedback on a proposed change of our > contributor acknowledgement policy. > > Background: our current policy is to acknowledge all contributors who > are not Arm employees in the ChangeLog files. This is a tradition that > dates back from when the version control history of Mbed TLS (then > PolarSSL) was not public. > > Proposed change: the ChangeLog file will no longer mention who > contributed a patch (“Contributed by …”). A patch will require a > ChangeLog entry only if it makes a user-visible changes, regardless of > who contributed it. We will still credit reporters in the ChangeLog > file, at least for security issues. > > Rationale: the ChangeLog file had a dual purpose: informing users, and > acknowledging contributors. It will now have the single purpose of > informing users. There are better ways of acknowledging contributors > nowadays: the Git history is public, and your contributions are visible > from your GitHub profile. (Note that we don't squash commits, and > attempt to preserve authorship as much as possible when we have to > rebase a patch.) Furthermore, writing a good ChangeLog entry often turns > out to require some back-and-forth, so lessening this requirement will > make it easier to accept contributions and to merge them faster (this is > in fact our primary motivation for the change). > > We are also thinking of creating an acknowledgement page out-of-tree. It > isn't clear yet what its scope would be, but it would include > acknowledging contributions in the form of reviews, which we wish to > encourage. (Please stay tuned for future announcements and discussions > regarding the Mbed TLS review process.) > > Question to potential contributors, or people who have participated in > other open-source projects: do you think that there is any value in > keeping acknowledgements in a file that is distributed with Mbed TLS? Is > there any value in maintaining an exhaustive list of contributors in a > form other than the Git history? > > Best regards, > > -- > Gilles Peskine > Mbed TLS developer > > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls -- Frank Bergmann, Pödinghauser Str. 5, D-32051 Herford, Tel. +49-5221-9249753 SAP Hybris & Linux LPIC-3, E-Mail tx2014(a)tuxad.de, USt-IdNr DE237314606 http://tdyn.de/freel -- Redirect to profile at freelancermap http://www.gulp.de/freiberufler/2HNKY2YHW.html -- Profile at GULP

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Building a collaborative Mbed TLS community

by Frank Bergmann

Hi Gilles, when I ask in our team to review a PR I usually provide an estimation about it. Of course a time base estimation and not an agile one in values of complexity. ;-) One could also provide an estimation about priority. Maybe these tiny rules may help somewhat. At least it can provide a better overview if you have tons of PRs. sincerely, Frank On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 10:27:44PM +0000, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote: > Hello, > > Historically, Mbed TLS has been maintained by Arm as an open-source > project, accepting external contributions, but with with priorities and > plans mostly driven only by Arm. Since earlier this year, Mbed TLS is an > open governance project under the umbrella of TrustedFirmware, with the > objective of making it a community led project, allowing community to > contribute and collaborate on the design and development of the project. > In practice, however, the project effectively still has some barriers of > entry. We would like to lift these barriers. > > The Mbed TLS team at Arm have already identified some concrete actions, > filed on the Mbed TLS epic board > https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-10667107 > under “Facilitating community contributions”. A few more should be up > soon as the result of some internal brainstorming. > > We've also identified some problem areas which we're tracking as > separate topics. > > * Probably the biggest topic: review was and is a bottleneck. We are > working to streamline the review process where possible, without > lowering the quality bar, and to prioritize reviews better over new > work. (Having personally often been on both sides of the coin, I can > confirm that having a pull request sit around for years without getting > reviews is frustrating, and so is seeing all these pull request and not > having the time to review them all.) We would also like to enable, > encourage and value reviews from people who are not project maintainers. > > * We will migrate the CI to a publicly available platform hosted by > TrustedFirmware. However this platform will not be available until 2021. > > * We are working on a new documentation platform, where we'll transfer > both the information available on the current website and information > that is currently recorded in an Arm internal wiki. > > To all of you who have contributed to Mbed TLS, who have tried, or who > are considering it, what difficulties have you encountered? What else > can we do to make contributing easier? > > Best regards, > > -- > Gilles Peskine > Mbed TLS developer > > > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls -- Frank Bergmann, Pödinghauser Str. 5, D-32051 Herford, Tel. +49-5221-9249753 SAP Hybris & Linux LPIC-3, E-Mail tx2014(a)tuxad.de, USt-IdNr DE237314606 http://tdyn.de/freel -- Redirect to profile at freelancermap http://www.gulp.de/freiberufler/2HNKY2YHW.html -- Profile at GULP

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Building a collaborative Mbed TLS community

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, Historically, Mbed TLS has been maintained by Arm as an open-source project, accepting external contributions, but with with priorities and plans mostly driven only by Arm. Since earlier this year, Mbed TLS is an open governance project under the umbrella of TrustedFirmware, with the objective of making it a community led project, allowing community to contribute and collaborate on the design and development of the project. In practice, however, the project effectively still has some barriers of entry. We would like to lift these barriers. The Mbed TLS team at Arm have already identified some concrete actions, filed on the Mbed TLS epic board https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-10667107 under “Facilitating community contributions”. A few more should be up soon as the result of some internal brainstorming. We've also identified some problem areas which we're tracking as separate topics. * Probably the biggest topic: review was and is a bottleneck. We are working to streamline the review process where possible, without lowering the quality bar, and to prioritize reviews better over new work. (Having personally often been on both sides of the coin, I can confirm that having a pull request sit around for years without getting reviews is frustrating, and so is seeing all these pull request and not having the time to review them all.) We would also like to enable, encourage and value reviews from people who are not project maintainers. * We will migrate the CI to a publicly available platform hosted by TrustedFirmware. However this platform will not be available until 2021. * We are working on a new documentation platform, where we'll transfer both the information available on the current website and information that is currently recorded in an Arm internal wiki. To all of you who have contributed to Mbed TLS, who have tried, or who are considering it, what difficulties have you encountered? What else can we do to make contributing easier? Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Proposed change: no longer credit contributors in the ChangeLog file

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, The Mbed TLS team is soliciting feedback on a proposed change of our contributor acknowledgement policy. Background: our current policy is to acknowledge all contributors who are not Arm employees in the ChangeLog files. This is a tradition that dates back from when the version control history of Mbed TLS (then PolarSSL) was not public. Proposed change: the ChangeLog file will no longer mention who contributed a patch (“Contributed by …”). A patch will require a ChangeLog entry only if it makes a user-visible changes, regardless of who contributed it. We will still credit reporters in the ChangeLog file, at least for security issues. Rationale: the ChangeLog file had a dual purpose: informing users, and acknowledging contributors. It will now have the single purpose of informing users. There are better ways of acknowledging contributors nowadays: the Git history is public, and your contributions are visible from your GitHub profile. (Note that we don't squash commits, and attempt to preserve authorship as much as possible when we have to rebase a patch.) Furthermore, writing a good ChangeLog entry often turns out to require some back-and-forth, so lessening this requirement will make it easier to accept contributions and to merge them faster (this is in fact our primary motivation for the change). We are also thinking of creating an acknowledgement page out-of-tree. It isn't clear yet what its scope would be, but it would include acknowledging contributions in the form of reviews, which we wish to encourage. (Please stay tuned for future announcements and discussions regarding the Mbed TLS review process.) Question to potential contributors, or people who have participated in other open-source projects: do you think that there is any value in keeping acknowledgements in a file that is distributed with Mbed TLS? Is there any value in maintaining an exhaustive list of contributors in a form other than the Git history? Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Parse RSA keyfile-Error

by youssouf sokhona

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]

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Query related to ARM - MbedTLS

by Manu Abraham

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

5 years, 11 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Query related to ARM - MbedTLS

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

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

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Query related to ARM - MbedTLS

by 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

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

A new configuration mechanism for PSA crypto in Mbed TLS

by Gilles Peskine

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)

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

How can I encrypt RSA private key with AES?

by Shariful Alam

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

5 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

mbed-tls