- mbed-tls - lists.trustedfirmware.org

mbedtls_base64_encode reports different olen's when used for size checking and when encoding

by Frederik Wedel-Heinen

Hi, I don't understand why mbedtls_base64_encode returns different olen's for the same source buffer. See example below: uint8_t s[10]; uint8_t d[17]; size_t sz; int ret; ret = mbedtls_base64_encode(NULL, 0, &sz, s, 10); // returns sz == 17 ret = mbedtls_base64_encode(d, 17, &sz, s, 10); // returns sz == 16 Shouldn't it be the same? Regards, Frederik

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base

by Dan Handley

Hi Janos It's not so much that the toolchain stdlib implementations are less trusted from a security point of view, it's that there is variation in their non-functional characteristics, e.g. * security * robustness * code size * performance * open-ness * ... If you remove this variation it's easier to reason about the non-functional characteristics of the code. This is perhaps more important for projects that build final executable images but may also be important for libraries, especially ones that export executable link libraries like Mbed TLS. On the other hand, Mbed TLS is deployed in many other places than Trusted Firmware and it may be hard to choose a stdlib implementation that works for all users. Perhaps the compromise is to create a shared stdlib implementation for Trusted Firmware deployments but leave the choice open for other Mbed TLS users? Regards Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of > Janos Follath via mbed-tls > Sent: 09 April 2020 12:18 > To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code > base > > Hi, > > Based on what I read on this thread it seems an accepted point of view that > the toolchain provided C standard library implementations are less trusted > than the toolchains themselves. Can somebody please help me understand the > reasoning behind this distinction? > > Regards, > Janos > > On 09/04/2020, 12:07, "Dan Handley via mbed-tls" <mbed- > tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi > > There has already been some discussion about a shared C standard library > implementation, at least for TF-A and TF-M. So far there's been general > agreement that this is a good idea but no actual commitment from anyone to > make this happen, since each project is reasonably happy with what they've > got. > > Regarding MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C, TF-A at least enables this so > removing this from the codebase would be an issue there. Memory allocators > are probably not the core expertise of other Trusted Firmware projects either > but it needs to be if they're going to use them! > > I propose that we move this allocator into a new shared > TrustedFirmware.org standard C library project and work with the other > projects to ensure it has the correct initial maintainers. This will probably > have to be driven by the maintainers of whichever project is most motivated > to make this happen. It sounds like that could be Mbed TLS and this will need > to be done before any separation of the PSA Crypto implementation. In the > short term, as we move C stdlib functionality out of the other projects and > into this new project, we will need to support multiple implementations of > some functions. Eventually we should move towards a common implementation, > and I agree we should look at what security-oriented implementations are > already available. > > I also agree it would make sense for Mbed TLS to not use the toolchain- > provided stdlib implementation by default, but only once it uses a default > implementation it trusts. > > Regards > > Dan. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf > Of > > Ronald Cron via mbed-tls > > Sent: 09 April 2020 08:47 > > To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from > the code > > base > > > > Hi, I think this is related to the more general need for an > implementation of > > the C standard library for trusted firmware projects. As far as I know > TF-A > > and TF-M don't use the standard library provided by compilation > toolchains. > > The rationale is to have complete control over the trusted firmware > code. > > Currently they both have their own partial implementation of the parts > of the > > C standard library they need. > > > > This memory_buffer_alloc.c module in question here is another partial > > implementation of the C standard library. Currently TF-A and TF-M don't > > use/provide dynamic memory allocations but PSA-FF explicitly mentions > that an > > SPM implementation may support dynamic memory allocation. Thus it is > possible > > that TF-M at some point consider providing dynamic memory allocation > support. > > > > All of this to say that a possible way forward may be to remove > > memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base when there is a C standard > library > > implementation common to trustedfirmware.org projects (is there already > a > > security oriented open source implementation out there ?). > > > > In Mbed TLS, it would also make sense to me to, by default, not use C > > standard libraries provided by compilation toolchains > > (MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_NO_STD_FUNCTIONS defined by default). > > > > Thanks, Ronald. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf > Of > > Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard via mbed-tls > > Sent: 08 April 2020 12:42 > > To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > > Subject: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the > code > > base > > > > Hi all, > > > > In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: > > should we remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base? > > > > [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ > > > > Currently the crypto library includes a module called > memory_buffer_alloc.c, > > disabled in the default build (config.h option > MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C), > > which provides implementations of calloc() and free() based on a user- > > provided buffer (which could be static or on the stack), suitable for > use in > > the rest of the crypto, X.509 and TLS libraries as replacements to the > > standard functions. > > > > In addition to providing replacement calloc() and free(), the module > also > > offers some facilities for measurement and debugging. > > > > We're considering dropping this module and removing it from the code > base > > entirely for the following reasons: > > > > - Memory allocators are not our core area of expertise. > > > > - This allocator is pretty basic and has a large allocation overhead. > For > > example for ECC computations, the overhead can be as large as the > actual > > memory used. > > > > - Using this allocator also tends to slow things down, so we don't run > many > > tests with it enabled. > > > > - In the future when we split between PSA Crypto on one side and Mbed > TLS and > > X.509 on the other, it's unclear on which side this allocator should > fall. > > Which can be taken as a sign that it doesn't really belong here. > > > > On the other hand, we're hesitating for the following reasons: > > > > - We know from bug reports and questions that some people are using it. > > > > - Unlike other modules we'd like to drop, there isn't a strong security > > incentive to dropping this allocator, it's merely a matter of how we > spend > > our maintenance resources. > > > > What do you think? Should we keep maintaining this allocator as part of > Mbed > > TLS? Should we drop it and focus on our core instead? If you're using > this > > allocator, why did you pick it over other alternatives? > > > > Regards, > > Manuel. > > -- > > mbed-tls mailing list > > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > > 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 mailing list > > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > 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 mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > > > 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 mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base

by Janos Follath

Hi, Based on what I read on this thread it seems an accepted point of view that the toolchain provided C standard library implementations are less trusted than the toolchains themselves. Can somebody please help me understand the reasoning behind this distinction? Regards, Janos On 09/04/2020, 12:07, "Dan Handley via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: Hi There has already been some discussion about a shared C standard library implementation, at least for TF-A and TF-M. So far there's been general agreement that this is a good idea but no actual commitment from anyone to make this happen, since each project is reasonably happy with what they've got. Regarding MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C, TF-A at least enables this so removing this from the codebase would be an issue there. Memory allocators are probably not the core expertise of other Trusted Firmware projects either but it needs to be if they're going to use them! I propose that we move this allocator into a new shared TrustedFirmware.org standard C library project and work with the other projects to ensure it has the correct initial maintainers. This will probably have to be driven by the maintainers of whichever project is most motivated to make this happen. It sounds like that could be Mbed TLS and this will need to be done before any separation of the PSA Crypto implementation. In the short term, as we move C stdlib functionality out of the other projects and into this new project, we will need to support multiple implementations of some functions. Eventually we should move towards a common implementation, and I agree we should look at what security-oriented implementations are already available. I also agree it would make sense for Mbed TLS to not use the toolchain-provided stdlib implementation by default, but only once it uses a default implementation it trusts. Regards Dan. > -----Original Message----- > From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of > Ronald Cron via mbed-tls > Sent: 09 April 2020 08:47 > To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code > base > > Hi, I think this is related to the more general need for an implementation of > the C standard library for trusted firmware projects. As far as I know TF-A > and TF-M don't use the standard library provided by compilation toolchains. > The rationale is to have complete control over the trusted firmware code. > Currently they both have their own partial implementation of the parts of the > C standard library they need. > > This memory_buffer_alloc.c module in question here is another partial > implementation of the C standard library. Currently TF-A and TF-M don't > use/provide dynamic memory allocations but PSA-FF explicitly mentions that an > SPM implementation may support dynamic memory allocation. Thus it is possible > that TF-M at some point consider providing dynamic memory allocation support. > > All of this to say that a possible way forward may be to remove > memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base when there is a C standard library > implementation common to trustedfirmware.org projects (is there already a > security oriented open source implementation out there ?). > > In Mbed TLS, it would also make sense to me to, by default, not use C > standard libraries provided by compilation toolchains > (MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_NO_STD_FUNCTIONS defined by default). > > Thanks, Ronald. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of > Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard via mbed-tls > Sent: 08 April 2020 12:42 > To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code > base > > Hi all, > > In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: > should we remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base? > > [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ > > Currently the crypto library includes a module called memory_buffer_alloc.c, > disabled in the default build (config.h option MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C), > which provides implementations of calloc() and free() based on a user- > provided buffer (which could be static or on the stack), suitable for use in > the rest of the crypto, X.509 and TLS libraries as replacements to the > standard functions. > > In addition to providing replacement calloc() and free(), the module also > offers some facilities for measurement and debugging. > > We're considering dropping this module and removing it from the code base > entirely for the following reasons: > > - Memory allocators are not our core area of expertise. > > - This allocator is pretty basic and has a large allocation overhead. For > example for ECC computations, the overhead can be as large as the actual > memory used. > > - Using this allocator also tends to slow things down, so we don't run many > tests with it enabled. > > - In the future when we split between PSA Crypto on one side and Mbed TLS and > X.509 on the other, it's unclear on which side this allocator should fall. > Which can be taken as a sign that it doesn't really belong here. > > On the other hand, we're hesitating for the following reasons: > > - We know from bug reports and questions that some people are using it. > > - Unlike other modules we'd like to drop, there isn't a strong security > incentive to dropping this allocator, it's merely a matter of how we spend > our maintenance resources. > > What do you think? Should we keep maintaining this allocator as part of Mbed > TLS? Should we drop it and focus on our core instead? If you're using this > allocator, why did you pick it over other alternatives? > > Regards, > Manuel. > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > 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 mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls 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 mailing list mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base

by Dan Handley

Hi There has already been some discussion about a shared C standard library implementation, at least for TF-A and TF-M. So far there's been general agreement that this is a good idea but no actual commitment from anyone to make this happen, since each project is reasonably happy with what they've got. Regarding MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C, TF-A at least enables this so removing this from the codebase would be an issue there. Memory allocators are probably not the core expertise of other Trusted Firmware projects either but it needs to be if they're going to use them! I propose that we move this allocator into a new shared TrustedFirmware.org standard C library project and work with the other projects to ensure it has the correct initial maintainers. This will probably have to be driven by the maintainers of whichever project is most motivated to make this happen. It sounds like that could be Mbed TLS and this will need to be done before any separation of the PSA Crypto implementation. In the short term, as we move C stdlib functionality out of the other projects and into this new project, we will need to support multiple implementations of some functions. Eventually we should move towards a common implementation, and I agree we should look at what security-oriented implementations are already available. I also agree it would make sense for Mbed TLS to not use the toolchain-provided stdlib implementation by default, but only once it uses a default implementation it trusts. Regards Dan. > -----Original Message----- > From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of > Ronald Cron via mbed-tls > Sent: 09 April 2020 08:47 > To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code > base > > Hi, I think this is related to the more general need for an implementation of > the C standard library for trusted firmware projects. As far as I know TF-A > and TF-M don't use the standard library provided by compilation toolchains. > The rationale is to have complete control over the trusted firmware code. > Currently they both have their own partial implementation of the parts of the > C standard library they need. > > This memory_buffer_alloc.c module in question here is another partial > implementation of the C standard library. Currently TF-A and TF-M don't > use/provide dynamic memory allocations but PSA-FF explicitly mentions that an > SPM implementation may support dynamic memory allocation. Thus it is possible > that TF-M at some point consider providing dynamic memory allocation support. > > All of this to say that a possible way forward may be to remove > memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base when there is a C standard library > implementation common to trustedfirmware.org projects (is there already a > security oriented open source implementation out there ?). > > In Mbed TLS, it would also make sense to me to, by default, not use C > standard libraries provided by compilation toolchains > (MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_NO_STD_FUNCTIONS defined by default). > > Thanks, Ronald. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of > Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard via mbed-tls > Sent: 08 April 2020 12:42 > To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code > base > > Hi all, > > In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: > should we remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base? > > [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ > > Currently the crypto library includes a module called memory_buffer_alloc.c, > disabled in the default build (config.h option MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C), > which provides implementations of calloc() and free() based on a user- > provided buffer (which could be static or on the stack), suitable for use in > the rest of the crypto, X.509 and TLS libraries as replacements to the > standard functions. > > In addition to providing replacement calloc() and free(), the module also > offers some facilities for measurement and debugging. > > We're considering dropping this module and removing it from the code base > entirely for the following reasons: > > - Memory allocators are not our core area of expertise. > > - This allocator is pretty basic and has a large allocation overhead. For > example for ECC computations, the overhead can be as large as the actual > memory used. > > - Using this allocator also tends to slow things down, so we don't run many > tests with it enabled. > > - In the future when we split between PSA Crypto on one side and Mbed TLS and > X.509 on the other, it's unclear on which side this allocator should fall. > Which can be taken as a sign that it doesn't really belong here. > > On the other hand, we're hesitating for the following reasons: > > - We know from bug reports and questions that some people are using it. > > - Unlike other modules we'd like to drop, there isn't a strong security > incentive to dropping this allocator, it's merely a matter of how we spend > our maintenance resources. > > What do you think? Should we keep maintaining this allocator as part of Mbed > TLS? Should we drop it and focus on our core instead? If you're using this > allocator, why did you pick it over other alternatives? > > Regards, > Manuel. > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > 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 mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base

by Ronald Cron

Hi, I think this is related to the more general need for an implementation of the C standard library for trusted firmware projects. As far as I know TF-A and TF-M don't use the standard library provided by compilation toolchains. The rationale is to have complete control over the trusted firmware code. Currently they both have their own partial implementation of the parts of the C standard library they need. This memory_buffer_alloc.c module in question here is another partial implementation of the C standard library. Currently TF-A and TF-M don't use/provide dynamic memory allocations but PSA-FF explicitly mentions that an SPM implementation may support dynamic memory allocation. Thus it is possible that TF-M at some point consider providing dynamic memory allocation support. All of this to say that a possible way forward may be to remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base when there is a C standard library implementation common to trustedfirmware.org projects (is there already a security oriented open source implementation out there ?). In Mbed TLS, it would also make sense to me to, by default, not use C standard libraries provided by compilation toolchains (MBEDTLS_PLATFORM_NO_STD_FUNCTIONS defined by default). Thanks, Ronald. -----Original Message----- From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard via mbed-tls Sent: 08 April 2020 12:42 To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base Hi all, In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: should we remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base? [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ Currently the crypto library includes a module called memory_buffer_alloc.c, disabled in the default build (config.h option MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C), which provides implementations of calloc() and free() based on a user-provided buffer (which could be static or on the stack), suitable for use in the rest of the crypto, X.509 and TLS libraries as replacements to the standard functions. In addition to providing replacement calloc() and free(), the module also offers some facilities for measurement and debugging. We're considering dropping this module and removing it from the code base entirely for the following reasons: - Memory allocators are not our core area of expertise. - This allocator is pretty basic and has a large allocation overhead. For example for ECC computations, the overhead can be as large as the actual memory used. - Using this allocator also tends to slow things down, so we don't run many tests with it enabled. - In the future when we split between PSA Crypto on one side and Mbed TLS and X.509 on the other, it's unclear on which side this allocator should fall. Which can be taken as a sign that it doesn't really belong here. On the other hand, we're hesitating for the following reasons: - We know from bug reports and questions that some people are using it. - Unlike other modules we'd like to drop, there isn't a strong security incentive to dropping this allocator, it's merely a matter of how we spend our maintenance resources. What do you think? Should we keep maintaining this allocator as part of Mbed TLS? Should we drop it and focus on our core instead? If you're using this allocator, why did you pick it over other alternatives? Regards, Manuel. -- mbed-tls mailing list mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] 3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base

by ROSHINI DEVI

Hello All, In our embedded platform, we are using static memory allocator, instead of using heap memory of the platform. We thought it is better way to handle the memory. As the application grows, there might be multiple libraries using the heap memory. And also the possible cause of memory leaks. My suggestion is that it is better to have it. I have seen this kind of allocator in mocona secure library also. Thanks On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:11 PM Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard via mbed-tls < mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: > should we remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base? > > [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ > > Currently the crypto library includes a module called > memory_buffer_alloc.c, > disabled in the default build (config.h option > MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C), > which provides implementations of calloc() and free() based on a > user-provided > buffer (which could be static or on the stack), suitable for use in the > rest > of the crypto, X.509 and TLS libraries as replacements to the standard > functions. > > In addition to providing replacement calloc() and free(), the module also > offers some facilities for measurement and debugging. > > We're considering dropping this module and removing it from the code base > entirely for the following reasons: > > - Memory allocators are not our core area of expertise. > > - This allocator is pretty basic and has a large allocation overhead. For > example for ECC computations, the overhead can be as large as the actual > memory used. > > - Using this allocator also tends to slow things down, so we don't run many > tests with it enabled. > > - In the future when we split between PSA Crypto on one side and Mbed TLS > and > X.509 on the other, it's unclear on which side this allocator should > fall. > Which can be taken as a sign that it doesn't really belong here. > > On the other hand, we're hesitating for the following reasons: > > - We know from bug reports and questions that some people are using it. > > - Unlike other modules we'd like to drop, there isn't a strong security > incentive to dropping this allocator, it's merely a matter of how we > spend > our maintenance resources. > > What do you think? Should we keep maintaining this allocator as part of > Mbed > TLS? Should we drop it and focus on our core instead? If you're using this > allocator, why did you pick it over other alternatives? > > Regards, > Manuel. > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls >

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

3.0 plans: remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi all, In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: should we remove memory_buffer_alloc.c from the code base? [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ Currently the crypto library includes a module called memory_buffer_alloc.c, disabled in the default build (config.h option MBEDTLS_MEMORY_BUFFER_ALLOC_C), which provides implementations of calloc() and free() based on a user-provided buffer (which could be static or on the stack), suitable for use in the rest of the crypto, X.509 and TLS libraries as replacements to the standard functions. In addition to providing replacement calloc() and free(), the module also offers some facilities for measurement and debugging. We're considering dropping this module and removing it from the code base entirely for the following reasons: - Memory allocators are not our core area of expertise. - This allocator is pretty basic and has a large allocation overhead. For example for ECC computations, the overhead can be as large as the actual memory used. - Using this allocator also tends to slow things down, so we don't run many tests with it enabled. - In the future when we split between PSA Crypto on one side and Mbed TLS and X.509 on the other, it's unclear on which side this allocator should fall. Which can be taken as a sign that it doesn't really belong here. On the other hand, we're hesitating for the following reasons: - We know from bug reports and questions that some people are using it. - Unlike other modules we'd like to drop, there isn't a strong security incentive to dropping this allocator, it's merely a matter of how we spend our maintenance resources. What do you think? Should we keep maintaining this allocator as part of Mbed TLS? Should we drop it and focus on our core instead? If you're using this allocator, why did you pick it over other alternatives? Regards, Manuel.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

3.0 plans: remove havege.c from the code base

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi all, In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: should we remove havege.c from the code base? [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ The crypto library currently includes an implementation of the HAVEGE entropy gatherer [2], which is disabled in the default build (MBEDTLS_HAVEGE_C in config.h), but used as a source by our entropy module if enabled. [2]: https://www.irisa.fr/caps/projects/hipsor/ We'd like to drop this module and remove it from the code base entirely for the following reasons: - HAVEGE was designed for superscalar processors with high microarchitectural complexity, and is unsuitable for microcontrollers (or virtualized environments). We feel like when a complex enough CPU is used for HAVEGE to stand a chance of being secure, it's very likely that an operating system is also available, which probably already manages a random generator better that what we can do in user space. - On a more practical note, our implementation relies on `timing_hardclock()` provided by timing.c only for a limited number of architectures and environments (funnily enough, not including any Arm architecture), with a silent fallback to a definition relying on `gettimeofday()` which is clearly not high-resolution enough to make HAVEGE secure. - As with any random source, it is very difficult to assess whether HAVEGE is actually secure on any given platform. Further, the maintenance team doesn't have any specific knowledge of HAVEGE and there hasn't been any independent evaluation of our implementation of it. - As a result of the above points, we're afraid people using our HAVEGE implementation on the wrong platforms, might be getting a false sense of security, which might prevent them from using more secure options, such as the OS RNG (when using an OS) or a hardware RNG (on microcontrollers). If you're using MBEDTLS_HAVEGE_C or know someone who does, or if for any other reason you think we shouldn't drop it in Mbed TLS 3.0, please speak up now! Regards, Manuel.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

3.0 plans: remove pkcs11.c from the code base

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi all, In this new installment of "let's discuss ideas for Mbed TLS 3.0" [1]: should we remove pkcs11.c from the code base? [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ The X.509 library currently includes a module called "pkcs11", excluded from the default build, which provides a few wrappers around libpkcs11-helper [2], a library that "simplifies the interaction with PKCS#11 providers for end-user applications". In practice, it supports the use of X.509 certificates associated with an RSA key (not ECDSA) managed by libpkcs11-helper. [2]: https://github.com/OpenSC/pkcs11-helper We'd like to drop this module and remove it from the code base entirely for the following reasons: - It has limited functionality, and soon PSA Crypto will provide more flexible support for secure management of private keys (not just RSA, and not just associated with X.509 certificates). - It currently has not automated tests so we're not even sure if it still works properly. - The documentation is scarce and no member of the current maintenance team knows for sure how it's supposed to work. - We never receive any support request about it so we're not sure if anyone is still using it. (As a weaker signal in the same direction, we deprecated it in 2.21.0, released 2020-02-20, and nobody complained so far.) If you're using MBEDTLS_PKCS11_C or know someone who does, or if for any other reason you think we shouldn't drop it in Mbed TLS 3.0, please speak up now! Regards, Manuel. 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Mbed TLS/PSA Crypto Roadmap

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi All, Here is the link to the roadmap for Mbed TLS and PSA Crypto in the coming quarters. https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/ If you are interested in collaborating on any of the roadmap features or other features in the project, please let your interest known via. the mailing lists. Note that the expected quarter when a feature will be completed is based on very rough estimates of the effort involved and therefore might change. Roadmap will be reviewed and updated at the start of every quarter depending on progress made in previous quarter. Thanks, Shebu (Mbed TLS, PSA Crypto Technology Manager, Arm)

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

3.0 plans: remove old TLS options from the code base entirely

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi all, As a general rule I'll start a thread of each of the changes to be discussed for inclusion in Mbed TLS 3.0, but as an exception to that rule, I'm grouping several items here because I suspect they probably won't generate much discussion (if any). Note: in general we keep obsolete crypto primitives in the code base (disabled by default at compile time), so that people can still use them to process old data at rest. This list however is about TLS options, i. e. handling live data in transit, so it makes sense to completely remove them from the code base once they're not used any more. It also decreases the complexity of the code base, hence improving its maintainability, testability and security. * Drop support for parsing SSLv2 ClientHello (`MBEDTLS_SSL_SRV_SUPPORT_SSLV2_CLIENT_HELLO`). This was only needed back when common frameworks (old version of Java most motably) used this format for ClientHellos for compatibility with old an buggy servers, and when people would actually consider negociating SSL 2.0. Fortunately, that's not the case any more. Also, removing this unblocks some much-needed refactorings and simplification of the code (and this option has become hard to test). * Drop support for SSLv3 (`MBEDTLS_SSL_PROTO_SSL3`). This version of the protocol was deprecated by the IETF (MUST NOT use since 2015 - RFC 7568) and is no longer widely used. * Drop support for compatibility with our own previous buggy implementation of truncated HMAC (`MBEDTLS_SSL_TRUNCATED_HMAC_COMPAT`). This is only useful for people who want to interoperate with buggy pre-2.7 Mbed TLS. Since those versions are no longer maintained, hopefully everyone has updated by now. * Drop support for TLS record-level compression (`MBEDTLS_ZLIB_SUPPORT`). There are potential security issues with this option (compression if any should be done at the appplication level in order to separate secrets from attacker-controlled content), it's not widely used, and was removed in TLS 1.3. * Drop RC4 ciphersuites. These have been prohibited by RFC 7465 since 2015. (Note: as a bonus, we can then remove the config.h option `MBEDTLS_REMOVE_ARC4_CIPHERSUITES` as well.) * Drop the single-DES ciphersuites. 56-bit keys, need I say more? * Support for SSL record hardware acceleration (`MBEDTLS_SSL_HW_RECORD_ACCEL`). Nobody in the team knows how it's supposed to work, it's entirely untested, and we think nobody uses it, it's been failing to build for a while and nobody complained so far. (Note: we still fixed the bug, see PR #2262.) Do you agree with the above list? Are you (or people you know) using one of those features? Would you add things to that list (keeping the focus on SSL/TLS obsolete features for now)? Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts! Regards, Manuel.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Plans for Mbed TLS 3.0

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi again, Note: I've created a wiki page [1] to summarize and consolidate the results of the discussions that will be happening here about Mbed TLS 3.0. [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/tech-plans-3.0/ I also wanted to note that the current goals, as announced yesterday, contain some changes compared to what had been announced nearly one year ago [2], so I'd like to briefly recap what changed and what didn't. [2]: https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates/blog/working-towards-mbed-tls-3 Preparing a future based on PSA Crypto -------------------------------------- We remain committed to that, but are now taking a different route towards that goal. Initially we started to split Mbed Crypto out of Mbed TLS, which was not the clean split between PSA Crypto and TLS/X.509 than we want in the long run, so the plan was to evolve towards that. With the experience gained, we now think it's easier to evolve things in one place, so we merged back mbed-crypto into the mbedtls repo (see [3]), and still plan on making PSA Crypto its own product, but only when we're ready to make that split cleanly. [3]: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3064 Also, we initially hinted that the long-standing `mbedtls_` crypto APIs would be removed in Mbed TLS 3.0 (superseded by the PSA Crypto APIs). We're now considering a more gradual and hopefully more realistic transition where Mbed TLS 3.0 continues to offer some of those APIs for compatibility with existing code-bases, and they would only be actually removed in Mbed TLS 4.0. TLS 1.3 and message processing rework ------------------------------------- This is still not part of a realistic roadmap for Mbed TLS 3.0, but still close to our hearts for the future. Switching to a new licensing and contribution model --------------------------------------------------- This has been done already. The development branch now uses Apache 2.0 only, while the LTS branches are still dual-licensed Apache/GPL2. We moved away from a CLA and closer to an inbound == outbound model (not quite == yet because of the differences between development and LTS branches), see [4]. [4]: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3054 Opening up the governance of the project ---------------------------------------- This also happened already. Mbed TLS is now under open governance as part of the trustedfirmware.org structure. As a consequence of this move, Mbed TLS is now more focused on building and maintaining a healthy community of users, contributors and maintainers. Again, I hope that was clear and feel free to ask if you have any question or remark. I'll follow up by starting threads on more specific items. Regards, Manuel.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

mbedTLS on ESP8266 SDK - memory issue?

by LockSafe

Hi. I have posted an issue I am having with the use of mbedTLS with ESP8266 SDK (it is freeRTOS based), I have posted my explanation in the link below, then their support asked me to send new questions to this email. If you have any doubt regarding my tests, or if you want I make more different tests, please don't hesitate do ask me. https://forums.mbed.com/t/mbedtls-on-esp8266-sdk-memory-issue/7913 Regards. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam…> Livre de vírus. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam…>. <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Plans for Mbed TLS 3.0

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi all, In the next few months we'll be preparing version 3.0 of Mbed TLS (with a goal of releasing in the 3rd quarter of calendar year 2020, see our roadmap [1]). [1]: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/ We've been maintaining full API compatibility since Mbed TLS 2.0.0 was released in July of 2015, so this will be our first chance in 5 years to clean up any API that we've found not to be entirely satisfactory, or no longer needed. This is the first in a series of threads discussing what we would like to do in Mbed TLS 3.0 and how (or what we should rather postpone or not do at all). It will present the high-level goals and list some items as examples. Specific items that deserve further discussion (either to decide whether to include them in 3.0, or refine their scope or meaning) will be discussed each in their own thread. Clean up the code by removing old things ---------------------------------------- This facilitates maintenance and testing. Examples: - Remove support for SSL 3.0 and other deprecated protocol options. (But keep support for old crypto that could be useful for data at rest.) - Remove API functions that have been superseded. Improve existing APIs, behaviours, and defaults ----------------------------------------------- This is mainly small things we just couldn't do in the 2.x line due to our compatibility rules. Examples: - Upgrade the default TLS config to only offer (D)TLS 1.2 with forward-secure key exchanges and AEAD ciphers. - Add the 'const' qualifier to various arguments of existing APIs. - Add size arguments to existing APIs that lack such arguments. Reduce the surface of the public API ------------------------------------ This makes it easier to evolve the library while maintaining API compatibility, and also makes testing easier. Examples: - Forbid direct access to members of most (all?) structures. - Define more clearly which APIs are internal and forbid access to them. - Move some non-core modules that are only useful for examples out of the library (for example, certs.s). Prepare the migration to PSA Crypto ----------------------------------- Currently Mbed TLS consists of three libraries: SSL/(D)TLS, X.509, and Crypto. Furthermore, currently Crypto provides both the long-standing `mbedtls_` APIs and the new PSA Crypto APIs, and the TLS and X.509 libraries still largely rely on the `mbedtls_` APIs, as does probably a large amount of external code. Ultimately, we want to move to place where TLS and X.509 only rely on the PSA Crypto API (whose reference implementation will be independent and longer part of Mbed TLS), and where nobody uses the legacy `mbedtls_` APIs any more. But that's a goal for Mbed TLS 4.0. In the meantime, Mbed TLS 3.0 should pave the way for this. The most important thing we want to do in 3.0 is to make most of the low-level crypto modules internal, and only keep the high-level crypto modules to ease the migration for existing users of the `mbedtls_` crypto APIs. Concretely, this would mean for example that the `mbedtls_aes_` functions and types would no longer be part of the API, but using AES via the `mbedtls_cipher_` APIs would still be supported for existing users until Mbed TLS 4.0 - and of course using AES via the PSA Crypto API is the way forward. As this is a vast and complex topic, there will be a specific thread on where exactly we can and would like to draw the line of which crypto APIs are becoming private in Mbed TLS 3.0 and which are maintained until Mbed TLS 4.0 to ease migration. Note: this strongly overlaps with the previous section (reduce the surface of the public API), but the two are still distinct as they're guided by different incentives: general maintainability vs supporting a specific migration. I hope this email starts to clarify what Mbed TLS 3.0 should look like. Feel free to ask questions if anything's not clear, and again, there will be follow-up threads in the coming days and week to discuss specific aspects in more details. Best regards, Manuel (Mbed TLS developer)

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Static Memory allocation Buffer Size for DTLS #3146

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi Roshini, [please always repy to the list, this allows other people to help as well] > Thanks for your reply. >I am running into one weird issue in memory allocation part. Before moving to the issue, let me explain my configuration macros. > MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN - Default value > I have enabled platform memory macros > > I have allocated heap memory of around 60KB, which I though is sufficient for DTLS. > I am using ecc based certificates. > And also my application contains CoAP secured using DTLS. > The issue is - > 1. I am sending coap request and I successfully obtain the response also. > I continue the above step for 3 times. 3rd time I am observing the debug message - "ssl_srv.c:3808: |1| mbedtls_ecdh_calc_secret() returned -16 (-0x0010)". > The return code corresponds to memory allocation failure in BIGNUM. > To investigate further, I have customized my calloc function to print the function name - from which allocation failure is done. > I can see the memory allocation failure happened at API "mbedtls_mpi_grow". > > Further, I have increased the heap memory. But still issue is reproducing after certain number of iterations. > > Do you need to change any configuration setting? Not sure why this is happening? I am facing this issue for past 1 week. > It would be really helpful if you can guide me in this issue. If the connection is succeeding the first few times, and failing after a number of times with an out-of-memory message (and the larger the heap, the longer it goes before failing), to me this suggests two possible causes: 1. There could be a memory leak somewhere, in Mbed TLS or in other code used by your application. We do our best to avoid those in Mbed TLS, so I'd like to hope it's unlikely there is a leak in Mbed TLS, but it can't be completely excluded. If the core issue is a memory leak, it could also be in other parts of the code used by your application. One way to check for this would be to print out the current state of the allocator after each successful connection, and check if there is more memory still in use after each connection than after the previous connection. 2. Alternatively, if there is no leak, it could be that the heap is getting so fragmented that the allocator can't find enough consecutive space. Given that the failure happens in `mpi_grow()` which usually makes rather small allocations, that's probably not likely the issue here, but I thought I'd mention it for completeness. Regards, Manuel.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Allowing unsupported extensions in X.509 certificates

by Gilles Peskine

On 03/04/2020 10:11, Hanno Becker via mbed-tls wrote: > Hi Lev, > > I believe that this kind of functionality could be implemented on top > of the existing > verify-with-callback API `mbedtls_x509_crt_verify_with_cb()`. More > precisely, > you can enable `MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION` > to ignore unknown extensions initially, and then chekc them yourself > in the > verification callback by manually > traversing `mbedtls_x509_crt::v3_ext`. If you detect > an extension you cannot make sense of and which is marked critical, > you can modify the > verification flags. > > Would that work for you, in principle? Note, though, that this would > work at the level > of verification, not parsing, which might or might not be acceptable. That's a possibility, but it's not very nice. It would be nicer if the library provided the extensions in a list, or provided an easy way to traverse them, which is the solution I'm currently leaning towards. > > In this regard you might also be interested in knowing about a > significant rewrite > of CRT parsing on the `baremetal` branch. The main difference is that > the X.509 CRT > structure has been stripped down to no longer make use of dynamically > allocated > memory but instead only provide pointers to the various fields in the > certificate. > In the case of dynamic-length fields such as the Subject or Issuer > names, but also > the extension list, inspection shall be done through a newline > introduced ASN.1 > parsing function > > int mbedtls_asn1_traverse_sequence_of( > unsigned char **p, > const unsigned char *end, > uint8_t tag_must_mask, uint8_t tag_must_val, > uint8_t tag_may_mask, uint8_t tag_may_val, > int (*cb)( void *ctx, int tag, > unsigned char* start, size_t len ), > void *ctx ); > > https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/baremetal/include/mbedtls/asn1.h#L3… > > This function traverses an ASN.1 sequence and triggers a callback for > each item found. > This functionality could be used to perform the extension traversal in > the verification callback > or directly after parsing. > > Which extensions are you interested in, particularly, by the way? If > it is a standardized > extension, feel free to add support for it under a new compile-time > feature flag and > file a PR to add it. We do have to balance code size against the proliferation of compile-time options. A compile-time option dedicated for a specific extension is relatively easy to test (like we test the library with/without each cryptographic algorithm). But we should do this in a way that would work well if each extension is gated by a compile-time option, so let's please discuss the design first. -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer > > Cheers, > Hanno > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on > behalf of Lev Stipakov via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> > *Sent:* Friday, April 3, 2020 8:32 AM > *To:* mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> > *Subject:* Re: [mbed-tls] Allowing unsupported extensions in X.509 > certificates > > Hi, > > I am not too much into mbedTLS design and not sure if this would make > sense, > but what about if we introduce an API to let client decide, what to do > with unknown extensions? > > Let's provide a way for a client to specify a callback > > typedef int (*mbedtls_x509_crt_unsupported_extension_cb_t)( > const mbedtls_asn1_buf *oid ); > > which could be an argument to a new method > > int mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_with_ext_cb( mbedtls_x509_crt *chain, > const unsigned char *buf, > size_t buflen, > > mbedtls_x509_crt_unsupported_extension_cb_t f_ext_cb ); > > > which is called when parser encounters unsupported extension: > > /* > * Detect supported extensions > */ > ret = mbedtls_oid_get_x509_ext_type( &extn_oid, &ext_type ); > if( ret != 0 ) > { > /* No parser found, skip extension */ > *p = end_ext_octet; > > if( is_critical ) > { > /* Data is marked as critical: ask client what to do */ > if( f_ext_cb != NULL ) > { > ret = f_ext_cb( &extn_oid ); > } > > /* Client is OK with unsupported critical extension, continue */ > if( ret == 0 ) > continue; > > return( MBEDTLS_ERR_X509_INVALID_EXTENSIONS + > MBEDTLS_ERR_ASN1_UNEXPECTED_TAG ); > } > > continue; > } > > This would allow us to deprecate > MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION - > those clients which want to allow all extensions could pass a callback > which always returns 0. > > What do you think? > > -- > -Lev > -- > mbed-tls mailing list > mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls > 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. > 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] How to generate a certificate request with X.509 OID MBEDTLS_OID_SERVER_AUTH

by Hanno Becker

Hi Thomas, Could you share the relevant piece of the code and perhaps the raw CSR data it generates? >From what you write, it looks like you have called `mbedtls_x509write_csr_set_extension()` with OID `MBEDTLS_OID_SERVER_AUTH`, which isn't quite right: `mbedtls_x509write_csr_set_extension()` registers a single extension, and the TLS Web Server Authentication usage is one usage constraint within the ExtendedKeyUsage extension. I'd therefore expect that you have to call `mbedtls_x509write_csr_set_extension()` with `MBEDTLS_OID_EXTENDED_KEY_USAGE` passing it the raw ASN.1 content of the ExtendedKeyUsage extension, part of which is `MBEDTLS_OID_SERVER_AUTH`. To my knowledge, there is currently no API within Mbed TLS which helps you writing this ASN.1 content from a list of usage constraints, so you will need to build it manually. If you have trouble with that, let us know. Alternatively, you might copy it from any certificate you know which has the desired ExtendedKeyUsage. Apologies for this inconvenience, I do think it would be beneficial to have some helper function for writing such an important extension as ExtendedKeyUsage which doens't force users to hand-craft ASN.1. Best, Hanno ________________________________ From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Thomas Volgmann via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 9:01 AM To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [mbed-tls] How to generate a certificate request with X.509 OID MBEDTLS_OID_SERVER_AUTH Hello, I have a problem generating the following content in an certificate request : Requested Extensions: X509v3 Extended Key Usage: TLS Web Server Authentication X509v3 Basic Constraints: CA:FALSE The only thing I could produce was : Requested Extensions: X509v3 Key Usage: Digital Signature X509v3 Extended Key Usage: TLS Web Server Authentication: Can anybody help me with the function : mbedtls_x509write_csr_set_extension Mit freundlichen Grüßen Thomas Volgmann --------------------------------------- DSA-Volgmann Redcarstr. 20 53842 Troisdorf Tel: 02241 23416 11 Fax: 02241 23416 61 email : thomas.volgmann(a)dsa-volgmann.de<mailto:thomas.volgmann@dsa-volgmann.de> web: www.dsa-volgmann.de<http://www.dsa-volgmann.de/> --------------------------------------- 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Allowing unsupported extensions in X.509 certificates

by Hanno Becker

Hi Lev, I believe that this kind of functionality could be implemented on top of the existing verify-with-callback API `mbedtls_x509_crt_verify_with_cb()`. More precisely, you can enable `MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION` to ignore unknown extensions initially, and then chekc them yourself in the verification callback by manually traversing `mbedtls_x509_crt::v3_ext`. If you detect an extension you cannot make sense of and which is marked critical, you can modify the verification flags. Would that work for you, in principle? Note, though, that this would work at the level of verification, not parsing, which might or might not be acceptable. In this regard you might also be interested in knowing about a significant rewrite of CRT parsing on the `baremetal` branch. The main difference is that the X.509 CRT structure has been stripped down to no longer make use of dynamically allocated memory but instead only provide pointers to the various fields in the certificate. In the case of dynamic-length fields such as the Subject or Issuer names, but also the extension list, inspection shall be done through a newline introduced ASN.1 parsing function int mbedtls_asn1_traverse_sequence_of( unsigned char **p, const unsigned char *end, uint8_t tag_must_mask, uint8_t tag_must_val, uint8_t tag_may_mask, uint8_t tag_may_val, int (*cb)( void *ctx, int tag, unsigned char* start, size_t len ), void *ctx ); https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/baremetal/include/mbedtls/asn1.h#L3… This function traverses an ASN.1 sequence and triggers a callback for each item found. This functionality could be used to perform the extension traversal in the verification callback or directly after parsing. Which extensions are you interested in, particularly, by the way? If it is a standardized extension, feel free to add support for it under a new compile-time feature flag and file a PR to add it. Cheers, Hanno ________________________________ From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Lev Stipakov via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 8:32 AM To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Allowing unsupported extensions in X.509 certificates Hi, I am not too much into mbedTLS design and not sure if this would make sense, but what about if we introduce an API to let client decide, what to do with unknown extensions? Let's provide a way for a client to specify a callback typedef int (*mbedtls_x509_crt_unsupported_extension_cb_t)( const mbedtls_asn1_buf *oid ); which could be an argument to a new method int mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_with_ext_cb( mbedtls_x509_crt *chain, const unsigned char *buf, size_t buflen, mbedtls_x509_crt_unsupported_extension_cb_t f_ext_cb ); which is called when parser encounters unsupported extension: /* * Detect supported extensions */ ret = mbedtls_oid_get_x509_ext_type( &extn_oid, &ext_type ); if( ret != 0 ) { /* No parser found, skip extension */ *p = end_ext_octet; if( is_critical ) { /* Data is marked as critical: ask client what to do */ if( f_ext_cb != NULL ) { ret = f_ext_cb( &extn_oid ); } /* Client is OK with unsupported critical extension, continue */ if( ret == 0 ) continue; return( MBEDTLS_ERR_X509_INVALID_EXTENSIONS + MBEDTLS_ERR_ASN1_UNEXPECTED_TAG ); } continue; } This would allow us to deprecate MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION - those clients which want to allow all extensions could pass a callback which always returns 0. What do you think? -- -Lev -- mbed-tls mailing list mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Allowing unsupported extensions in X.509 certificates

by Lev Stipakov

Hi, I am not too much into mbedTLS design and not sure if this would make sense, but what about if we introduce an API to let client decide, what to do with unknown extensions? Let's provide a way for a client to specify a callback typedef int (*mbedtls_x509_crt_unsupported_extension_cb_t)( const mbedtls_asn1_buf *oid ); which could be an argument to a new method int mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_with_ext_cb( mbedtls_x509_crt *chain, const unsigned char *buf, size_t buflen, mbedtls_x509_crt_unsupported_extension_cb_t f_ext_cb ); which is called when parser encounters unsupported extension: /* * Detect supported extensions */ ret = mbedtls_oid_get_x509_ext_type( &extn_oid, &ext_type ); if( ret != 0 ) { /* No parser found, skip extension */ *p = end_ext_octet; if( is_critical ) { /* Data is marked as critical: ask client what to do */ if( f_ext_cb != NULL ) { ret = f_ext_cb( &extn_oid ); } /* Client is OK with unsupported critical extension, continue */ if( ret == 0 ) continue; return( MBEDTLS_ERR_X509_INVALID_EXTENSIONS + MBEDTLS_ERR_ASN1_UNEXPECTED_TAG ); } continue; } This would allow us to deprecate MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION - those clients which want to allow all extensions could pass a callback which always returns 0. What do you think? -- -Lev

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

How to generate a certificate request with X.509 OID MBEDTLS_OID_SERVER_AUTH

by Thomas Volgmann

Hello, I have a problem generating the following content in an certificate request : Requested Extensions: X509v3 Extended Key Usage: TLS Web Server Authentication X509v3 Basic Constraints: CA:FALSE The only thing I could produce was : Requested Extensions: X509v3 Key Usage: Digital Signature X509v3 Extended Key Usage: TLS Web Server Authentication: Can anybody help me with the function : mbedtls_x509write_csr_set_extension Mit freundlichen Grüßen Thomas Volgmann --------------------------------------- DSA-Volgmann Redcarstr. 20 53842 Troisdorf Tel: 02241 23416 11 Fax: 02241 23416 61 email : thomas.volgmann(a)dsa-volgmann.de<mailto:thomas.volgmann@dsa-volgmann.de> web: www.dsa-volgmann.de<http://www.dsa-volgmann.de/> ---------------------------------------

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] TLS context serialization: can it be done?

by Hanno Becker

Hi Dmitrii! The reason why we focused on DTLS 1.2 + AEAD for the context serialization was because that's what we needed to support quickly at the time, and not because we saw some fundamental technical obstacles in implementing context serialization for TLS 1.2. I did the same as you, commenting out DTLS checks, and ran into the same problem during `mbedtls_cipher_auth_decrypt()`. The problem turns out to be the following: In TLS, the context contains an incoming record counter which, while in DTLS, the record counter is explicit and hence need not be maintained. In particular, when using the current serialization+deserialization functions with TLS 1.2, the incoming record counter will be corrupted. The core of the fix is simple: You need to duplicate https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/library/ssl_tls.c#L6228… and https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/library/ssl_tls.c#L6496… -- which save/load the _outgoing_ counter -- for the incoming counter `ssl->in_ctr`. I just tried this and things worked afterwards. Could you try and see if it works for you, too? If so, please feel free to adapt the serialization functions and file a PR to add support for serialization in TLS, and mark me as a reviewer. Note: There will likely be other things that need fixing, too, so please be careful in using the above patch as-is unless for experimentation. Cheers, Hanno ________________________________ From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Kuvaiskii, Dmitrii via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:58 PM To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [mbed-tls] TLS context serialization: can it be done? Dear all, I have the following question. mbedTLS v2.21.0 has support for TLS context serialization in the form of two functions: `mbedtls_ssl_context_save()` and `mbedtls_ssl_context_load()`. I'm trying to use these functions in another project (Graphene, an Intel SGX framework). Slightly oversimplifying, I want to establish a secure communication channel between two different Linux processes. I'd like to persist one of them and then re-spawn it again with the communication channel intact (so that there is no need for a new TLS handshake). However, I notice that currently these functions support only DTLS 1.2, see e.g.: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/aaabe86ac1f47193f4fc499846a0b3abeae… But I want to use a normal TLS channel, in particular with a ciphersuite `MBEDTLS_TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256`. I commented out the checks on DTLS in these functions just to see what will happen. As expected, both functions serialized and then deserialized the context, but when doing a `write(ssl_ctx)` in one (not-persisted) process and a `read(loaded_ssl_ctx)` in another (re-spawned) process, I get an error in `mbedtls_cipher_auth_decrypt()`. Clearly, my deserialized context didn't restore some vital information on the TLS session, and this led to failure in decryption. Thus, I have two questions: 1. Is there any version of this code that also works on TLS? 2. What are the additional internal objects that must be serialized for TLS (if it makes things easier, in my particular case with AES-GCM and a pre-shared key)? I looked at the code and tried to dump more fields in `mbedtls_ssl_transform`, but it didn't help much. If you'd provide me with some pointers, I could tinker more with mbedTLS code and hopefully make it work. Thanks in advance for any pointers! -- Dmitrii -- mbed-tls mailing list mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls 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.

5 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] question: SIGPIPE handling

by Gilles Peskine

On 01/04/2020 11:29, Anibal Portero via mbed-tls wrote: > SIGPIPE is handled with a signal( SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN ) in mbedtls_net_connect. While the examples in programs/ssl/ssl_client1.c or programs/ssl/ssl_client2.c are calling mbedtls_net_connect, programs/ssl/mini_client.c is not, and therefore not changing the default behavior of SIGPIPE. > Our client is based on mini_client.c. What would the best way to handle SIGPIPE? Would it be worth it to add signal( SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN ) to the mini_client.c example for future reference? maybe even make net_prepare() visible from outside so a mini client like application can use it? That's a good question. I wonder why mbedtls_net_connect() calls signal(). It's been the case ever since net.c was introduced in XySSL 0.5. But that's a global setting and I don't think a library function that's supposed to act on a specific socket should modify a global setting. Should mbedtls_net_send() call send(MSG_NOSIGNAL) instead of write()? But what about older systems without MSG_NOSIGNAL? Is there a portable way to disable SIGPIPE for a specific socket? -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Allowing unsupported extensions in X.509 certificates

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, This is a discussion about the design of a new feature in X.509 parsing, and a possible deprecation of MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION. Normally, when mbedtls_x509_crt_parse() (specifically x509_get_crt_ext()) encounters an extension that it doesn't support (unknown OID), it rejects the certificate if the extension is marked as critical and ignores it otherwise. This is usually the right thing. The application can inspect all extensions, including ignored ones, in crt->v3_ext. However there are use cases where it's useful to pass extensions through to the application and let the application decide, even for critical extensions. There's a compilation flag MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION (default off) which causes critical extensions to be ignored. However the application must then parse the extension list again to check for all critical extensions, including ones that it doesn't support. https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/1425 proposes to give the application better control. At least the application should be able to specify at runtime which extensions it allows. And perhaps the parser should provide pointers to the extensions that it finds. The design needs to reconcile several aspects, in particular: • With default compile-time and run-time options, unsupported critical extensions must be rejected, both for security and for backward compatibility. • With MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION and default run-time options, all critical extensions must be accepted, for backward compatibility. • It's nicer if the library includes knowledge about extension OIDs. However this needs to be balanced against the needs of embedded systems where code size is important and the current size of oid.o is already a problem. • Compile-time options increase the testing burden, so it's better not to add one. And non-default compile-time options aren't useful for platforms that use a shared library built by a distribution. With these considerations, how should a runtime mechanism to select pass-through critical extensions be implemented? Can we do it without a new compile-time option and without increasing the code size? Should the new mechanism be present in the default build, only with MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION or only with a new compile-time option? MBEDTLS_X509_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_CRITICAL_EXTENSION has been around since before my time. I don't know who might be using it. Should we deprecate it if there's a more flexible runtime mechanism that doesn't involve turning it on? -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [mbed-tls] Static Memory allocation Buffer Size for DTLS #3146

by Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard

Hi, > I am not sure how much memory to assign? I don't think there's a simple answer to that. I think the best you can do is measure how much memory is consumed in your workflow, and add a margin. When doing measurements, you should keep in mind that DTLS handshakes may consume more memory when happening over an unreliable transport, as it then needs to cache out-of-order messages, so you might want to use something like our programs/test/udp_proxy to simulate an unreliable link for you measurements. Also, the size of the messages exchanged (and potentially cached) depends on the size of the certificate chain, so you'll want to do you measurements with a configuration as close as possible to the final one. > > Current use: 33 blocks / 2508 bytes, max: 99 blocks / 5392 bytes (total 8560 bytes), alloc / free: 8803 / 8771 > What is blocks here and how many bytes per block? > My understanding is that - out of 99 blocks, 33 blocks are used. Is it right? In this context, a block just means an area of memory that is or was allocated. So for example if you do `malloc(128); malloc(1024);` you'll have two blocks used, the first being 128 bytes (plus overhead) and the second 1024 bytes (plus overhead). There is no fixed number or size of blocks in the allocator, so here the "max" means the peak of memory consumption - at that time, 5392 bytes had been allocated, over 99 blocks. You'll notice our allocator has a pretty large overhead: when adding administrative data used by the allocator, the peak memory consumption was actually 8560 bytes, out of which only 5392 were actually available to the application. > Does the memory fragmentation and de-fragmentation is handled inside mbedTLS itself? No, the provided allocator is very basic and doesn't protect against memory fragmentation. > And also after every handshake, does it release the used memory buffer for the connection? Once the handshake is complete, all the RAM that was allocated just for the handshake is freed, and the only buffers that are kept are those that are still necessary for the rest of the connection. Hope that helps! Best regards, Manuel.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

question: SIGPIPE handling

by Anibal Portero

Hi, SIGPIPE is handled with a signal( SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN ) in mbedtls_net_connect. While the examples in programs/ssl/ssl_client1.c or programs/ssl/ssl_client2.c are calling mbedtls_net_connect, programs/ssl/mini_client.c is not, and therefore not changing the default behavior of SIGPIPE. Our client is based on mini_client.c. What would the best way to handle SIGPIPE? Would it be worth it to add signal( SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN ) to the mini_client.c example for future reference? maybe even make net_prepare() visible from outside so a mini client like application can use it? Thanks!

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

mbed-tls