Dear,
In our project, our device should act as both client and server. Is it
possible for both TLS and DTLS? If yes, how about the certificate? Do we
need only 2 certs for this divice (one for the server role and one for
the client role)?
Best regards,
Farhad
Hello,
There is work in progress by community members to implement PKCS#7
SignedData parsing and generation.
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3970https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3431
Arm has no particular plans in this area, but if you need other parts of
PKCS#7, we'd be happy to accept more contributions. We'll can't commit
to doing any development, but we'll assist with submissions and review
code as usual.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 13/01/2021 07:31, Subramanian Gopi Krishnan via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Is there a plan to support PKCS#7 Certificate in
> future? We are work with rfc7030 service, which issues certificate in
> PKCS#7 format.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gopi Krishnan
>
>
Hi,
Is there a plan to support PKCS#7 Certificate in future? We are work with rfc7030 service, which issues certificate in PKCS#7 format.
Thanks,
Gopi Krishnan
This is a notice that Mbed TLS 2.7 will no longer be supported or maintained after February 5th 2021. Mbed TLS 2.7.0 was released on February 5th 2018 with a three year support period.
The current version of Mbed TLS 2.7 is 2.7.18, which was released on December 11th 2020. There are no pending bug or security fixes, so unless new issues arise during the next month, there will not be another release of 2.7. We do not plan to merge any non-critical backports to 2.7 in the next month.
We recommend that where practical, users upgrade to either 2.16, which will be supported until the end of 2021, or to the development branch, which will be released as an LTS in mid 2021, with an expected support period until mid 2024.
Dave Rodgman
Hi,
Hanno suggested me to post our discussion here:
We use mbedtls in Facebook family apps. One of missing features is the ability to delegate cert verification to application. Hanno has pointed us to a similar ask in https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/2091
We implemented cert verification process in Android/java and iOS/objective-C. Having this feature enables us to use the OS module for cert verification. The motivation is reduced maintenance cost. Some mobile APPs use OS TLS stack (rather than bundle mbedtls or openssl in the binary), so we have to maintain our OS-specific cert verification modules anyways. It’ll be ideal if we only keep the Android and iOS implementations as source of truth.
Any thoughts on supporting this?
Thanks,
Junqi
Hi all,
Back in June 2019, we added support for the experimental DTLS Connection ID extension in Mbed TLS 2.18.0. This extension makes it possible to keep a connection alive even when the client's connectivity changes (eg new IP address). Since this was based on a draft rather than an established standard, it is disabled in the default config, and the option to enable it comes with a warning about us not being able to make any stability promises.
As it turns out, a couple of months ago an extension number was assigned by IANA for this extension, which is different from the one we picked up when implementing the draft, so we'll have to change that in a future version of Mbed TLS. This change is trivial to do but would break compatibility in the following sense: and old client and a new server (or a new client and a new server) would no longer be able to negotiate this extension; only old-old and new-new would work. (Thanks to Achim Kraus for bringing that to our attention by the way: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3892 )
One obvious solution to that issue would be to make sure all users upgrade all the clients and the servers at the same time. This can probably be managed in a development/testing environment as well as some tightly controlled production environments, but is probably less suitable for large-scale deployments where clients and servers might not even be manged by the same party.
So, before we plan this changed, we'll like to know if anyone already has a production deployment relying on Connection ID where updating all the clients and servers at the same time would not be an option.
If that is the case, we may consider implementing a compatibility mode that would allow a server to negotiate use of the extension with both old and new clients. However, such compatibility code would be non-standard and a testing burden (not to mention, significantly more work that just updating the relevant #define), so that's something we'd like to avoid doing unless we know that there is an actual need for it.
Please let us know what you think by replying to this email either on-list, or privately if you'd rather not share deployment information publicly (in that case, please mention it explicitly so that we know you didn't just forget to Cc the list).
Thanks,
Manuel
Dear Xiao Nian Jun,
Thanks for your response! Knowing the practical impact of the issue will help us prioritize it.
Best regards,
Manuel
________________________________
From: Xiao, Nian Jun <nianjun.xiao(a)siemens.com>
Sent: 29 December 2020 02:43
To: Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard <Manuel.Pegourie-Gonnard(a)arm.com>
Cc: He, Shu Shan <shushan.he(a)siemens.com>; Xia, Juan <juan.xia(a)siemens.com>
Subject: RE: MBEDTLS issue I found
Dear Manuel,
Really appreciate for your quick and detail feedback.
We think this is more like an interoperability issue, we found this issue during we developing webserver feature using MBEDTLS. Google Chrome treat such certificate as invalid. Follow below steps will reproduce this issue.
1. Generate a self-signed root certificate with ECC256 key.(using genKey and certWrite program of MBEDTLS)
2. Using above root certificate to sign a device certificate which also using ECC256 as its private key. (using genKey and certWrite program of MBEDTLS)
3. Install root certificate so Chrome can see it.
4. using Nginx or some other opensource web server, modify its configuration so it will use the device certificate and corresponding private key as the ciphers to setup TLS communication.
5. Open Chrome and visit default Nginx web page(or some other web server tools’ default web page), you can see Chrome won’t let user to continue because it treat the device certificate as invalid.
6. According to our test, Chrome has this issue, fire fox, IE, etc. doesn’t have this issue.
7. If I modify function mbedtls_asn1_write_algorithm_identifier like I said yesterday, Chrome will accept it and other browser also will accept it, happy life back again.
Have a good day and looking for your feedback again!
B.R.
Xiao Nian Jun.
From: Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard <Manuel.Pegourie-Gonnard(a)arm.com>
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 9:23 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Xiao, Nian Jun (RC-CN DI FA BL CTR-SL PRC2) <nianjun.xiao(a)siemens.com>
Cc: He, Shu Shan (RC-CN DI FA BL CTR-SL PRC2) <shushan.he(a)siemens.com>
Subject: Re: MBEDTLS issue I found
Dear Xiao Nian Jun,
Thanks for your kind words and for reporting this issue you found.
I checked RFC 7427 and indeed while parameters must be present and NULL for all RSA algorithms, appendix A.3 is clear that they must be absent for ECDSA. Since RFC 7427 is about IKEv2 rather than about X.509 certificates, I also checked RFC 5480 (updating RFC 3279 which defines the X.509 profile used by the IETF), and it concurs: for ECDSA, parameters are absent (appendix A).
Our behaviour is not conformant, and this should be fixed. Just to help us evaluate the severity of the issue, I'd like to know if this is something you found by inspecting the generated certificate yourself, or if it caused the generate certificate to be rejected by some other X.509 implementation or verification tool. Said otherwise, is this only a compliance issue, or also an interoperability issue?
Regarding your fix, I think it works as long as you are only generating ECC-signed X.509 certificates, but as you suggest, I'm afraid it only fixes the problem by creating another one: it would suppress the NULL parameters for RSA as well, but unfortunately, they're mandatory there (I wish the standards were more consistent). So, we'll probably have to do something similar, but only for ECDSA.
I was going to create a ticket for that in our bug tracker when I noticed we already have a ticket tracking that: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/2924 - Ill add a link to your message in the ticket.
Thanks again for your report.
Best regards,
Manuel
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of Xiao, Nian Jun via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: 28 December 2020 03:24
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Cc: He, Shu Shan <shushan.he(a)siemens.com<mailto:shushan.he@siemens.com>>
Subject: [mbed-tls] MBEDTLS issue I found
Dear MBEDTLS team,
I’m a developer at SIEMENS, my name is Xiao Nian Jun. Please accept my sincere gratitude for your excellent work and to spend extra time to read my email.
We are using MBEDTLS to generate ECC key and certificates, we found an issue regarding algorithm identifier in the final ASN.1 certificate. For certificate signed by ECC key, the algorithm identifier is “NULL” which doesn’t conforms to RFC7427 specification.
[cid:image001.png@01D6DDC1.DCE8CFC0]
You can see the “NULL” string in the certificate, Chrome will treat this kind of certificate as invalid.
This issue has blocked us for a while, and after some investigation, we found an easy fix –- probably immature fix --- to make it works right--- we just commented out this line of code “MBEDTLS_ASN1_CHK_ADD( len, mbedtls_asn1_write_null( p, start ) )" in function mbedtls_asn1_write_algorithm_identifier.
To be honesty, we’ve been using MBEDTLS for very short time, probably this is not an issue, probably our fix will end up break up something…currently, it’s just looks correct.
Please check if my fix works or not, if not, please do not hesitate to correct me.
B.R.
Xiao Nian Jun.
Dear Xiao Nian Jun,
Thanks for your kind words and for reporting this issue you found.
I checked RFC 7427 and indeed while parameters must be present and NULL for all RSA algorithms, appendix A.3 is clear that they must be absent for ECDSA. Since RFC 7427 is about IKEv2 rather than about X.509 certificates, I also checked RFC 5480 (updating RFC 3279 which defines the X.509 profile used by the IETF), and it concurs: for ECDSA, parameters are absent (appendix A).
Our behaviour is not conformant, and this should be fixed. Just to help us evaluate the severity of the issue, I'd like to know if this is something you found by inspecting the generated certificate yourself, or if it caused the generate certificate to be rejected by some other X.509 implementation or verification tool. Said otherwise, is this only a compliance issue, or also an interoperability issue?
Regarding your fix, I think it works as long as you are only generating ECC-signed X.509 certificates, but as you suggest, I'm afraid it only fixes the problem by creating another one: it would suppress the NULL parameters for RSA as well, but unfortunately, they're mandatory there (I wish the standards were more consistent). So, we'll probably have to do something similar, but only for ECDSA.
I was going to create a ticket for that in our bug tracker when I noticed we already have a ticket tracking that: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/2924 - Ill add a link to your message in the ticket.
Thanks again for your report.
Best regards,
Manuel
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Xiao, Nian Jun via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 28 December 2020 03:24
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: He, Shu Shan <shushan.he(a)siemens.com>
Subject: [mbed-tls] MBEDTLS issue I found
Dear MBEDTLS team,
I’m a developer at SIEMENS, my name is Xiao Nian Jun. Please accept my sincere gratitude for your excellent work and to spend extra time to read my email.
We are using MBEDTLS to generate ECC key and certificates, we found an issue regarding algorithm identifier in the final ASN.1 certificate. For certificate signed by ECC key, the algorithm identifier is “NULL” which doesn’t conforms to RFC7427 specification.
[cid:image001.png@01D6DD01.C51C7290]
You can see the “NULL” string in the certificate, Chrome will treat this kind of certificate as invalid.
This issue has blocked us for a while, and after some investigation, we found an easy fix –- probably immature fix --- to make it works right--- we just commented out this line of code “MBEDTLS_ASN1_CHK_ADD( len, mbedtls_asn1_write_null( p, start ) )" in function mbedtls_asn1_write_algorithm_identifier.
To be honesty, we’ve been using MBEDTLS for very short time, probably this is not an issue, probably our fix will end up break up something…currently, it’s just looks correct.
Please check if my fix works or not, if not, please do not hesitate to correct me.
B.R.
Xiao Nian Jun.
Dear MBEDTLS team,
I’m a developer at SIEMENS, my name is Xiao Nian Jun. Please accept my sincere gratitude for your excellent work and to spend extra time to read my email.
We are using MBEDTLS to generate ECC key and certificates, we found an issue regarding algorithm identifier in the final ASN.1 certificate. For certificate signed by ECC key, the algorithm identifier is “NULL” which doesn’t conforms to RFC7427 specification.
[cid:image001.png@01D6DD01.C51C7290]
You can see the “NULL” string in the certificate, Chrome will treat this kind of certificate as invalid.
This issue has blocked us for a while, and after some investigation, we found an easy fix –- probably immature fix --- to make it works right--- we just commented out this line of code “MBEDTLS_ASN1_CHK_ADD( len, mbedtls_asn1_write_null( p, start ) )" in function mbedtls_asn1_write_algorithm_identifier.
To be honesty, we’ve been using MBEDTLS for very short time, probably this is not an issue, probably our fix will end up break up something…currently, it’s just looks correct.
Please check if my fix works or not, if not, please do not hesitate to correct me.
B.R.
Xiao Nian Jun.
Hello,
We are planning to release Mbed TLS 3.0 around June 2021, alongside an LTS release of Mbed TLS 2.x. Our major version numbers indicate API breaking changes, and this is no exception: Mbed TLS 3.0 will have changes that make it incompatible with 2.x (as an obvious example, functions that are deprecated in 2.x will be removed).
In setting a near-term release date, we have chosen some key areas that we want to focus on for 3.0. Some other API-breaking items (i.e., those requiring significant design time) won't make the cut and we will hold those back for a future major version, in order to have time to get them right. The main focus for 3.0 will be reduction in API surface, and changes that are low-impact for almost everyone.
Work towards 3.0 will start in late January, on the development branch which will contain a public work-in-progress view of Mbed TLS 3.0. Any work for 2.x in this timeframe will take place on a separate branch (provisionally named like "mbedtls-2.x").
During the 3.0 development period, bug fixes and security fixes will continue to be a priority, but we will have slightly less capacity for other features. While 3.0 is in development, any new features will by default be landed in 3.0 only, unless there is a strong case for back-porting to 2.x. The 2.x LTS branches will still be supported with bug fixes and security fixes for the normal three year lifetime (i.e., the final LTS release of 2.x in mid-2021 will be supported until mid-2024).
In terms of content, we are taking a cautious approach to what we plan for 3.0. In the past we've been ambitious here and as a result, have slipped on the release date; by being cautious on feature set we can be confident about hitting the mid-year release date. We won't try to make all of the changes that would be nice-to-have; instead, we will focus on tasks that reduce maintenance, unlock other improvements in a 3.x timeframe, are still valuable if only partially completed, and can fit within this time frame. Currently we're looking at the following areas for 3.0:
* Reduce the public surface of the API
* Clean-up existing APIs
* Changes to default options
Regards
Dave Rodgman
Hi Farhad,
I think for this question as well as the "packets lost" question, it's important to distinguish two phases of a DTLS connection: initially there's a handshake (to negotiate and establish security parameters and session keys), and then application data can be exchanged. Application data is what's passed to `mbedtls_ssl_write()` or written by `mbedtls_ssl_read()` (depending on whether you're the sender or receiver) - this can only happen once the handshake is completed.
During the handshake, there are indeed mechanisms to re-order packets that were received out of order and also retransmit packets that were lost. But that's only during the handshake (because it's a lockstep process where everything needs to happen in order), and only for data that's purely internal to the DTLS protocol and never seen by the application.
Once the handshake is completed and application data starts to be exchanged, there is no longer any kind of re-ordering or retransmission mechanism. The reason is, as you guessed, DTLS aims to provide similar properties to UDP - with cryptographic security in addition. So, if you send something with `mbedtls_ssl_write()` and the record gets lost, the DTLS protocol won't even know about it, and no retransmission will happen. If record N+1 arrives before record N, the DTLS protocol will know but do nothing, and just deliver the records in the order they arrived. Again, as you said, doing otherwise would introduce latency and be contrary to the goals of DTLS - people who want reliability at the expense of latency should use TLS.
The main exception to that principle that you can expect DTLS to behave like UDP is duplicated records: the DTLS protocol provide optional replay protection (that is, if record N arrives twice, the second occurrence is dropped). In Mbed TLS, this mechanism is enabled by default but can be disabled at compile-time by not defining MBEDTLS_SSL_DTLS_ANTI_REPLAY in config.h, or at runtime by calling mbedtls_ssl_conf_dtls_anti_replay().
I hope this answers your questions.
Regards,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of saghili via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 10 December 2020 18:31
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] "Reordering" in DTLS
Hello,
I have a question about DTLS.
One thing that is not entirely clear to me from the RFC is this: suppose
2 records are received within a "short" period, e.g. seq# N+1 followed
by seq# N. In this case, what does DTLS do? My understanding is that it
will pass on packets in the order it was received (i.e. out of order).
But it can (should?) re-order at the DTLS layer and pass them on to the
upper layer in the right order. HOWEVER, this implies that the DTLS
"wait" for a certain window to see if the seq#=N packet arrives or not.
But doing so introduces additional delay at DTLS layer and also
contradicts with the UDP principle (i.e. no concept of order). Could you
please give me a hint regarding this issue?
Best regards,
Farhad
--
mbed-tls mailing list
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
Hello,
I have a question about DTLS.
One thing that is not entirely clear to me from the RFC is this: suppose
2 records are received within a "short" period, e.g. seq# N+1 followed
by seq# N. In this case, what does DTLS do? My understanding is that it
will pass on packets in the order it was received (i.e. out of order).
But it can (should?) re-order at the DTLS layer and pass them on to the
upper layer in the right order. HOWEVER, this implies that the DTLS
"wait" for a certain window to see if the seq#=N packet arrives or not.
But doing so introduces additional delay at DTLS layer and also
contradicts with the UDP principle (i.e. no concept of order). Could you
please give me a hint regarding this issue?
Best regards,
Farhad
Hello,
I have a question about DTLS.
Because of the latency, I need to disable the "packets lost" feature.
Does MbedTLS provide the flag that we can disable resending the packet
in case of the packet lost? For instance, if I have 3 packets 42, 43,
and 44, is it possible to decrypt packet 44 without receiving packets 42
and 43? It will be in the "Record" layer.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Farhad
Thank you for quick response.
> Are you using blocking or non-blocking I/O?
Non-blocking IO
I've preset bio_send/recv callbacks
I have pair of buffers, transport buffer and application buffer, for
reading and writing (4 buffers total). Application buffers are protected
by mutexes.
Transport buffers are written/read in bio_send/recv (if no async op
pending, otherwise WANT_READ/WRITE).
mbedtls_ssl_xxx work with application buffers.
> Are you using TLS or DTLS? What protocol version, what cipher suite
and what extensions are negotiated?
TLS (over tcp, no lossy channel involved)
version 1.2
> Does your application call mbedtls_ssl_write() and mbedtls_ssl_read()
again with the same buffer if they return MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_READ or
MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_WRITE?
Well, actually, no. AND it's quite possible, that application outgoing
buffer (std::vector) has been relocated between mbedtls_ssl_write calls,
because app could push data several times while async op was pending and
bio_send returned WANT_WRITE, causing these buffers to resize. So
buf.data() will not be equal to that from previous mbedtls_ssl_write
call. Is this what causes trouble? It's somehow connected to partial
sends? I do call ssl_write inside while-loop, counting sent and unsent
bytes - thought this was enough. But if mbedtls somehow remembers
addresses from previos calls - that might cause problems.
> Do you close the TLS connection if mbedtls_ssl_xxx() returns an error
other than WANT_XXX (or XXX_IN_PROGRESS if you use these features)?
Yes, but that never happens (from handshake to until problem appears)
> What is the value of MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN (or
MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_CONTENT_LEN if it's defined)?
Not defined in config, looks like both 16834
>What operating system are you using?
Ubuntu 20, Kali 20
> Is this a client or a server? What TLS stack does the other side run?
Both are written same way, both using same library.
I'll try to prepare test-case code, that reproduces the problem, and
logs, but that will require some time.
10.12.2020 1:07, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls пишет:
> Hi Андрей,
>
> The behavior you describe is a bug. But there isn't enough information
> to tell whether the bug is in Mbed TLS, in asio-standalone, in some
> other third-party code, or in your application.
>
> Some things to consider:
>
> * Are you using blocking or non-blocking I/O?
> * Are you using TLS or DTLS? What protocol version, what cipher suite
> and what extensions are negotiated?
> * Does your application call mbedtls_ssl_write() and mbedtls_ssl_read()
> again with the same buffer if they return MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_READ or
> MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_WRITE?
> * Do you close the TLS connection if mbedtls_ssl_xxx() returns an error
> other than WANT_XXX (or XXX_IN_PROGRESS if you use these features)?
> * What is the value of MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN (or
> MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_CONTENT_LEN if it's defined)?
> * What operating system are you using?
> * Is this a client or a server? What TLS stack does the other side run?
>
> You'll give others the most chance to help you if you post small,
> complete code to reproduce the problem. I realize this may be difficult.
> A good intermediate way to see what is going on would be to post debug
> logs. To get debug logs, make sure that MBEDTLS_DEBUG_C is enabled and
> call these functions before opening the TLS connection:
>
> mbedtls_ssl_conf_dbg(&ssl_conf, my_debug, stdout);
> mbedtls_debug_set_threshold(2);
>
> See https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/mbedtls-tutorial for a sample version
> of my_debug().
>
> Calls to bio_send() are shown in the logs as
>
> => flush output
> message length: %d, out_left: %d
> ssl->f_send() returned %d
> <= flush output
>
> If they don't show expected numbers, the rest of the logs should give a
> clue as to why.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
By the way, I notice you're using Mbed TLS 2.16.3. This version has
known bugs, including security issues. Please upgrade to the latest Mbed
TLS 2.16.x (currently 2.16.8, very soon 2.16.9) which is a security and
bugfix update, or to the latest release (2.24.0, soon 2.25.0) which has
all the latest bugfixes and features. Looking at the changelog, I don't
see any mention of a bug that could explain your problem, but I might
have missed something.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 09/12/2020 22:17, Сысоев Андрей via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I need a little help with mbedtls 2.16.3.
> I'm using it under x86-64 with asio-standalone.
>
> Here's a standard situation:
> - I call mbedtls_ssl_write() to write let's say 8192 bytes of payload
> - it calls my own bio_send() with (8192+21) bytes as len parameter
> - bio_send() returns len=(8192+21), indicating transport data
> correctly written
> - mbedtls_ssl_write() returns 8192, indicating payload send
> GOOD: next I use this value to shift application buffer (erase first
> 8192 bytes), then send next chunk
>
> BUT after some time of running this situation happens:
> - once again, a call to mbedtls_ssl_write() to write let's say 8192
> bytes of payload
> - it calls bio_send() with smaller number, about 5500 bytes as len
> parameter (?? but OK)
> - bio_send() returns len=5500, indicating transport data correctly
> written
> - mbedtls_ssl_write() returns 8192 (??? why not 5500 ???), indicating
> payload send
> BAD: next I use this value to shift application buffer (erase first
> 8192 bytes), this leads to data loss of (8192-5500)=2692 bytes and
> ruins protocol
>
> As you can see, mbedtls_ssl_write() incorrectly reports about sent
> application data (8192 instead of 5500) - is this a bug? How can such
> situation happen under normal operation?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
Hi Андрей,
The behavior you describe is a bug. But there isn't enough information
to tell whether the bug is in Mbed TLS, in asio-standalone, in some
other third-party code, or in your application.
Some things to consider:
* Are you using blocking or non-blocking I/O?
* Are you using TLS or DTLS? What protocol version, what cipher suite
and what extensions are negotiated?
* Does your application call mbedtls_ssl_write() and mbedtls_ssl_read()
again with the same buffer if they return MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_READ or
MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_WRITE?
* Do you close the TLS connection if mbedtls_ssl_xxx() returns an error
other than WANT_XXX (or XXX_IN_PROGRESS if you use these features)?
* What is the value of MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN (or
MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_CONTENT_LEN if it's defined)?
* What operating system are you using?
* Is this a client or a server? What TLS stack does the other side run?
You'll give others the most chance to help you if you post small,
complete code to reproduce the problem. I realize this may be difficult.
A good intermediate way to see what is going on would be to post debug
logs. To get debug logs, make sure that MBEDTLS_DEBUG_C is enabled and
call these functions before opening the TLS connection:
mbedtls_ssl_conf_dbg(&ssl_conf, my_debug, stdout);
mbedtls_debug_set_threshold(2);
See https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/mbedtls-tutorial for a sample version
of my_debug().
Calls to bio_send() are shown in the logs as
=> flush output
message length: %d, out_left: %d
ssl->f_send() returned %d
<= flush output
If they don't show expected numbers, the rest of the logs should give a
clue as to why.
Hope this helps,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 09/12/2020 22:17, Сысоев Андрей via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I need a little help with mbedtls 2.16.3.
> I'm using it under x86-64 with asio-standalone.
>
> Here's a standard situation:
> - I call mbedtls_ssl_write() to write let's say 8192 bytes of payload
> - it calls my own bio_send() with (8192+21) bytes as len parameter
> - bio_send() returns len=(8192+21), indicating transport data
> correctly written
> - mbedtls_ssl_write() returns 8192, indicating payload send
> GOOD: next I use this value to shift application buffer (erase first
> 8192 bytes), then send next chunk
>
> BUT after some time of running this situation happens:
> - once again, a call to mbedtls_ssl_write() to write let's say 8192
> bytes of payload
> - it calls bio_send() with smaller number, about 5500 bytes as len
> parameter (?? but OK)
> - bio_send() returns len=5500, indicating transport data correctly
> written
> - mbedtls_ssl_write() returns 8192 (??? why not 5500 ???), indicating
> payload send
> BAD: next I use this value to shift application buffer (erase first
> 8192 bytes), this leads to data loss of (8192-5500)=2692 bytes and
> ruins protocol
>
> As you can see, mbedtls_ssl_write() incorrectly reports about sent
> application data (8192 instead of 5500) - is this a bug? How can such
> situation happen under normal operation?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
Hello.
I need a little help with mbedtls 2.16.3.
I'm using it under x86-64 with asio-standalone.
Here's a standard situation:
- I call mbedtls_ssl_write() to write let's say 8192 bytes of payload
- it calls my own bio_send() with (8192+21) bytes as len parameter
- bio_send() returns len=(8192+21), indicating transport data correctly
written
- mbedtls_ssl_write() returns 8192, indicating payload send
GOOD: next I use this value to shift application buffer (erase first
8192 bytes), then send next chunk
BUT after some time of running this situation happens:
- once again, a call to mbedtls_ssl_write() to write let's say 8192
bytes of payload
- it calls bio_send() with smaller number, about 5500 bytes as len
parameter (?? but OK)
- bio_send() returns len=5500, indicating transport data correctly written
- mbedtls_ssl_write() returns 8192 (??? why not 5500 ???), indicating
payload send
BAD: next I use this value to shift application buffer (erase first 8192
bytes), this leads to data loss of (8192-5500)=2692 bytes and ruins protocol
As you can see, mbedtls_ssl_write() incorrectly reports about sent
application data (8192 instead of 5500) - is this a bug? How can such
situation happen under normal operation?
Thanks in advance.
Hi Farhad,
Mbed TLS currently supports hardware acceleration through alternative
implementations of the corresponding modules or functions. See
https://tls.mbed.org/kb/development/hw_acc_guidelines . This mechanism
is available for symmetric cryptography and partially for RSA and ECC.
There is some work in progress on a new mechanism for hardware
acceleration through the psa_xxx() API, which will be available for all
algorithms. You can follow the work in progress on the “Unified driver
interface: API design and prototype” epic at
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-8543266 .
Hope this helps,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 04/12/2020 11:20, saghili via mbed-tls wrote:
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Our platform is a quad core Cortex A53 running PetaLinux.
> In our hardware, "AF_ALG" module has performance accelerations
> available through the Linux crypto drivers.
> Is it possible that we have "AF_ALG" for offloading crypto operations?
>
> Best regards,
> Farhad
Dear Sir/Madam,
Our platform is a quad core Cortex A53 running PetaLinux.
In our hardware, "AF_ALG" module has performance accelerations available
through the Linux crypto drivers.
Is it possible that we have "AF_ALG" for offloading crypto operations?
Best regards,
Farhad
Hello, I am using ESP32 Dev Module, which supports MbedTLS. I have two
questions, but I can't find the answer on the forum:
1.Is there any way to import RSA keys from string(ideally from PEM format)
to mbedtls_pk context?
2.How to encrypt with RSA private key and decrypt with RSA public key?
Thanks
Radim Kohout
Thanks Gilles. I have use mbedtls_ecdsa_sign and got the raw buffer output
of R & S values.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 9:26 PM Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls <
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hi Roshini,
>
> Mathematically, an ES256 (ECDSA over the curve P256R1) signature is a
> pair of numbers (r,s) between 1 and an upper bound which is very
> slightly less than 2^256. There are two common representations for this
> signature. JWA uses the “raw” representation: two big-endian numbers
> represented each with exactly 32 bytes, concatenated together.
> mbedtls_ecdsa_write_signature uses the ASN.1 DER representation, which
> as you noticed represents each number in a type+length+value format.
>
> The DER format removes leading zeros from the number, then adds a
> leading 0 bit to each number which is a sign bit (the numbers in an
> ECDSA signature are always positive, but DER can also represent negative
> numbers). Therefore each number has a roughly 1/2 chance of using 33
> value bytes with a leading 0 byte (1 sign bit + 7 value bits, all 0), a
> 63/128 chance of using 32 value bytes, and a 1/128 chance of using 31
> value bytes or less because the 7 most significant bits of the number
> were 0. A shorter number in an ECDSA signature is not invalid, it's a
> 1/128 chance (independently for each of r and s).
>
> To get the signature in raw format with Mbed TLS, the easiest way is to
> use the PSA API, where the output of psa_sign_hash() for ECDSA is the
> raw format. With the classic Mbed TLS API, the easiest way is to call
> mbedtls_ecdsa_sign() or mbedtls_ecdsa_sign_det_ext() to get r and s as
> bignums, then use mbedtls_mpi_write_binary() to write r and s with their
> exact size into the output buffer. You can find an example in the
> internal function psa_ecdsa_sign():
>
> https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/mbedtls-2.24.0/library/psa_crypto.c…
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> --
> Gilles Peskine
> Mbed TLS developer
>
> On 22/11/2020 10:12, ROSHINI DEVI via mbed-tls wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I need to sign the message using ES256 algorithm. After doing
> > necessary initializations, I called API
> > - mbedtls_ecdsa_write_signature() API and it gave me signature in ASN1
> > encoded form and there was no error generated by this API.
> > After getting the signature, I need the r & s values to create JWT
> > Token. So, I wrote my custom function to parse the signature buffer
> > and get the R & S values of it.
> > It was working fine. Sometimes, I am getting an invalid signature as
> > shown below signature DER buffer -
> >
> > 30 43 02 1f 31 92 8d 22 10 41 86 25 68 7f 42 81 26 0f 37 bc 7f 38 b7
> > d5 1a 6b 69 31 07 34 11 a6 04 e5 90 02 20 23 26 f8 b9 80 cf 2c 25 c8
> > 04 b4 ac 43 51 6a 04 a6 af 8f 94 36 f8 cf 35 c2 94 cc df de db 92 b2
> >
> > The reason for invalid is -
> > 1st byte represents ASN1 sequence, followed by length and 3rd byter
> > indicates it is an integer.
> > Ideally, 4th byte indicates length of r-value, it should have been 32
> > or 33 bytes ( in case of padding with 00 ). You can see in the above
> > buffer it is 0x1F ( 31 bytes ). It is really weird how it is possible
> > to get the signature length of 31 bytes.
> >
> > It is blocking me for generation of JWT token, where in RFC 7518
> > - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#page-9 , it says R & S must be
> > 32 bytes long. And, the generation is failing.
> >
> > It is of high priority for me. If anyone can provide your suggestions
> > on this issue, it would be really great. Thanks in advance
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roshini
> >
>
>
> --
> mbed-tls mailing list
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
>
Hi Roshini,
Mathematically, an ES256 (ECDSA over the curve P256R1) signature is a
pair of numbers (r,s) between 1 and an upper bound which is very
slightly less than 2^256. There are two common representations for this
signature. JWA uses the “raw” representation: two big-endian numbers
represented each with exactly 32 bytes, concatenated together.
mbedtls_ecdsa_write_signature uses the ASN.1 DER representation, which
as you noticed represents each number in a type+length+value format.
The DER format removes leading zeros from the number, then adds a
leading 0 bit to each number which is a sign bit (the numbers in an
ECDSA signature are always positive, but DER can also represent negative
numbers). Therefore each number has a roughly 1/2 chance of using 33
value bytes with a leading 0 byte (1 sign bit + 7 value bits, all 0), a
63/128 chance of using 32 value bytes, and a 1/128 chance of using 31
value bytes or less because the 7 most significant bits of the number
were 0. A shorter number in an ECDSA signature is not invalid, it's a
1/128 chance (independently for each of r and s).
To get the signature in raw format with Mbed TLS, the easiest way is to
use the PSA API, where the output of psa_sign_hash() for ECDSA is the
raw format. With the classic Mbed TLS API, the easiest way is to call
mbedtls_ecdsa_sign() or mbedtls_ecdsa_sign_det_ext() to get r and s as
bignums, then use mbedtls_mpi_write_binary() to write r and s with their
exact size into the output buffer. You can find an example in the
internal function psa_ecdsa_sign():
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/mbedtls-2.24.0/library/psa_crypto.c…
Hope this helps,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 22/11/2020 10:12, ROSHINI DEVI via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I need to sign the message using ES256 algorithm. After doing
> necessary initializations, I called API
> - mbedtls_ecdsa_write_signature() API and it gave me signature in ASN1
> encoded form and there was no error generated by this API.
> After getting the signature, I need the r & s values to create JWT
> Token. So, I wrote my custom function to parse the signature buffer
> and get the R & S values of it.
> It was working fine. Sometimes, I am getting an invalid signature as
> shown below signature DER buffer -
>
> 30 43 02 1f 31 92 8d 22 10 41 86 25 68 7f 42 81 26 0f 37 bc 7f 38 b7
> d5 1a 6b 69 31 07 34 11 a6 04 e5 90 02 20 23 26 f8 b9 80 cf 2c 25 c8
> 04 b4 ac 43 51 6a 04 a6 af 8f 94 36 f8 cf 35 c2 94 cc df de db 92 b2
>
> The reason for invalid is -
> 1st byte represents ASN1 sequence, followed by length and 3rd byter
> indicates it is an integer.
> Ideally, 4th byte indicates length of r-value, it should have been 32
> or 33 bytes ( in case of padding with 00 ). You can see in the above
> buffer it is 0x1F ( 31 bytes ). It is really weird how it is possible
> to get the signature length of 31 bytes.
>
> It is blocking me for generation of JWT token, where in RFC 7518
> - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#page-9 , it says R & S must be
> 32 bytes long. And, the generation is failing.
>
> It is of high priority for me. If anyone can provide your suggestions
> on this issue, it would be really great. Thanks in advance
>
> Thanks,
> Roshini
>
Hello all,
I need to sign the message using ES256 algorithm. After doing
necessary initializations, I called API - mbedtls_ecdsa_write_signature()
API and it gave me signature in ASN1 encoded form and there was no error
generated by this API.
After getting the signature, I need the r & s values to create JWT Token.
So, I wrote my custom function to parse the signature buffer and get the R
& S values of it.
It was working fine. Sometimes, I am getting an invalid signature as shown
below signature DER buffer -
30 43 02 1f 31 92 8d 22 10 41 86 25 68 7f 42 81 26 0f 37 bc 7f 38 b7 d5 1a
6b 69 31 07 34 11 a6 04 e5 90 02 20 23 26 f8 b9 80 cf 2c 25 c8 04 b4 ac 43
51 6a 04 a6 af 8f 94 36 f8 cf 35 c2 94 cc df de db 92 b2
The reason for invalid is -
1st byte represents ASN1 sequence, followed by length and 3rd byter
indicates it is an integer.
Ideally, 4th byte indicates length of r-value, it should have been 32 or 33
bytes ( in case of padding with 00 ). You can see in the above buffer it is
0x1F ( 31 bytes ). It is really weird how it is possible to get the
signature length of 31 bytes.
It is blocking me for generation of JWT token, where in RFC 7518 -
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#page-9 , it says R & S must be 32 bytes
long. And, the generation is failing.
It is of high priority for me. If anyone can provide your suggestions on
this issue, it would be really great. Thanks in advance
Thanks,
Roshini
Hi everyone,
I am a Mtech student from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore(India).
Currently, I am crediting computer security course. As the course project,
the professor has asked us to rewrite Mbedtls using Rust language. The
entire class will work on the single project with each person working on a
single module.
I am having trouble finding information regarding Mbedtls architecture, its
modules and their working. I don't even know all the right resources I need
to work on the project.
It would save a lot of time if someone could point me to the right
resources regarding Mbedtls needed for this project.
Sincerely,
Eikansh Gupta
I forgot to mention that there is a work in progress to add PKCS#7 parsing:
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3431
This is an external contribution so its addition to Mbed TLS depends not
only on us maintainers' review bandwidth, but also on the availability
of the kind contributor.
I'm not familiar with .p7* formats so I don't know whether the support
added by this pull request is sufficient to cover all of those.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 06/11/2020 13:50, Alvaro Gonzalez via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hello mbed-tls mailing list.
>
> �
>
> Does mbed-tls comply PKCS7? Can handle .p7, .p7b and/or .p7a extension
> files?
>
> �
>
> Best Regards.
>
> �
>
>
Hi Nick,
It would be great to have even partial support of PKCS#7 in Mbed TLS and
we would welcome your contribution!
You can find some guidance in CONTRIBUTING.md
(https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md).
Feel free to ask on the mailing list if anything is unclear.
Note that there is a work in progress for adding PKCS#7 parsing:
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3431 . It may help to see what
it does, but also note the review comments that point out some remaining
issues. If you and naynajain work on parsing and generation at the same
time, you'll need to synchronize since both sides will need to create
pkcs7.[hc].
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 10/11/2020 17:28, Nick Child via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For one of my projects, I had to create a PKCS7 generation/builder. I
> noticed mbedtls currently has no support for PKCS7. After much trial
> and error, I was able to use mbedtls functions to create a PKCS7
> structure for Signed Data. I was wondering if this something that
> might be useful in later versions of mbedtls? The code currently has a
> long way to go until it meets mbedtls coding standards, but I figured
> I would ask if it is even possible and worth the efforts before
> getting into it. I am also a rookie when it comes to open source
> contributions, so I was hoping for some guidance regarding merging
> upstream.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Nick Child
>
Hello,
For one of my projects, I had to create a PKCS7 generation/builder. I
noticed mbedtls currently has no support for PKCS7. After much trial and
error, I was able to use mbedtls functions to create a PKCS7 structure for
Signed Data. I was wondering if this something that might be useful in
later versions of mbedtls? The code currently has a long way to go until it
meets mbedtls coding standards, but I figured I would ask if it is even
possible and worth the efforts before getting into it. I am also a rookie
when it comes to open source contributions, so I was hoping for some
guidance regarding merging upstream.
Thanks for your time,
Nick Child
Hello,
Mbed TLS does not currently support SRP and it is not on our roadmap
(https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/). Arm does
not intend to work on it, but support can be added if someone else
contributes it.
If you are interested in contributing SRP support, please discuss it on
this list first to settle some potential issues: conflicts with other
work (in particular TLS 1.3 preparation, which involves some refactoring
of existing TLS code), review bandwidth schedule, test plan.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 09/11/2020 14:01, Gijs Peskens via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> For an Open Source project we started using Mbed-TLS to do AES
> encryption and, in a future version, will use Mbed-TLS for DTLS.
> Part of the protocol we support requires TLS-SRP (either via DTLS or
> via EAP), I’m unable to find anything relating to TLS-SRP support.
>
> Does Mbed-TLS support TLS-SRP currently? And if not is there intention
> to add it in a future release?
>
> Br,
>
> Gijs Peskens
>
>
Hi Gijs,
I am not sure what TLS-SRP support is, could you please point me to the standard defining it?
Best regards,
Janos
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Gijs Peskens via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: Gijs Peskens <gijsje(a)heteigenwijsje.nl>
Date: Monday, 9 November 2020 at 13:02
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] TLS-SRP Support
For an Open Source project we started using Mbed-TLS to do AES encryption and, in a future version, will use Mbed-TLS for DTLS.
Part of the protocol we support requires TLS-SRP (either via DTLS or via EAP), I’m unable to find anything relating to TLS-SRP support.
Does Mbed-TLS support TLS-SRP currently? And if not is there intention to add it in a future release?
Br,
Gijs Peskens
For an Open Source project we started using Mbed-TLS to do AES
encryption and, in a future version, will use Mbed-TLS for DTLS.
Part of the protocol we support requires TLS-SRP (either via DTLS or via
EAP), I’m unable to find anything relating to TLS-SRP support.
Does Mbed-TLS support TLS-SRP currently? And if not is there intention
to add it in a future release?
Br,
Gijs Peskens
Hi Newt,
This is normal and happens not just to Chinese characters, but to all non-ASCII characters. This supposed to be a feature of Mbed TLS, to ensure that we return something printable whether the platform can handle the original encoding or not. Of course we can consider providing a way to add an option to disable this feature: if you would like to submit a PR, please let us discuss first what can be done. If you wouldn't like to submit a PR, then please raise an issue on github for this feature request.
Until this feature is implemented, you can access the original encoding in the `val` field of the `mbedtls_x509_name` parameter you would be passing to `mbedtls_x509_dn_gets()`.
Regards,
Janos
On 06/11/2020, 03:54, "mbed-tls on behalf of 马瑞宜 via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have this certificate blob and I'm using mbedtls to read this, but after called mbedtls_x509_crt_info() or mbedtls_x509_dn_gets(), the chinese characters got garbled. I have googled this, read the mbedtls knowledge base and searched the issues and got no luck. The field i want to parse is the subject field and the issuer field. and currently I cannot provide the certificate blob due to security reasons.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Newt Ma
--
mbed-tls mailing list
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
Hello everyone,
I have this certificate blob and I'm using mbedtls to read this, but after called mbedtls_x509_crt_info() or mbedtls_x509_dn_gets(), the chinese characters got garbled. I have googled this, read the mbedtls knowledge base and searched the issues and got no luck. The field i want to parse is the subject field and the issuer field. and currently I cannot provide the certificate blob due to security reasons.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Newt Ma
Hi Sawyer,
After looking at the issues in more detail I would like to be more precise about CVE-2018-1000520:
* It is not a security issue in the context of TLS 1.2
* It can be a security issue if TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 is used
* The severity is so low that we decided not fixing it ourselves, but to open it up for community contributions
* The corresponding issue has been closed down by mistake, I am reopening it now: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/1561
(Many thanks to Simon Butcher for noticing this and pointing it out.)
Please let me know if I you would like to know more about this issue.
Best regards,
Janos
(Mbed TLS developer)
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Janos Follath via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: Janos Follath <Janos.Follath(a)arm.com>
Date: Wednesday, 28 October 2020 at 09:42
To: Sawyer Liu <sawyer.liu(a)nxp.com>
Cc: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] About mbedtls CVE
Hi Sawyer,
Thank you for your interest in Mbed TLS. Currently the status of these CVE’s is:
- CVE-2020-16150 has been fixed in the latest Mbed TLS release
- CVE-2018-1000520 is not a security issue, it had been studied and rejected
- CVE-2016-3739 is a vulnerability in an application using Mbed TLS but not in Mbed TLS itself, also it too had been fixed.
Does this answer your question?
(Also, I would like to make a minor clarification: we are not Arm Support. As far as I know Arm does not offer official support for Mbed TLS. Arm only contributes engineers to the Mbed TLS project, and at the moment these engineers are the maintainers of Mbed TLS. We are on this mailing list and try to answer questions, but we are not doing that as official support provided by Arm, but as members of the community. Mbed TLS is supported by the community and this mailing list is indeed the right place to get that support. I apologise for the nitpick, I just wanted to make sure that we are not giving the wrong impressions.)
Best regards,
Janos
(Mbed TLS developer)
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Sawyer Liu via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: Sawyer Liu <sawyer.liu(a)nxp.com>
Date: Wednesday, 28 October 2020 at 01:59
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] About mbedtls CVE
Hello ARM Support,
About below CVEs, any update? Thanks.
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-16150<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcve.mitre…>
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2018-1000520https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-3739
Best Regards
Sawyer Liu
Microcontrollers, NXP Semiconductors
Hello,
On 05/11/2020 17:49, François Beerten via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you Gilles for the detailed reply.
>
> Do you prefer that discussion about PSA Crypto API spec go on mailing
> list instead of here ? Is there some room for evolution or is the spec
> already in a frozen released state ?
Please use the psa-crypto list since there may be participants there who
don't care about Mbed TLS.
Version 1.0 of the PSA Crypto API is official so we won't make
incompatible changes unless there is a compelling reason. We can, and
will, add features in 1.x versions of the specification. Among planned
features are: more algorithm declarations, key wrapping, key stretching,
and a better treatment of key establishment (including password-based
key establishment).
>
> For new algorithms, it's of course preferable that they're defined in
> the spec itself. But does the mbedtls project want to supports all
> algorithms that will be used with PSA Crypto API ?
Mbed TLS intends to be a reference implementation of the PSA crypto API.
However it isn't clear whether this means that Mbed TLS will eventually
support all algorithms that the API declares: we intend to support all
methods, but not necessarily all algorithms. A conforming implementation
of the API is allowed to support any subset of the algorithms.
We (here meaning Arm, not Mbed TLS) don't have a formal policy to decide
whether to include a declaration for an algorithm, but here are some
criteria that we're likely to follow:
* There should be a public specification. (This can be a document that's
only for purchase, such as an ISO standard.)
* The algorithm should either be in good standing, or in current use in
legacy protocols.
* The bar is low for adding an algorithm that just requires a #define.
It's a lot higher if a new function is needed.
* Availability in Mbed TLS is not required.
>
> For pure ED25519 and ED448 with scattered data, there's one big
> gotcha. You need to generate twice a hash that includes the message.
> Thus the implementation needs to be able to access the buffers of the
> message twice. With a piece of the message given only once as in the
> init-update-finish scheme, that does not work well.
>
> From reading the document on the PSA Crypto driver API, a transparent
> driver benefits from the management of keys done by the mbedtls
> implementation. But what benefit is there for a driver working with
> opaque keys which has to fully handle the protections and restrictions
> of keys internally ?
>
One of the driving goals of PSA is to make security unobtrusive, and to
facilitate security improvements. A unified interface to key management
makes it easy to upgrade from having all keys inside, to using a
single-chip application separation technology (MMU, MPU, secure enclave,
…), to wrapping keys in a secure element and storing the wrapped key
externally, to storing keys in a secure element (which protects against
undeletion). When an application uses a key, it doesn't need to care
where the key is stored.
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
> Best,
>
> François.
>
>
> On 11/2/20 11:01 PM, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Thank you for your interest in the PSA crypto API.
>>
>> On 28/10/2020 15:20, François Beerten via mbed-tls wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> After reading the PSA Crypto API specs (as on
>>> https://armmbed.github.io/mbed-crypto/html/overview/functionality.html)
>>> and looking at the mbed TLS library, a few questions came up.
>>>
>>> Is there some repository with the sources of the PSA Crypto API specs
>>> where one can follow the evolution and eventually send proposals and
>>> patches ?
>>>
>> The PSA specification drafts are not public. You can send feedback about
>> the PSA Crypto application and driver interfaces on the psa-crypto
>> mailing list (psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org,
>> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/psa-crypto). If you
>> prefer to send confidential feedback, you can email mbed-crypto(a)arm.com
>> (feedback at this address will only be discussed inside Arm). An issue
>> in the Mbed TLS repository will also reach PSA Crypto architects.
>>
>>> A note says "Hash suspend and resume is not defined for the SHA3
>>> family of hash algorithms". Why are they not defined for SHA3 ?
>>>
>> The hash suspend/resume operations marshall the internal state of the
>> hash operation. They mimic an existing JavaCard API
>> (https://docs.oracle.com/javacard/3.0.5/api/javacard/security/InitializedMes…).
>>
>> There is a de facto standard representation of the internal state for
>> common Merkle-Damgård constructions, which covers all the currently
>> defined hash algorithms except SHA3. If there's interest in this
>> functionality, we could standardize a representation for SHA3.
>>
>>> How can or should one add support in PSA Crypto AP for not yet defined
>>> algorithms (for example a KDF) ?
>>>
>> Answer from a PSA Crypto architect: preferably by requesting an encoding
>> for this KDF as a PSA_ALG_xxx value (as well as new
>> PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_xxx values if applicable). If you can't do
>> that, use an encoding in the vendor range (most significant bit set).
>>
>> The world of key derivation functions is unfortunately messy: there are
>> many similar, but not functionally equivalent constructions (such as
>> hashing a secret together with a nonce, formatted in all kinds of
>> different ways). The set of KDF in PSA Crypto 1.0.0 was the minimum set
>> required for the TLS protocol. We expect 1.0.x updates to define more
>> KDF algorithms.
>>
>> Answer from an Mbed TLS maintainer: contributing an implementation would
>> be appreciated (but not required).
>>
>>> In multipart operations, can the user reuse the input buffers
>>> immediately after doing an 'update' (for example after
>>> psa_hash_update()) ? And can he reuse the input buffers immediately
>>> after some "setup" functions like psa_cipher_set_iv() or
>>> psa_aead_set_nonce() ?
>>>
>> Yes. PSA crypto API functions that take a buffer as a parameter never
>> take ownership of that buffer. Once the function returns, you can do
>> whatever you want with the buffer.
>>
>> The PSA specification even guarantees that you can use the same buffer,
>> or overlapping buffers, as inputs and outputs to the same function call.
>> However beware that the Mbed TLS implementation does not always support
>> such overlap (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3266).
>>
>>> Do you plan to support (pure) ED25519 and ED448 only via
>>> psa_sign_message() and psa_verify_message() ? What about messages in
>>> multiple chunks ?
>>>
>> We plan to add a multi-part message signature interface, both for the
>> sake of pureEdDSA and suitable for Mbed TLS's restartable ECDSA. I
>> expect the design to be “what you'd expect” but I haven't yet verified
>> that there aren't any gotchas.
>>
>>> In psa_asymmetric_encrypt(), why is the salt provided explicitely.
>>> Shouldn't it be generated randomly internally when needed ?
>>>
>> Some applications use a fixed or deterministic salt which they check on
>> decryption. Note that this parameter is what PKCS#1 calls “label”.
>>
>>> With PSA Crypto API, you define a flexible API for cryptographic
>>> operations. Apparently, other providers could make their own
>>> implementation of PSA Crypto API. Will mbed TLS then be able to use
>>> those alternate PSA Crypto API implementations ? How would that work
>>> practically ?
>>>
>> The X.509 and TLS layer of Mbed TLS are currently designed to use the
>> mbedtls_xxx crypto API. We have already added partial support for the
>> psa_xxx crypto API (with MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO), however it is not yet
>> possible to fully decouple the X.509/TLS layers from the Mbed TLS crypto
>> implementation. (I think this is already possible for a small set of
>> cipher suites, but it isn't something that we've tried or currently
>> actively support.) Before this can happen, some Mbed TLS APIs need to
>> change, which will happen in 2021 with Mbed TLS 3.0. After that, we plan
>> to decouple the PSA crypto reference implementation (Mbed TLS's current
>> crypto implementation) from the X.509/TLS layer (which will remain “Mbed
>> TLS”). Our plans
>> (https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/) that far
>> into the future are still vague and may change.
>>
>> Note that for the most common case of wanting a different implementation
>> of cryptography, which is to leverage hardware such as accelerators and
>> secure elements, PSA is defining a driver interface which is currently
>> being implemented in Mbed TLS
>> (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/docs/proposed/psa-drive…).
>>
>> The driver interface lets you combine mechanisms supported by your
>> hardware with Mbed TLS's implementation for mechanisms without hardware
>> support.
>>
Hi Francois,
The workshop slides and recordings are now available here - https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/mbed-tls-workshop/
Regards,
Shebu
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of François Beerten via mbed-tls
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 4:52 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop Tomorrow
Hi Shebu,
Will you post the slides of the presentations of the workshop ?
Thanks,
François.
On 11/2/20 9:01 PM, Shebu Varghese Kuriakose via mbed-tls wrote:
Hi All,
Gentle reminder about the Mbed TLS workshop tomorrow (Tuesday, November 3rd) from 2 to 6pm GMT.
See agenda and zoom link here - https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/mbed-tls-workshop/
Thanks,
Shebu
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Trusted Firmware Public Meetings <linaro.org_havjv2figrh5egaiurb229pd8c(a)group.calendar.google.com><mailto:linaro.org_havjv2figrh5egaiurb229pd8c@group.calendar.google.com>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 12:32 AM
To: Trusted Firmware Public Meetings; Shebu Varghese Kuriakose; mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Don Harbin; psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:psa-crypto@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Dave Rodgman
Subject: Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
When: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 2:00 PM-6:00 PM (UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
Where: Zoom: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…
You have been invited to the following event.
Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
When
Tue Nov 3, 2020 7am – 11am Mountain Standard Time - Phoenix
Where
Zoom: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT… (map<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Zoom:+https:%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj…>)
Calendar
shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>
Who
•
Don Harbin - creator
•
shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>
•
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
•
psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:psa-crypto@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
•
dave.rodgman(a)arm.com<mailto:dave.rodgman@arm.com>
more details »<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…>
Hi,
Trustedfirmware.org community project would like to invite you to the Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop.
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
Here is the agenda for the workshop.
Topic Time (in GMT)
Welcome 2.00 - 2.10pm
Constant-time code 2.10 – 2.30pm
Processes - how does work get scheduled? 2.30 – 2.50pm
PSA Crypto APIs 2.50 – 3.20pm
PSA Crypto for Silicon Labs Wireless
MCUs - Why, What, Where and When 3.20 – 3.50pm
Break
Roadmap, TLS1.3 Update 4.10 – 4.30pm
Mbed TLS 3.0 Plans, Scope 4.30 – 5.00pm
How do I contribute my first review
and be an effective Mbed TLS reviewer 5.00 – 5.30pm
Regards,
Don Harbin
Trusted Firmware Community Manager
==============Zoom details below:====================
Trusted Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
Time: Nov 3, 2020 02:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time
Join Zoom Meeting
https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj%2F9531520…>
Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315
Passcode: 143755
One tap mobile
+16699009128,,95315200315# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,95315200315# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
888 788 0099 US Toll-free
877 853 5247 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315
Find your local number: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/u/apL3hgti4<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fu%2FapL3hgt…>
Going (shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>)? Yes<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> - Maybe<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> - No<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> more options »<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…>
Invitation from Google Calendar<https://www.google.com/calendar/>
You are receiving this courtesy email at the account shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com> because you are an attendee of this event.
To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.
Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organizer and be added to the guest list, or invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or to modify your RSVP. Learn More<https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding>.
Hi Shebu,
Will you post the slides of the presentations of the workshop ?
Thanks,
François.
On 11/2/20 9:01 PM, Shebu Varghese Kuriakose via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Gentle reminder about the Mbed TLS workshop tomorrow (Tuesday,
> November 3^rd ) from 2 to 6pm GMT.
>
> See agenda and zoom link here -
> https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/mbed-tls-workshop/
> <https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/mbed-tls-workshop/>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shebu
>
> -----Original Appointment-----
> *From:* Trusted Firmware Public Meetings
> <linaro.org_havjv2figrh5egaiurb229pd8c(a)group.calendar.google.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 23, 2020 12:32 AM
> *To:* Trusted Firmware Public Meetings; Shebu Varghese Kuriakose;
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Don Harbin;
> psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Dave Rodgman
> *Subject:* Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
> *When:* Tuesday, November 3, 2020 2:00 PM-6:00 PM (UTC+00:00) Dublin,
> Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
> *Where:* Zoom:
> https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…
>
>
> *You have been invited to the following event.*
>
>
> Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
>
> When
>
>
>
> Tue Nov 3, 2020 7am – 11am Mountain Standard Time - Phoenix
>
> Where
>
>
>
> Zoom:
> https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…
> (map
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Zoom:+https:%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj…>)
>
> Calendar
>
>
>
> shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com <mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>
>
> Who
>
>
>
> •
>
>
>
> Don Harbin- creator
>
> •
>
>
>
> shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com <mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>
>
> •
>
>
>
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> <mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
>
> •
>
>
>
> psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> <mailto:psa-crypto@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
>
> •
>
>
>
> dave.rodgman(a)arm.com <mailto:dave.rodgman@arm.com>
>
> *more details »
> <https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…>***
>
> Hi,
> Trustedfirmware.org community project would like to invite you to the
> Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop.
>
> 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
>
> Here is the agenda for the workshop.
>
> *Topic Time (in GMT)*
> Welcome 2.00 - 2.10pm
> Constant-time code 2.10 – 2.30pm
> Processes - how does work get scheduled? 2.30 – 2.50pm
> PSA Crypto APIs 2.50 – 3.20pm
> PSA Crypto for Silicon Labs Wireless
> MCUs - Why, What, Where and When 3.20 – 3.50pm
>
> *Break *
>
> Roadmap, TLS1.3 Update 4.10 – 4.30pm
> Mbed TLS 3.0 Plans, Scope 4.30 – 5.00pm
> How do I contribute my first review
> and be an effective Mbed TLS reviewer 5.00 – 5.30pm
>
> Regards,
>
> Don Harbin
> Trusted Firmware Community Manager
>
>
> ==============Zoom details below:====================
> Trusted Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
>
> Topic: Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
> Time: Nov 3, 2020 02:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time
>
> Join Zoom Meeting
> https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj%2F9531520…>
>
> Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315
> Passcode: 143755
> One tap mobile
> +16699009128,,95315200315# US (San Jose)
> +12532158782,,95315200315# US (Tacoma)
>
> Dial by your location
> +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
> +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
> +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
> 888 788 0099 US Toll-free
> 877 853 5247 US Toll-free
> Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315
> Find your local number: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/u/apL3hgti4
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fu%2FapL3hgt…>
>
> Going (shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com
> <mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>)? *Yes
> <https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…>**-
> **Maybe
> <https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…>**-
> **No
> <https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…>*more
> options »
> <https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…>
>
> Invitation from Google Calendar <https://www.google.com/calendar/>
>
> You are receiving this courtesy email at the account
> shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com
> <mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com> because you are an attendee
> of this event.
>
> To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event.
> Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at
> https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification
> settings for your entire calendar.
>
> Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a
> response to the organizer and be added to the guest list, or invite
> others regardless of their own invitation status, or to modify your
> RSVP. Learn More
> <https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding>.
>
>
Hi,
Thank you Gilles for the detailed reply.
Do you prefer that discussion about PSA Crypto API spec go on mailing
list instead of here ? Is there some room for evolution or is the spec
already in a frozen released state ?
For new algorithms, it's of course preferable that they're defined in
the spec itself. But does the mbedtls project want to supports all
algorithms that will be used with PSA Crypto API ?
For pure ED25519 and ED448 with scattered data, there's one big gotcha.
You need to generate twice a hash that includes the message. Thus the
implementation needs to be able to access the buffers of the message
twice. With a piece of the message given only once as in the
init-update-finish scheme, that does not work well.
From reading the document on the PSA Crypto driver API, a transparent
driver benefits from the management of keys done by the mbedtls
implementation. But what benefit is there for a driver working with
opaque keys which has to fully handle the protections and restrictions
of keys internally ?
Best,
François.
On 11/2/20 11:01 PM, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for your interest in the PSA crypto API.
>
> On 28/10/2020 15:20, François Beerten via mbed-tls wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> After reading the PSA Crypto API specs (as on
>> https://armmbed.github.io/mbed-crypto/html/overview/functionality.html)
>> and looking at the mbed TLS library, a few questions came up.
>>
>> Is there some repository with the sources of the PSA Crypto API specs
>> where one can follow the evolution and eventually send proposals and
>> patches ?
>>
> The PSA specification drafts are not public. You can send feedback about
> the PSA Crypto application and driver interfaces on the psa-crypto
> mailing list (psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org,
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/psa-crypto). If you
> prefer to send confidential feedback, you can email mbed-crypto(a)arm.com
> (feedback at this address will only be discussed inside Arm). An issue
> in the Mbed TLS repository will also reach PSA Crypto architects.
>
>> A note says "Hash suspend and resume is not defined for the SHA3
>> family of hash algorithms". Why are they not defined for SHA3 ?
>>
> The hash suspend/resume operations marshall the internal state of the
> hash operation. They mimic an existing JavaCard API
> (https://docs.oracle.com/javacard/3.0.5/api/javacard/security/InitializedMes…).
> There is a de facto standard representation of the internal state for
> common Merkle-Damgård constructions, which covers all the currently
> defined hash algorithms except SHA3. If there's interest in this
> functionality, we could standardize a representation for SHA3.
>
>> How can or should one add support in PSA Crypto AP for not yet defined
>> algorithms (for example a KDF) ?
>>
> Answer from a PSA Crypto architect: preferably by requesting an encoding
> for this KDF as a PSA_ALG_xxx value (as well as new
> PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_xxx values if applicable). If you can't do
> that, use an encoding in the vendor range (most significant bit set).
>
> The world of key derivation functions is unfortunately messy: there are
> many similar, but not functionally equivalent constructions (such as
> hashing a secret together with a nonce, formatted in all kinds of
> different ways). The set of KDF in PSA Crypto 1.0.0 was the minimum set
> required for the TLS protocol. We expect 1.0.x updates to define more
> KDF algorithms.
>
> Answer from an Mbed TLS maintainer: contributing an implementation would
> be appreciated (but not required).
>
>> In multipart operations, can the user reuse the input buffers
>> immediately after doing an 'update' (for example after
>> psa_hash_update()) ? And can he reuse the input buffers immediately
>> after some "setup" functions like psa_cipher_set_iv() or
>> psa_aead_set_nonce() ?
>>
> Yes. PSA crypto API functions that take a buffer as a parameter never
> take ownership of that buffer. Once the function returns, you can do
> whatever you want with the buffer.
>
> The PSA specification even guarantees that you can use the same buffer,
> or overlapping buffers, as inputs and outputs to the same function call.
> However beware that the Mbed TLS implementation does not always support
> such overlap (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3266).
>
>> Do you plan to support (pure) ED25519 and ED448 only via
>> psa_sign_message() and psa_verify_message() ? What about messages in
>> multiple chunks ?
>>
> We plan to add a multi-part message signature interface, both for the
> sake of pureEdDSA and suitable for Mbed TLS's restartable ECDSA. I
> expect the design to be “what you'd expect” but I haven't yet verified
> that there aren't any gotchas.
>
>> In psa_asymmetric_encrypt(), why is the salt provided explicitely.
>> Shouldn't it be generated randomly internally when needed ?
>>
> Some applications use a fixed or deterministic salt which they check on
> decryption. Note that this parameter is what PKCS#1 calls “label”.
>
>> With PSA Crypto API, you define a flexible API for cryptographic
>> operations. Apparently, other providers could make their own
>> implementation of PSA Crypto API. Will mbed TLS then be able to use
>> those alternate PSA Crypto API implementations ? How would that work
>> practically ?
>>
> The X.509 and TLS layer of Mbed TLS are currently designed to use the
> mbedtls_xxx crypto API. We have already added partial support for the
> psa_xxx crypto API (with MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO), however it is not yet
> possible to fully decouple the X.509/TLS layers from the Mbed TLS crypto
> implementation. (I think this is already possible for a small set of
> cipher suites, but it isn't something that we've tried or currently
> actively support.) Before this can happen, some Mbed TLS APIs need to
> change, which will happen in 2021 with Mbed TLS 3.0. After that, we plan
> to decouple the PSA crypto reference implementation (Mbed TLS's current
> crypto implementation) from the X.509/TLS layer (which will remain “Mbed
> TLS”). Our plans
> (https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/) that far
> into the future are still vague and may change.
>
> Note that for the most common case of wanting a different implementation
> of cryptography, which is to leverage hardware such as accelerators and
> secure elements, PSA is defining a driver interface which is currently
> being implemented in Mbed TLS
> (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/docs/proposed/psa-drive…).
> The driver interface lets you combine mechanisms supported by your
> hardware with Mbed TLS's implementation for mechanisms without hardware
> support.
>
Hi Mate,
I had a look and I couldn’t find such a feature implemented either. I don’t think that Mbed TLS supports that at the moment.
Best regards,
Janos
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of "Z.Máté via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: "Z.Máté" <enleszekakalozkiraly(a)gmail.com>
Date: Monday, 2 November 2020 at 21:01
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Write private key into buffer using encrypted PEM format
Dear mbedtls list members!
Sorry if this is the second time I ask, I'm not sure the previous question is still on the list.
I'm asking if there's a way to export a private key into a buffer in an encrypted format. So that mbedtls_pk_parse_key() has to be called with a password.
In the example program key_app.c (I hope that's how it's called) I can see there are password encrypted PEM formatted keys. But how to generate one?
For clarity, this is the type of header I'm looking for.
—–BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY—–
Proc-Type: 4,ENCRYPTED
DEK-Info: AES-256-CBC,AB8E2B5B2D989271273F6730B6F9C687
……………………………………………….
……………………………………………….
………………………………………
—–END RSA PRIVATE KEY—–
I was only able to generate something like this by, using command line openssl. But I'd like a better solution, in code, using mbedtls.
Yours
Zombor Máté
Hello,
Thank you for your interest in the PSA crypto API.
On 28/10/2020 15:20, François Beerten via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> After reading the PSA Crypto API specs (as on
> https://armmbed.github.io/mbed-crypto/html/overview/functionality.html)
> and looking at the mbed TLS library, a few questions came up.
>
> Is there some repository with the sources of the PSA Crypto API specs
> where one can follow the evolution and eventually send proposals and
> patches ?
>
The PSA specification drafts are not public. You can send feedback about
the PSA Crypto application and driver interfaces on the psa-crypto
mailing list (psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org,
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/psa-crypto). If you
prefer to send confidential feedback, you can email mbed-crypto(a)arm.com
(feedback at this address will only be discussed inside Arm). An issue
in the Mbed TLS repository will also reach PSA Crypto architects.
> A note says "Hash suspend and resume is not defined for the SHA3
> family of hash algorithms". Why are they not defined for SHA3 ?
>
The hash suspend/resume operations marshall the internal state of the
hash operation. They mimic an existing JavaCard API
(https://docs.oracle.com/javacard/3.0.5/api/javacard/security/InitializedMes…).
There is a de facto standard representation of the internal state for
common Merkle-Damgård constructions, which covers all the currently
defined hash algorithms except SHA3. If there's interest in this
functionality, we could standardize a representation for SHA3.
> How can or should one add support in PSA Crypto AP for not yet defined
> algorithms (for example a KDF) ?
>
Answer from a PSA Crypto architect: preferably by requesting an encoding
for this KDF as a PSA_ALG_xxx value (as well as new
PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_xxx values if applicable). If you can't do
that, use an encoding in the vendor range (most significant bit set).
The world of key derivation functions is unfortunately messy: there are
many similar, but not functionally equivalent constructions (such as
hashing a secret together with a nonce, formatted in all kinds of
different ways). The set of KDF in PSA Crypto 1.0.0 was the minimum set
required for the TLS protocol. We expect 1.0.x updates to define more
KDF algorithms.
Answer from an Mbed TLS maintainer: contributing an implementation would
be appreciated (but not required).
> In multipart operations, can the user reuse the input buffers
> immediately after doing an 'update' (for example after
> psa_hash_update()) ? And can he reuse the input buffers immediately
> after some "setup" functions like psa_cipher_set_iv() or
> psa_aead_set_nonce() ?
>
Yes. PSA crypto API functions that take a buffer as a parameter never
take ownership of that buffer. Once the function returns, you can do
whatever you want with the buffer.
The PSA specification even guarantees that you can use the same buffer,
or overlapping buffers, as inputs and outputs to the same function call.
However beware that the Mbed TLS implementation does not always support
such overlap (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/issues/3266).
> Do you plan to support (pure) ED25519 and ED448 only via
> psa_sign_message() and psa_verify_message() ? What about messages in
> multiple chunks ?
>
We plan to add a multi-part message signature interface, both for the
sake of pureEdDSA and suitable for Mbed TLS's restartable ECDSA. I
expect the design to be “what you'd expect” but I haven't yet verified
that there aren't any gotchas.
> In psa_asymmetric_encrypt(), why is the salt provided explicitely.
> Shouldn't it be generated randomly internally when needed ?
>
Some applications use a fixed or deterministic salt which they check on
decryption. Note that this parameter is what PKCS#1 calls “label”.
> With PSA Crypto API, you define a flexible API for cryptographic
> operations. Apparently, other providers could make their own
> implementation of PSA Crypto API. Will mbed TLS then be able to use
> those alternate PSA Crypto API implementations ? How would that work
> practically ?
>
The X.509 and TLS layer of Mbed TLS are currently designed to use the
mbedtls_xxx crypto API. We have already added partial support for the
psa_xxx crypto API (with MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO), however it is not yet
possible to fully decouple the X.509/TLS layers from the Mbed TLS crypto
implementation. (I think this is already possible for a small set of
cipher suites, but it isn't something that we've tried or currently
actively support.) Before this can happen, some Mbed TLS APIs need to
change, which will happen in 2021 with Mbed TLS 3.0. After that, we plan
to decouple the PSA crypto reference implementation (Mbed TLS's current
crypto implementation) from the X.509/TLS layer (which will remain “Mbed
TLS”). Our plans
(https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/) that far
into the future are still vague and may change.
Note that for the most common case of wanting a different implementation
of cryptography, which is to leverage hardware such as accelerators and
secure elements, PSA is defining a driver interface which is currently
being implemented in Mbed TLS
(https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/docs/proposed/psa-drive…).
The driver interface lets you combine mechanisms supported by your
hardware with Mbed TLS's implementation for mechanisms without hardware
support.
--
Gilles Peskine
PSA Cryptography architect and Mbed TLS developer
> Thank you for your attention,
>
> François.
>
>
>
Dear mbedtls list members!
Sorry if this is the second time I ask, I'm not sure the previous question
is still on the list.
I'm asking if there's a way to export a private key into a buffer in an
encrypted format. So that mbedtls_pk_parse_key() has to be called with a
password.
In the example program key_app.c (I hope that's how it's called) I can see
there are password encrypted PEM formatted keys. But how to generate one?
For clarity, this is the type of header I'm looking for.
—–BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY—–
Proc-Type: 4,ENCRYPTED
DEK-Info: AES-256-CBC,AB8E2B5B2D989271273F6730B6F9C687
……………………………………………….
……………………………………………….
………………………………………
—–END RSA PRIVATE KEY—–
I was only able to generate something like this by, using command line
openssl. But I'd like a better solution, in code, using mbedtls.
Yours
Zombor Máté
Hi All,
Gentle reminder about the Mbed TLS workshop tomorrow (Tuesday, November 3rd) from 2 to 6pm GMT.
See agenda and zoom link here - https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/mbed-tls-workshop/
Thanks,
Shebu
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Trusted Firmware Public Meetings <linaro.org_havjv2figrh5egaiurb229pd8c(a)group.calendar.google.com>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 12:32 AM
To: Trusted Firmware Public Meetings; Shebu Varghese Kuriakose; mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Don Harbin; psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Dave Rodgman
Subject: Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
When: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 2:00 PM-6:00 PM (UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
Where: Zoom: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…
You have been invited to the following event.
Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
When
Tue Nov 3, 2020 7am – 11am Mountain Standard Time - Phoenix
Where
Zoom: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT… (map<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Zoom:+https:%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj…>)
Calendar
shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>
Who
•
Don Harbin - creator
•
shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>
•
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
•
psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:psa-crypto@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
•
dave.rodgman(a)arm.com<mailto:dave.rodgman@arm.com>
more details »<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…>
Hi,
Trustedfirmware.org community project would like to invite you to the Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop.
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
Here is the agenda for the workshop.
Topic Time (in GMT)
Welcome 2.00 - 2.10pm
Constant-time code 2.10 – 2.30pm
Processes - how does work get scheduled? 2.30 – 2.50pm
PSA Crypto APIs 2.50 – 3.20pm
PSA Crypto for Silicon Labs Wireless
MCUs - Why, What, Where and When 3.20 – 3.50pm
Break
Roadmap, TLS1.3 Update 4.10 – 4.30pm
Mbed TLS 3.0 Plans, Scope 4.30 – 5.00pm
How do I contribute my first review
and be an effective Mbed TLS reviewer 5.00 – 5.30pm
Regards,
Don Harbin
Trusted Firmware Community Manager
==============Zoom details below:====================
Trusted Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop
Time: Nov 3, 2020 02:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time
Join Zoom Meeting
https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj%2F9531520…>
Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315
Passcode: 143755
One tap mobile
+16699009128,,95315200315# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,95315200315# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
888 788 0099 US Toll-free
877 853 5247 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315
Find your local number: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/u/apL3hgti4<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fu%2FapL3hgt…>
Going (shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>)? Yes<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> - Maybe<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> - No<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> more options »<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…>
Invitation from Google Calendar<https://www.google.com/calendar/>
You are receiving this courtesy email at the account shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com> because you are an attendee of this event.
To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.
Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organizer and be added to the guest list, or invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or to modify your RSVP. Learn More<https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding>.
Dear mbedtls list members!
Is there a way to write a private key into a buffer, in PEM format, by
using a password for encryption? Mbedtls is able to parse encrypted PEM
files so can I write one? I couldn't really find any info regarding it,
only an older, unfinished github issue ...
Yours
Zombor Máté