Hi Gilles,
when I ask in our team to review a PR I usually provide an estimation about
it. Of course a time base estimation and not an agile one in values of
complexity. ;-)
One could also provide an estimation about priority.
Maybe these tiny rules may help somewhat. At least it can provide a better
overview if you have tons of PRs.
sincerely,
Frank
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 10:27:44PM +0000, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Historically, Mbed TLS has been maintained by Arm as an open-source
> project, accepting external contributions, but with with priorities and
> plans mostly driven only by Arm. Since earlier this year, Mbed TLS is an
> open governance project under the umbrella of TrustedFirmware, with the
> objective of making it a community led project, allowing community to
> contribute and collaborate on the design and development of the project.
> In practice, however, the project effectively still has some barriers of
> entry. We would like to lift these barriers.
>
> The Mbed TLS team at Arm have already identified some concrete actions,
> filed on the Mbed TLS epic board
> https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-10667107
> under “Facilitating community contributions”. A few more should be up
> soon as the result of some internal brainstorming.
>
> We've also identified some problem areas which we're tracking as
> separate topics.
>
> * Probably the biggest topic: review was and is a bottleneck. We are
> working to streamline the review process where possible, without
> lowering the quality bar, and to prioritize reviews better over new
> work. (Having personally often been on both sides of the coin, I can
> confirm that having a pull request sit around for years without getting
> reviews is frustrating, and so is seeing all these pull request and not
> having the time to review them all.) We would also like to enable,
> encourage and value reviews from people who are not project maintainers.
>
> * We will migrate the CI to a publicly available platform hosted by
> TrustedFirmware. However this platform will not be available until 2021.
>
> * We are working on a new documentation platform, where we'll transfer
> both the information available on the current website and information
> that is currently recorded in an Arm internal wiki.
>
> To all of you who have contributed to Mbed TLS, who have tried, or who
> are considering it, what difficulties have you encountered? What else
> can we do to make contributing easier?
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Gilles Peskine
> Mbed TLS developer
>
>
> --
> mbed-tls mailing list
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
--
Frank Bergmann, Pödinghauser Str. 5, D-32051 Herford, Tel. +49-5221-9249753
SAP Hybris & Linux LPIC-3, E-Mail tx2014(a)tuxad.de, USt-IdNr DE237314606
http://tdyn.de/freel -- Redirect to profile at freelancermap
http://www.gulp.de/freiberufler/2HNKY2YHW.html -- Profile at GULP
Hello,
Historically, Mbed TLS has been maintained by Arm as an open-source
project, accepting external contributions, but with with priorities and
plans mostly driven only by Arm. Since earlier this year, Mbed TLS is an
open governance project under the umbrella of TrustedFirmware, with the
objective of making it a community led project, allowing community to
contribute and collaborate on the design and development of the project.
In practice, however, the project effectively still has some barriers of
entry. We would like to lift these barriers.
The Mbed TLS team at Arm have already identified some concrete actions,
filed on the Mbed TLS epic board
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-10667107
under “Facilitating community contributions”. A few more should be up
soon as the result of some internal brainstorming.
We've also identified some problem areas which we're tracking as
separate topics.
* Probably the biggest topic: review was and is a bottleneck. We are
working to streamline the review process where possible, without
lowering the quality bar, and to prioritize reviews better over new
work. (Having personally often been on both sides of the coin, I can
confirm that having a pull request sit around for years without getting
reviews is frustrating, and so is seeing all these pull request and not
having the time to review them all.) We would also like to enable,
encourage and value reviews from people who are not project maintainers.
* We will migrate the CI to a publicly available platform hosted by
TrustedFirmware. However this platform will not be available until 2021.
* We are working on a new documentation platform, where we'll transfer
both the information available on the current website and information
that is currently recorded in an Arm internal wiki.
To all of you who have contributed to Mbed TLS, who have tried, or who
are considering it, what difficulties have you encountered? What else
can we do to make contributing easier?
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
Hello,
The Mbed TLS team is soliciting feedback on a proposed change of our
contributor acknowledgement policy.
Background: our current policy is to acknowledge all contributors who
are not Arm employees in the ChangeLog files. This is a tradition that
dates back from when the version control history of Mbed TLS (then
PolarSSL) was not public.
Proposed change: the ChangeLog file will no longer mention who
contributed a patch (“Contributed by …”). A patch will require a
ChangeLog entry only if it makes a user-visible changes, regardless of
who contributed it. We will still credit reporters in the ChangeLog
file, at least for security issues.
Rationale: the ChangeLog file had a dual purpose: informing users, and
acknowledging contributors. It will now have the single purpose of
informing users. There are better ways of acknowledging contributors
nowadays: the Git history is public, and your contributions are visible
from your GitHub profile. (Note that we don't squash commits, and
attempt to preserve authorship as much as possible when we have to
rebase a patch.) Furthermore, writing a good ChangeLog entry often turns
out to require some back-and-forth, so lessening this requirement will
make it easier to accept contributions and to merge them faster (this is
in fact our primary motivation for the change).
We are also thinking of creating an acknowledgement page out-of-tree. It
isn't clear yet what its scope would be, but it would include
acknowledging contributions in the form of reviews, which we wish to
encourage. (Please stay tuned for future announcements and discussions
regarding the Mbed TLS review process.)
Question to potential contributors, or people who have participated in
other open-source projects: do you think that there is any value in
keeping acknowledgements in a file that is distributed with Mbed TLS? Is
there any value in maintaining an exhaustive list of contributors in a
form other than the Git history?
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
Good morning to all,
I am currently trying to perform RSA encryption, so I am using a file containing a public key (generated by OpenSSL) to do this.
So at the beginning I use the "mbedtls_pk_parse_keyfile" function to read it, as you can see on the image below. Unfortunately, I find the following error : ERROR 3E00 : Read/write of file failed.
Do someone have an idea of why I have this error ? Or should I change my way to read this file ?
Thanks a lot, have a nice Weekend
[cid:image002.png@01D68839.7B058100]
Hi,
Unrelated comment from my side, adding on to Manuel's comment:
It appears that ST supplies a binary blob which does make use of their
hardware crypto accelerator.
https://www.st.com/en/embedded-software/x-cube-cryptolib.html
Cheers,
Manu
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:21 PM Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard via mbed-tls
<mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On those CPUs, the AES implementation in Mbed TLS is pure C, it doesn't use any hand-written assembly. The only platforms where it does so so far are x86-64 (to take advantage of the AES-NI extension if available), and some Via CPUs (x86) that have AES acceleration as well.
>
> Regards,
> Manuel.
> ________________________________
> From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Areeb Asad via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Sent: 09 September 2020 08:32
> To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Subject: [mbed-tls] Query related to ARM - MbedTLS
>
> Hi,
>
> I hope you are doing well. I am using the mbedTLS AES library in my projects, part of my master thesis at Uppsala University.
>
> I would like to know whether the mbedTLS AES library uses any assemble specific code for operations? I am using this library on Cortex-M23 and Cortex M0+.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Hafiz Areeb Asad
> --
> mbed-tls mailing list
> mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
Hi,
On those CPUs, the AES implementation in Mbed TLS is pure C, it doesn't use any hand-written assembly. The only platforms where it does so so far are x86-64 (to take advantage of the AES-NI extension if available), and some Via CPUs (x86) that have AES acceleration as well.
Regards,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Areeb Asad via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 09 September 2020 08:32
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Query related to ARM - MbedTLS
Hi,
I hope you are doing well. I am using the mbedTLS AES library in my projects, part of my master thesis at Uppsala University.
I would like to know whether the mbedTLS AES library uses any assemble specific code for operations? I am using this library on Cortex-M23 and Cortex M0+.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Hafiz Areeb Asad
Hi,
I hope you are doing well. I am using the mbedTLS AES library in my
projects, part of my master thesis at Uppsala University.
I would like to know whether the mbedTLS AES library uses any assemble
specific code for operations? I am using this library on Cortex-M23 and
Cortex M0+.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Hafiz Areeb Asad
Hello,
As you may be aware, there is work in progress to implement support for
hardware drivers in Mbed TLS when using the PSA API. These are direct
calls from the PSA frontend layer to driver code, without going through
mbedtls_xxx APIs and the ALT implementations. The specifications are the
psa-driver-*.md files in
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/tree/development/docs/proposed and
you can watch the work in progress in the “Unified driver interface: API
design and prototype” epic
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-8543266 .
When an algorithm is implemented in hardware, in most cases, it is
unnecessary to include a software implementation, and it should be
possible to exclude the software implementation from the build to keep
the code size down. Unfortunately the current Mbed TLS configuration
mechanism does not support this, because it does not distinguish “I want
AES” from “I want mbedtls_aes_xxx”. So we need new compile-time options
to convey “I want PSA_KEY_TYPE_AES in my application but I don't care
whether it's done in hardware or mbedtls_aes_xxx”.
We are going to implement a configuration mechanism to select which
cryptographic algorithms are included in the PSA interface in a build of
Mbed TLS. It will rely on #define statements, like the existing
config.h, but with different naming conventions for PSA. You can see the
specification proposal at https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3628 .
Feedback is welcome. We're likely to merge this pull request soon, but
even after it's merged I'll keep watching comments, or you can post
feedback on the mailing list, or raise an issue on GitHub if you have a
specific feature request.
A major difference between the current MBEDTLS_xxx_C configuration and
the new PSA_WANT_xxx configuration is that PSA_WANT_xxx is additive: if
PSA_WANT_xxx depends on some other feature, enabling PSA_WANT_xxx will
automatically enable that feature in most cases (the exception being
when there's more than one way to enable the dependent feature, e.g.
when a hash algorithm is needed but it doesn't matter which hash). This
is in contrast with the current strict mechanism where enabling
MBEDTLS_xxx_C is an error if it depends on some other feature that isn't
enabled. We haven't decided yet, but we're thinking of changing to an
additive mechanism for the whole Mbed TLS configuration in Mbed TLS 3.0.
If you want to watch the implementation work in progress, it will be
under the “Driver Interface: Removing unused code” epic
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2#column-9449707 .
Note that the #define-based mechanism is somewhat experimental and we
won't commit yet about its long-term stability in Mbed TLS. It is likely
to be complemented by a JSON-based mechanism in the future. This JSON
mechanism would be similar to the proposed mechanism for drivers and
would allow finer granularity (for example, RSA verification without RSA
signature). Arm is considering standardizing the (as yet non-existent)
JSON mechanism as a PSA specification.
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer (and PSA crypto architect)
Hi,
I hope everyone is doing well. I am a beginner on mbedtls and cryptography.
I hope you will understand if there is a lack of understanding or a rookie
mistake from my part.
So, My goal is to do a key-encryption key. I have an *RSA* private key file
"*private.pem*" generated by OpenSSL. I want to encrypt the content of
this "private.pem" with *AES* *encryption* and followed by *AES decryption
*on the encrypted data.
To do that, I read the "private.pem" file into a buffer and perform AES
encryption. The problem is when I perform the AES decryption operation I
get something else instead of the original "private.pem" data. I have a
working example of AES encryption/decryption working on plaintext
perfectly. So, I guess there is a flaw in my understanding of
encryption/decryption of byte64 encoded string.
Can someone please suggests me how can I encrypt RSA private key with AES?
Thanks,
Shariful
Mbed TLS version 2.24.0, 2.16.8 and 2.7.17 have been released recently. Version 2.7.17 is incorrectly marked as the latest release by github. Since this happens automatically based on the commit creation dates, this can’t be fixed until the next release.
We have extended the release notes of 2.7.17 to warn about this and changed the download links on the website.
We would like to confirm that version 2.24.0 is the latest release and the other two are the patch releases for the 2.16 and 2.7 long term support branches.
My apologies for the inconvenience and thank you for your support!
Best regards,
Janos
(On behalf of the Mbed TLS team)
--
Mbed-tls-announce mailing list
Mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls-announce
Hello,
4096 bytes is a lot larger than a typical public key. 4096 *bits* is
common for an RSA key. Are you sure you're using the correct units?
By default the library doesn't support the creation of MPI that are
larger than 1024 bytes. This is a configuration option
(MBEDTLS_MPI_MAX_SIZE), although it's uncommon to change it (a larger
value is hardly ever necessary, and a smaller value won't save memory
except in RSA which needs at least 512 bytes for 4096-bit keys). However
mbedtls_mpi_write_file itself doesn't have any size limit.
Best regards,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 27/08/2020 13:27, youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I think you are fine during this crisis.
>
>
>
> I am working now with mbedtls modulee, and I wanted to print a
> function « mbedtls_mpi_write_file » to print the value of an MPI. This
> function works with common values.
>
>
>
> However, when I want to print an MPI which is very long (about 4096
> bytes, a public key), it doesn’t work. Someone knows how to solve this
> problem ?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot
>
>
>
> Best regards, YS
>
>
>
>
Hello everyone, I think you are fine during this crisis.
I am working now with mbedtls modulee, and I wanted to print a function « mbedtls_mpi_write_file » to print the value of an MPI. This function works with common values.
However, when I want to print an MPI which is very long (about 4096 bytes, a public key), it doesn’t work. Someone knows how to solve this problem ?
Thanks a lot
Best regards, YS
Hi Youssouf,
I think you're looking for mbedtls_mpi_write_file() - just pass NULL as the file argument to write to stdout. You can use the radix argument to print out hex or decimal.
Regards,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 25 August 2020 15:40
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Set an MPI and print it
Hi everyone, I think you all are fine.
I am a beginner on mbedtls, and I wanted to set a dhm context. So, at first, I just want to set the value of the prime P, and the generator G. So to that I wrote the function below : [cid:image001.png@01D67AF5.D43FDE60]
To check if it is correctly set, I wanted to print it to see. However, it is not the case. Do you know how to set and print the value ?
Thanks, and have a good day
Best regards, YS
Hi everyone, I think you all are fine.
I am a beginner on mbedtls, and I wanted to set a dhm context. So, at first, I just want to set the value of the prime P, and the generator G. So to that I wrote the function below : [cid:image001.png@01D67AF5.D43FDE60]
To check if it is correctly set, I wanted to print it to see. However, it is not the case. Do you know how to set and print the value ?
Thanks, and have a good day
Best regards, YS
Hello everybody, I hope you are going well
I am creating a diffie Hellman key exchange program, so I am using functions like « mbedtls_dhm_init() » or « mbedtls_ctr_drbg_init() « for example. However, even if I defined the CTR_DRBG & the DHM_C module in the config.h file, and the header in my C file, I Always have error like that :
[cid:image002.png@01D6770C.20370D40]
Can someone help me to find out where does it come from ? Because I don’t know at all.
Thanks, and have a good day
Hi all,
I am placing into review a patch (
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/3579) which replaces some
invalid size printf format specifiers, mostly for size_t. This patch
utilises %zu and %hhu, both of which were only introduced in C99, which
I know caused some issues with compiler compatibility at the time. The
problem with printf and size_t as most will know, is that its a
different size in 32 bit and 64 bit, which is what %z was introduced to
safely fix.
My question is to whether there is anyone on the list that is using a
compiler that might not handle these specifiers, for whom this patch
would presumably be something of an issue. I am admittedly hoping this
is not the case, given the age of the spec, but thought it best to ask.
Thanks in advance,
Paul.
Hi Murat
What you request may be possible with invasive changes but it is not a design goal for the PSA Cryptography API implementation in Mbed TLS to be completely replaced with an alternative implementation, while allowing re-use of the Mbed TLS build system and tests.
The focus instead is to develop and implement a PSA Cryptoprocessor Driver Interface, which will allow drivers for custom secure environments to be plugged into the core PSA Cryptography API implementation in Mbed TLS. An early version of the specification of that interface can be found here:
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/docs/proposed/psa-drive…
That specification and its implementation is under active development. Let us know if you would like to get involved.
Regards
Dan.
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Murat Cakmak via mbed-tls
Sent: 14 August 2020 13:34
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [mbed-tls] Custom PSA API Implementation for mbedTLS tests
Hi all,
We have implemented the PSA Functional API for a custom secure environment which passes PSA Arch tests.
Now we would like to run mbedtls tests (make check) on the PSA API if possible.
When we run "make check", it includes and compiles library/psa_crypto.c file for mbedTLS's PSA API Implementation.
Herein, we would like to compile our own psa_crypto.c implementation, does mbedtls build system allow us to include custom PSA API Implementation to run tests?
Thank you.
Murat
Greetings,
I am new to the list, please do excuse me, in case of any list
specific etiquette issues.
Trying to use a 1.6.1 release with a Cortex M7 port, specifically a STM32H7.
After enabling MBEDTLS_ENTROPY_HARDWARE_ALT, did implement
mbedtls_hardware_poll()
It looks thus, and it does appear to work from a hardware perspective:
/**
* mbedtls_hardware_poll()
* Read random data from the Hardware RNG for entropy applications
*/
int mbedtls_hardware_poll(void *arg,
unsigned char *ent_buf,
size_t count,
size_t *ent_len)
{
register uint8_t i = 0;
uint32_t rand;
if (!LL_RNG_IsEnabled(RNG))
LL_RNG_Enable(RNG); /* Enable Random Number Generator */
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
while (!LL_RNG_IsActiveFlag_DRDY(RNG)) { } /* Wait for DRDY
flag to be raised */
if ((LL_RNG_IsActiveFlag_CECS(RNG)) ||
(LL_RNG_IsActiveFlag_SECS(RNG))) { /* Check error, if any */
/* Clock or Seed Error detected. Set Error */
printf(" (%d) %s: Clock/Seed Error!\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
}
rand = LL_RNG_ReadRandData32(RNG); /* Read RNG data */
memcpy(&(ent_buf[i * 4]), &rand, 4); /* *ent_len += 4 */
}
LL_RNG_Disable(RNG); /* Stop random numbers generation */
*ent_len = ((i + 1) * 4);
printf(" (%d) %s: Random Words: %d Word: %04d\r\n",
__LINE__,
__FUNCTION__,
count,
rand);
return 0;
}
The code which causes the problem is this, in my tls_init()
int tls_init(void)
{
int ret;
/* inspired by https://tls.mbed.org/kb/how-to/mbedtls-tutorial */
const char *pers = "SYS-LWH7";
printf(" (%d) %s: Initializing\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
/* initialize descriptors */
mbedtls_ssl_init(&ssl);
printf(" (%d) %s: SSL initialize\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_ssl_config_init(&conf);
printf(" (%d) %s: SSL Config initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_x509_crt_init(&cacert);
printf(" (%d) %s: x509 CRT initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_ctr_drbg_init(&ctr_drbg);
printf(" (%d) %s: DRBG initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
mbedtls_entropy_init(&entropy);
printf(" (%d) %s: Entropy initialized\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);
ret = mbedtls_ctr_drbg_seed(&ctr_drbg,
mbedtls_entropy_func,
&entropy,
(const unsigned char *) pers,
strlen(pers));
if (ret) {
LWIP_DEBUGF(MQTT_APP_DEBUG_TRACE,
("failed !\n mbedtls_ctr_drbg_seed returned %d\n",
ret));
printf(" (%d) %s: DRBG seed failed, ret=%d\r\n", __LINE__,
__FUNCTION__, ret);
return -1;
}
printf(" (%d) %s: DRBG seed returned:%d\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
/**
* The transport type determines if we are using
* TLS (MBEDTLS_SSL_TRANSPORT_STREAM) or
* DTLS (MBEDTLS_SSL_TRANSPORT_DATAGRAM).
*/
ret = mbedtls_ssl_config_defaults(&conf,
MBEDTLS_SSL_IS_CLIENT,
MBEDTLS_SSL_TRANSPORT_STREAM,
MBEDTLS_SSL_PRESET_DEFAULT);
if (ret) {
LWIP_DEBUGF(MQTT_APP_DEBUG_TRACE,
("failed !\n mbedtls_ssl_config_defaults returned %d\n\n",
ret));
printf("(%d) %s: SSL config defaults failed, ret=%d\r\n",
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
return -1;
}
printf("(%d) %s: SSL config defaults returned:%d\r\n", __LINE__,
__FUNCTION__, ret);
ret = mbedtls_x509_crt_parse(&cacert,
(const unsigned char *)test_ca_crt,
test_ca_crt_len);
if (ret)
printf(" (%d) %s: failed!\n mbedtls_x509_crt_parse returned
%d\r\n", __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
else
printf(" (%d) %s: mbedtls_x509_crt_parse returned %d\r\n",
__LINE__, __FUNCTION__, ret);
mbedtls_ssl_conf_ca_chain(&conf, &cacert, NULL);
mbedtls_ssl_conf_authmode(&conf, MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED);
/**
* The library needs to know which random engine
* to use and which debug function to use as callback.
*/
mbedtls_ssl_conf_rng(&conf, mbedtls_ctr_drbg_random, &ctr_drbg);
mbedtls_ssl_conf_dbg(&conf, my_debug, stdout);
mbedtls_ssl_setup(&ssl, &conf);
}
The output of which looks thus, in a serial terminal:
(1217) print_dhcp_state: Try connect to Broker
(174) tls_init: Initializing
(178) tls_init: SSL initialize
(181) tls_init: SSL Config initialized
(184) tls_init: x509 CRT initialized
(187) tls_init: DRBG initialized
(190) tls_init: Entropy initialized
(1027) mbedtls_hardware_poll: Random Words: 128 Word: -558876895
Any thoughts/ideas, what could be wrong ?
Any kind soul in here ?
Thanks,
Manu
Hi Simon,
Indeed while the migration is underway things can be a bit confusing, so let me try to clarify:
* releases can be found at: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases - near the top you'll alwys find the latest development release followed by the latest LTS releases. At this point it is unclear if releases are going to stay on github or if they would move to trustedfrimware.org in the future, but if anything changes, we'll announce it.
* announcements about new releases and other important project events are made on the new Mbed-tls-announce mailing-list: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases - if you're already subscribed to mbed-tls (this list), you don't need to subscribe to the "announce" mailing list in addition, as any post to "announce" is automatically cross-posted here ("announce" is for people who want a lower volume list).
* I don't think we're currently making announcements about upcoming releases, but I know we considered that. Unfortunately I don't remember the details and the colleague who was working on improving our release process is on leave now. But it we start making such announcements, they'll be on the "announce" list.
* We're currently planning 2.16.8 early in September.
* If you have a large number of products deployed that depend on Mbed TLS (or indeed any other tf.org project) and would like to be notified in advance of upcoming security fixes, please see the following pages: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/security-center/https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/repor…https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/trust…
I hope this answers your questions, and feel free to ask otherwise.
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Simon Leet via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 14 August 2020 15:13
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] LTS roadmap and announcement channel?
Hi folks,
I understand that https://tls.mbed.org/ has migrated under the umbrella of https://www.trustedfirmware.org/ but it’s not clear where I should turn to for information about the updates to the LTS versions. The https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates blog used to announce LTS branch updates but seems defunct as of 2.16.7, and I can’t find equivalent information in https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/mbed-tls/roadmap/, https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/projects/2 or the generic https://www.trustedfirmware.org/blog/.
Is there a new channel for information about upcoming LTS mbedtls releases so that users can plan their appropriate upgrade cycles? E.g. when is 2.16.8 roughly expected to be released? Is the new model for monitoring release announcements reliably going to be as a new tag on https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/tags?
-Simon
Hi everyone,
Hope you are still going well
I am now working on MbedTLS to establish a key exchange with a BGM which has a TRNG
, and I read that I have to implement myself a function called «mbedTLS_hardware_poll »
But I have no idea to know how I can implement this function zlthough I read articles on the mbedtls.com about entropy site…. Can you help me, to know how I can implement this function ?
Hi all,
We have implemented the PSA Functional API for a custom secure environment
which passes PSA Arch tests.
Now we would like to run mbedtls tests (make check) on the PSA API if
possible.
When we run "make check", it includes and compiles library/psa_crypto.c file
for mbedTLS's PSA API Implementation.
Herein, we would like to compile our own psa_crypto.c implementation, does
mbedtls build system allow us to include custom PSA API Implementation to
run tests?
Thank you.
Murat
Hello,
The interface of the Diffie-Hellman (DHM) module is modeled on the way
it's used in TLS, which is a bit different from the classical
presentation. You can find code examples in programs/pkey/dh_client.c
and programs/pkey/dh_server.c .
Elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman (provided by the ECDH module) has similar
security properties and is significantly faster. If you don't need
interoperability with legacy software that only supports classical
(finite-field) Diffie-Hellman, you should use ECDH rather than DHM. With
the ECDH module, you can use either the same TLS-inspired interface as
the DHM module, or a more classical interface for which there is a usage
example in psa_crypto.c in the function psa_key_agreement_ecdh.
Hope this helps,
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
You can find an example of the TLS-like inter
On 12/08/2020 14:02, youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hello, I hope you are going well during this Covid crisis.
>
>
>
> I'm sending you this message to find out how to generate a Diffie
> Hellman key using MbedTLS. Indeed, with all the documentation, I'm a
> bit lost.
>
>
>
> I think, you have to use the int mbedtls_dhm_set_group function to
> create p and g. And then, I don't know how to use which function...
> Moreover, I can't find any function that allows to set a and b,
> whereas they are 2 fundamental elements
>
> Can you help me? Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best regards, YS
>
>
>
Hello,
Short version: to use the official tools to configure Mbed TLS, or to
run the unit tests, you need Python. If we start requiring Python 3.5,
is this going to be a problem?
Detailed version:
Mbed TLS includes four Python scripts that are of interest to users,
with a fifth one in preparation:
* scripts/config.py : compile-time configuration (unless you prefer to
edit config.h directly).
* scripts/generate_psa_constants.py : to build
programs/psa/psa_constant_names (we have a pending task to commit the
result instead of requiring it during the build).
* tests/scripts/generate_test_code.py : necessary to build the unit tests.
* tests/scripts/mbedtls_test.py : does anyone use this? It's for testing
on platforms with Greentea, but some of the automation is missing.
* upcoming: a script to generate glue code for accelerator and secure
element drivers. We'll also provide a manual way, but it won't be as
convenient.
This is a question to everyone who's building Mbed TLS and using some of
these scripts: is it ok if they require Python 3.5?
Currently:
* scripts/config.py requires Python 3.5.
* scripts/generate_psa_constants.py requires Python 3.3.
* tests/scripts/generate_test_code.py still works with Python 2.7.
* tests/scripts/mbedtls_test.py still works with Python 2.7.
* the driver glue code generation script will require Python 3.5, or
Python 3.4 + typing.
Is there any demand for versions of Python before 3.5?
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
Hello, I hope you are going well during this Covid crisis.
I'm sending you this message to find out how to generate a Diffie Hellman key using MbedTLS. Indeed, with all the documentation, I'm a bit lost.
I think, you have to use the int mbedtls_dhm_set_group function to create p and g. And then, I don't know how to use which function... Moreover, I can't find any function that allows to set a and b, whereas they are 2 fundamental elements
Can you help me? Thank you!
Best regards, YS
Hi Frank,
We have now updated the links both on the download-archive and releases site and now they point to https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases, where all the releases are available.
We also have added checksums to the release notes on github and fixed the archive structure.
Thank you very much for pointing these issues out!
Cheers,
Janos
(Mbed TLS developer)
On 04/08/2020, 19:06, "mbed-tls on behalf of Frank Bergmann via mbed-tls" <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Hi,
2.16.7 was released on github more than one month ago (2020-07-01).
But it is not listed on
- download archive at https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive
- release news at https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates/releases
Questions about that:
- Is it an "official" release even if it is not mentioned on release news?
- When will it be available in download archive?
- If there will be no more addings to download archive because now we'll
have to use github:
* Will there be separate releases GPL/Apache available?
* Will a signed/unsigned check sum be provided?
* Will the "new structure" as provided by tarball on github be kept
in future or was it just an accident? (e.g. main dir is named
"mbedtls-mbedtls-2.16.7")
I started using mbed TLS with 2.16.6 but now I am confused. ;-)
cheers,
Frank
--
mbed-tls mailing list
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
Hi Frank,
I confirm that 2.16.7 is an official release of the 2.16 long-time
support branch of Mbed TLS, alongside 2.7.16 for the 2.7 branch and
2.23.0 for the latest features. Everyone should update to one of these
versions since they fix security issues and other bugs.
We're progressively transitioning the project from Arm infrastructure to
TrustedFirmware infrastructure. Eventually we'll decommission the
existing tls.mbed.org, and we intend to distribute releases via
trustedfirmware.org. We no longer intend to reference new releases
directly on https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive . For the time being,
we're distributing via GitHub. However, it isn't right that
https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive links to
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases/ which doesn't list LTS
branches. We need to link from https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive to
the place that has the latest LTS releases one way or the other.
There are no longer separate archives with Apache and GPL licenses.
These archives were always identical except for license headers. Now LTS
releases are distributed as a single archive in which the files are
dual-licensed.
The naming with mbedtls-mbedtls- must be a bug in our release script.
Thanks for noticing.
I don't think we made a conscious decision not to provide official
checksums. I can see the value of having them so let's try to
incorporate those in our new release process.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 04/08/2020 19:05, Frank Bergmann via mbed-tls wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2.16.7 was released on github more than one month ago (2020-07-01).
> But it is not listed on
> - download archive at https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive
> - release news at https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates/releases
>
> Questions about that:
> - Is it an "official" release even if it is not mentioned on release news?
> - When will it be available in download archive?
> - If there will be no more addings to download archive because now we'll
> have to use github:
> * Will there be separate releases GPL/Apache available?
> * Will a signed/unsigned check sum be provided?
> * Will the "new structure" as provided by tarball on github be kept
> in future or was it just an accident? (e.g. main dir is named
> "mbedtls-mbedtls-2.16.7")
>
> I started using mbed TLS with 2.16.6 but now I am confused. ;-)
>
> cheers,
> Frank
>
>
Hi,
2.16.7 was released on github more than one month ago (2020-07-01).
But it is not listed on
- download archive at https://tls.mbed.org/download-archive
- release news at https://tls.mbed.org/tech-updates/releases
Questions about that:
- Is it an "official" release even if it is not mentioned on release news?
- When will it be available in download archive?
- If there will be no more addings to download archive because now we'll
have to use github:
* Will there be separate releases GPL/Apache available?
* Will a signed/unsigned check sum be provided?
* Will the "new structure" as provided by tarball on github be kept
in future or was it just an accident? (e.g. main dir is named
"mbedtls-mbedtls-2.16.7")
I started using mbed TLS with 2.16.6 but now I am confused. ;-)
cheers,
Frank
Hi Youssouf,
This is Steven with Silicon Labs. It sounds like you have questions that are very device-specific, and relate to Silicon Labs products. We do provide TRNG drivers for mbed TLS through Simplicity Studio and our software SDK. Please contact our support staff at www.silabs.com/support<http://www.silabs.com/support>, and they’ll do their best to help you out with your questions.
Regards,
-- Steven
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of youssouf sokhona via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: youssouf sokhona <youssouf.sokhona(a)hotmail.fr>
Date: Tuesday, 4 August 2020 at 12:59
To: "mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Entropy & TRNG on the BGM13P32
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, everyone,
First of all, I hope you are all healthy during this difficult time.
I am working with Simplicity Studio IDE with MbedTLS and I am currently working on a project with a BGM13P32. I plan to perform a key exchange via bluetooth with the Diffie Hellman protocol. To start my project, I need an entropy source. I read the following on the BGM13P32 documentation "The TRNG is a non-deterministic random number generator based on a full hardware solution. The TRNG is validated with NIST800-22and AIS-31 test suites as well as being suitable for FIPS 140-2 certification (for the purposes of cryptographic key generation)."
And I also read about the Random Number Generator "The Frame Controller (FRC) implements a random number generator that uses entropy gathered from noise in the RF receive chain.The data is suitable for use in cryptographic applications.Output from the random number generator can be used either directly or as a seed or entropy source for software-based random num-ber generator algorithms such as Fortuna"
Knowing this, how can we use this to create entropy and then create a sequence of random numbers? I need to implement the MbedTLS_hardware_poll() function? Do I have to add another entropy, like real timing for example
As you can see I am a bit confused actually. Can you help me out?
Thanks in advance, and take care of yourself !
Hi, everyone,
First of all, I hope you are all healthy during this difficult time.
I am working with Simplicity Studio IDE with MbedTLS and I am currently working on a project with a BGM13P32. I plan to perform a key exchange via bluetooth with the Diffie Hellman protocol. To start my project, I need an entropy source. I read the following on the BGM13P32 documentation "The TRNG is a non-deterministic random number generator based on a full hardware solution. The TRNG is validated with NIST800-22and AIS-31 test suites as well as being suitable for FIPS 140-2 certification (for the purposes of cryptographic key generation)."
And I also read about the Random Number Generator "The Frame Controller (FRC) implements a random number generator that uses entropy gathered from noise in the RF receive chain.The data is suitable for use in cryptographic applications.Output from the random number generator can be used either directly or as a seed or entropy source for software-based random num-ber generator algorithms such as Fortuna"
Knowing this, how can we use this to create entropy and then create a sequence of random numbers? I need to implement the MbedTLS_hardware_poll() function? Do I have to add another entropy, like real timing for example
As you can see I am a bit confused actually. Can you help me out?
Thanks in advance, and take care of yourself !
Morning,
First of all, I hope you are all healthy during this difficult time.
I am working with Simplicity Studio IDE and with Mbed TLS and I am currently working on a project with a BGM13P32. I plan to write in a file some parameters that will allow a key exchange by bluetooth (Diffie Hellman Protocol). I intend to make the BGM13P32 read this file, and these data to allow a key exchange. Is it possible to do that? If yes, how?
Because I'm a total beginner
Thank you, and take care of yourself !
Hi all,
I have configured the max fragment length at the client and server to both 512. With this setting when I try to reconnect using a saved session at the client side, the ssl handshake doesn’t seem to happen.
Below is the comment in the server code.
/* We don't support fragmentation of ClientHello (yet?) */
The mbedtls code I am using is version 2.16.6. Are there any plans to support fragmentation of clienthello? Do let me know
Regards,
Fariya
Hi,
I do not quite have enough knowledge on DTLS session resumption .. nevertheless here's my question:
a) Difference between the features: MBEDTLS_SSL_COOKIE_C and MBEDTLS_SSL_SESSION_TICKETS?
b) Enabling the feature MBEDTLS_SSL_SESSION_TICKETS would be sufficient to resume an earlier established DTLS session quickly (i.e avoid the whole TLS handshake done the last time)?
c) How do I test this - i.e initiate connection from client and server, break the connection and then make the client connect to the server again? Not sure what additional steps are required on client side. Any callbacks to be registered in the code?
Regards,
Fariya
Hi Gilles,
I checked one you recommended and looks like it is very complicated.
Do you have any sample project(SSH client) based on MbedTLS+LWIP?
Thanks,
Christie
-----Original Message-----
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of mbed-tls-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Sent: July-22-20 11:35 AM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: mbed-tls Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15
Send mbed-tls mailing list submissions to
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
mbed-tls-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
mbed-tls-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of mbed-tls digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Problem with decrypt aes 128 in ecb mode. HELP ME!
(dany_banik2000(a)yahoo.com)
2. Re: SSH client sample (Gilles Peskine)
3. Re: patches for low memory (Gilles Peskine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:42:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: "dany_banik2000(a)yahoo.com" <dany_banik2000(a)yahoo.com>
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [mbed-tls] Problem with decrypt aes 128 in ecb mode. HELP ME!
Message-ID: <1371131400.5486983.1595428953399(a)mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I developed a server application that obtains the data from a dht11 sensor, I encrypt it with aes 128 and publish it on the server. The client application makes a request to the server, and I would like to decrypt the answer.
When I want to display decrypted message, it shows garbage
The message retrieved from the server is in hex. I think that must to convert hex in binary, but i don’t know how can do it…
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/mbed-tls/attachments/20200722/a5…>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:10:18 +0200
From: Gilles Peskine <gilles.peskine(a)arm.com>
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] SSH client sample
Message-ID: <4a7265ac-7b3e-33ef-7222-4cd29c3cda08(a)arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Hi Christie,
Libssh2 (https://github.com/libssh2/libssh2) supports Mbed TLS.
I've never used it or investigated it, so I can't vouch for it, I just know that it's there.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 21/07/2020 18:40, Christie Su via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> �
>
> I am using FRDM-K64F with LWIP+mbedTLS for our control system. Now, I
> want to develop the SSH client(or telnet 22) to access my SSH server.
>
> �
>
> Could you give me some indications how to do it? Or do you have any
> sample project?
>
> �
>
> Thanks,
>
> �
>
> Christie
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:34:44 +0200
From: Gilles Peskine <gilles.peskine(a)arm.com>
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [mbed-tls] patches for low memory
Message-ID: <152f6571-6972-8262-c38d-d200dcc7c0b7(a)arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Nick,
A TLS stack in 6kB of RAM sounds impressive, congratulations!
We'd certainly be interested in all the improvements you can contribute.
The process is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md (https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md). I just need to warn you that the limiting factor is reviewers' time. For a significant contribution, it may take a while before the Mbed TLS team can look at it in detail. Small patches are usually easier than large
ones: if something only takes half an hour to review, someone will probably do it when they're stuck on some other task. If a review takes several days, it needs to be scheduled.
It would probably be better to discuss the general nature of the changes on this mailing list first. Is a new compilation option needed? Is an API change needed? What is the risk that the change might break existing code? How is the new code tested? etc.
Which version of Mbed TLS have you been using? We've made a few changes that are of interest to low-memory platforms recently, such as the option MBEDTLS_SSL_VARIABLE_BUFFER_LENGTH to resize SSL buffers after the handshake (new in 2.22).
I don't know what the issue with the incoming SSL packet header length could be. If you could give precise steps to reproduce the issue, this would be very helpful. Eventually we'd want to construct a test in tests/ssl-opt.sh for this.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 17/07/2020 21:00, Nick Setzer via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi, I have been working with Mbed TLS for the last 6 months in an
> extremely low memory use case. This library has been an absolute joy
> to work with because of how flexible it is. I have an interesting use
> case with how little RAM I have to work with (around 6kb on one
> microprocessor) and I have made some changes that I thought would be
> of interest. I'm not sure if I should submit them as a single
> changeset or a set of changes. I'll describe the changes and if there
> is interest I can clean them up for submission.
>
> The first change that I made was for a scenario with two
> microprocessors communicating over a UART. I was already using TLS
> offloading so that the private key was on one processor (with only 6kb
> of RAM free) and the SSL context stored on the other. I required
> generating a CSR and thus made some changes to the CSR code to be able
> to generate the CSR using a similar private key offloading strategy.
>
> I found an issue with downloading firmware for OTA from openssl web
> servers. This is a little tricky to describe. The server was not
> responsive to requests for reducing the max fragment length, which
> forced me to use MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN set to 16384. But I
> needed to have multiple ssl sessions open for other activities and did
> not have enough RAM to hold multiple large buffers. I have made a set
> of changes to allow setting the content length when the ssl context is
> initialized, as well as setting different IN and OUT content lengths
> to save memory. This change allowed me to set up one session with 16kb
> for the IN content length, and then 4kb for OUT content length, while
> a second session could use 2kb for a total of 24kb instead of 64kb.
>
> Related to the openssl issue, I found that the incoming ssl packet
> header length can sometimes be 8 or 16 bytes larger than expected
> depending on which AES method is selected. I'm not actually sure what
> the best way to solve this is. One way may be to change
> MBEDTLS_SSL_HEADER_LEN from 13 to 29 bytes. However I ended up solving
> it by adding 16 to both MBEDTLS_SSL_IN_BUFFER_LEN and
> MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_BUFFER_LEN. This way I could handle the larger ssl
> header as well as receive the content body.
>
> If these three changes sound interesting I can start work on cleaning
> up the code to be less specific to my company and then submit the
> changes. Also I would like to know if there is any process I should be
> following when submitting these changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick Setzer
> SimpliSafe, Inc.
> 294 Washington Street, 9th Floor
> Boston, MA 02108
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
mbed-tls mailing list
mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls
------------------------------
End of mbed-tls Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15
***************************************
On 20/07/2020 12:21, Scott Branden via mbed-tls wrote:
> Although this particular change doesn't affect me - rewriting history is a
> bad idea.
>
> Why not simply commit a revert back to a cleaner point on "master" branch
> and then commit the new changes you want from there?
>
> Then history is not lost on master branch.
Mbed TLS used to follow the Git Flow model: day-to-day work happens on
the 'development' branch, and there's a 'master' branch which always
points to the latest commit on master that's a tagged release. A release
is done by tagging a commit on 'development' and fast-forwarding
'master' to it.
But after the 2.16 LTS release, we made 'master' follow the 2.16 LTS
branch rather than 'development'. I think this was a mistake, but it's
too late to change this, the question is what we do now with the
existing situation.
A force-push on 'master' would not erase history from the face of the
world. The history is still there in 'mbedtls-2.16'.
It is no longer possible to fast-forward 'master' to any commit on
'development'. No amount of revert or merge commits on 'master' will
make it be the same commit as some a release made from 'development'.
Without a force-push, all we can hope is to have 'master' have the same
content as a release. This means that getting the same release would
give you the same content, but different history, depending on whether
tyou get it from 'master' or 'development'. This would also mean a more
complicated release process.
Another solution would be to do a merge of 'master' into 'development',
ignoring all changes from the 'master' side. But this would mess up the
history on 'development'.
Is this more complicated release process, or this messy history, worth
it, just to avoid a force-push?
> Or, with the BLM movement some repos are stopping use of master branch.
> github seems to be encourage it going forware:
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-ter…
>
> So another option: stop using "master" branch. You could even create a
> tag/rename and then delete the branch name to avoid any confusions. History
> won't be rewritten then, just a little "hidden".
> And start using a new "main" branch. You can push you entire commit series
> there without revering anything on master branch.
Sure, we can create a new branch name. But then we'd still have to keep
a branch with the old name, for the sake of existing setups that pull
from 'master'. Or else we should make a commit on 'master' that removes
every file and instead adds a README that says "pull from 'main' instead".
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 22/07/2020 17:35, Gilles Peskine via mbed-tls wrote:
> I just need to warn you that the limiting factor is reviewers' time. For a
> significant contribution, it may take a while before the Mbed TLS team
> can look at it in detail. Small patches are usually easier than large
> ones: if something only takes half an hour to review, someone will
> probably do it when they're stuck on some other task. If a review takes
> several days, it needs to be scheduled.
As an aside, Mbed TLS is under the governance of TrustedFirmware.
Currently, only Arm employees are consider trusted reviewers, but this
is not by policy, it's only due to the history of the project (until a
few months ago, Mbed TLS was governed by Arm). We (as in, the Arm
employees working on Mbed TLS) welcome design and code reviews from
everyone.
We don't yet have a formal process for becoming a “trusted” reviewer,
beyond the general principles of TrustedFirmware. But a required part of
that process will undoubtedly be to have done some reviews before.
As every project, there is an informal, unwritten culture. If there's
interest, we can try to document our review culture in writing. If I had
to sum it up in one sentence, I'd say that if a reviewer should reject
code that they don't understand: it's the job of the patch author to
convince reviewers that the patch is good. “I don't see anything wrong”
is not a good enough standard.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
Hi Nick,
A TLS stack in 6kB of RAM sounds impressive, congratulations!
We'd certainly be interested in all the improvements you can contribute.
The process is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md
(https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/CONTRIBUTING.md). I
just need to warn you that the limiting factor is reviewers' time. For a
significant contribution, it may take a while before the Mbed TLS team
can look at it in detail. Small patches are usually easier than large
ones: if something only takes half an hour to review, someone will
probably do it when they're stuck on some other task. If a review takes
several days, it needs to be scheduled.
It would probably be better to discuss the general nature of the changes
on this mailing list first. Is a new compilation option needed? Is an
API change needed? What is the risk that the change might break existing
code? How is the new code tested? etc.
Which version of Mbed TLS have you been using? We've made a few changes
that are of interest to low-memory platforms recently, such as the
option MBEDTLS_SSL_VARIABLE_BUFFER_LENGTH to resize SSL buffers after
the handshake (new in 2.22).
I don't know what the issue with the incoming SSL packet header length
could be. If you could give precise steps to reproduce the issue, this
would be very helpful. Eventually we'd want to construct a test in
tests/ssl-opt.sh for this.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 17/07/2020 21:00, Nick Setzer via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi, I have been working with Mbed TLS for the last 6 months in an
> extremely low memory use case. This library has been an absolute joy
> to work with because of how flexible it is. I have an interesting use
> case with how little RAM I have to work with (around 6kb on one
> microprocessor) and I have made some changes that I thought would be
> of interest. I'm not sure if I should submit them as a single
> changeset or a set of changes. I'll describe the changes and if there
> is interest I can clean them up for submission.
>
> The first change that I made was for a scenario with two
> microprocessors communicating over a UART. I was already using TLS
> offloading so that the private key was on one processor (with only 6kb
> of RAM free) and the SSL context stored on the other. I required
> generating a CSR and thus made some changes to the CSR code to be able
> to generate the CSR using a similar private key offloading strategy.
>
> I found an issue with downloading firmware for OTA from openssl web
> servers. This is a little tricky to describe. The server was not
> responsive to requests for reducing the max fragment length, which
> forced me to use MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN set to 16384. But I
> needed to have multiple ssl sessions open for other activities and did
> not have enough RAM to hold multiple large buffers. I have made a set
> of changes to allow setting the content length when the ssl context is
> initialized, as well as setting different IN and OUT content lengths
> to save memory. This change allowed me to set up one session with 16kb
> for the IN content length, and then 4kb for OUT content length, while
> a second session could use 2kb for a total of 24kb instead of 64kb.
>
> Related to the openssl issue, I found that the incoming ssl packet
> header length can sometimes be 8 or 16 bytes larger than expected
> depending on which AES method is selected. I'm not actually sure what
> the best way to solve this is. One way may be to change
> MBEDTLS_SSL_HEADER_LEN from 13 to 29 bytes. However I ended up solving
> it by adding 16 to both MBEDTLS_SSL_IN_BUFFER_LEN and
> MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_BUFFER_LEN. This way I could handle the larger ssl
> header as well as receive the content body.
>
> If these three changes sound interesting I can start work on cleaning
> up the code to be less specific to my company and then submit the
> changes. Also I would like to know if there is any process I should be
> following when submitting these changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick Setzer
> SimpliSafe, Inc.
> 294 Washington Street, 9th Floor
> Boston, MA 02108
>
Hi Christie,
Libssh2 (https://github.com/libssh2/libssh2) supports Mbed TLS.
I've never used it or investigated it, so I can't vouch for it, I just
know that it's there.
--
Gilles Peskine
Mbed TLS developer
On 21/07/2020 18:40, Christie Su via mbed-tls wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> �
>
> I am using FRDM-K64F with LWIP+mbedTLS for our control system. Now, I
> want to develop the SSH client(or telnet 22) to access my SSH server.
>
> �
>
> Could you give me some indications how to do it? Or do you have any
> sample project?
>
> �
>
> Thanks,
>
> �
>
> Christie
>
>
I developed a server application that obtains the data from a dht11 sensor, I encrypt it with aes 128 and publish it on the server. The client application makes a request to the server, and I would like to decrypt the answer.
When I want to display decrypted message, it shows garbage
The message retrieved from the server is in hex. I think that must to convert hex in binary, but i don’t know how can do it…
Hi,
I am using FRDM-K64F with LWIP+mbedTLS for our control system. Now, I want to develop the SSH client(or telnet 22) to access my SSH server.
Could you give me some indications how to do it? Or do you have any sample project?
Thanks,
Christie
Hi, I have been working with Mbed TLS for the last 6 months in an extremely
low memory use case. This library has been an absolute joy to work with
because of how flexible it is. I have an interesting use case with how
little RAM I have to work with (around 6kb on one microprocessor) and I
have made some changes that I thought would be of interest. I'm not sure if
I should submit them as a single changeset or a set of changes. I'll
describe the changes and if there is interest I can clean them up for
submission.
The first change that I made was for a scenario with two microprocessors
communicating over a UART. I was already using TLS offloading so that the
private key was on one processor (with only 6kb of RAM free) and the SSL
context stored on the other. I required generating a CSR and thus made some
changes to the CSR code to be able to generate the CSR using a similar
private key offloading strategy.
I found an issue with downloading firmware for OTA from openssl web
servers. This is a little tricky to describe. The server was not responsive
to requests for reducing the max fragment length, which forced me to use
MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_CONTENT_LEN set to 16384. But I needed to have multiple ssl
sessions open for other activities and did not have enough RAM to hold
multiple large buffers. I have made a set of changes to allow setting the
content length when the ssl context is initialized, as well as setting
different IN and OUT content lengths to save memory. This change allowed me
to set up one session with 16kb for the IN content length, and then 4kb for
OUT content length, while a second session could use 2kb for a total of
24kb instead of 64kb.
Related to the openssl issue, I found that the incoming ssl packet header
length can sometimes be 8 or 16 bytes larger than expected depending on
which AES method is selected. I'm not actually sure what the best way to
solve this is. One way may be to change MBEDTLS_SSL_HEADER_LEN from 13 to
29 bytes. However I ended up solving it by adding 16 to both
MBEDTLS_SSL_IN_BUFFER_LEN
and MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_BUFFER_LEN. This way I could handle the larger ssl
header as well as receive the content body.
If these three changes sound interesting I can start work on cleaning up
the code to be less specific to my company and then submit the changes.
Also I would like to know if there is any process I should be following
when submitting these changes.
Thanks,
Nick Setzer
SimpliSafe, Inc.
294 Washington Street, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Although this particular change doesn't affect me - rewriting history is a
bad idea.
Why not simply commit a revert back to a cleaner point on "master" branch
and then commit the new changes you want from there?
Then history is not lost on master branch.
Or, with the BLM movement some repos are stopping use of master branch.
github seems to be encourage it going forware:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-ter…
So another option: stop using "master" branch. You could even create a
tag/rename and then delete the branch name to avoid any confusions. History
won't be rewritten then, just a little "hidden".
And start using a new "main" branch. You can push you entire commit series
there without revering anything on master branch.
Regards,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Mbed-tls-announce
[mailto:mbed-tls-announce-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of
Janos Follath via Mbed-tls-announce
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 4:09 AM
To: mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: [Mbed-tls-announce] Force push on the master branch
Hi All,
The master branch used to track the latest development release. This changed
in early 2019 after the 2.16 LTS branch was released. Around this time the
cryptography library of Mbed TLS was moved to a separate repository and
since then it was used as a submodule. This was one of the main reasons
behind the decision to keep master pointing to the 2.16 LTS releases.
Recently we have merged the cryptography library back into Mbed TLS. We
don't have any reasons any more to keep master tracking the 2.16 LTS
release. Therefore we intend to update master to the latest development
release. This will happen on 3rd August.
The update will involve a force push, which can be disruptive to those users
who take Mbed TLS from master. We would like to give such users enough time
to adapt to this change. If you are relying on the master branch in a way
that this force push affects you, please let us know on the developer
mailing list<https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls>
and we will do our best to accommodate your needs.
Thanks and regards,
Janos
(on behalf of the Mbed TLS maintainer team)
--
Mbed-tls-announce mailing list
Mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls-announce
Hi All,
The master branch used to track the latest development release. This changed in early 2019 after the 2.16 LTS branch was released. Around this time the cryptography library of Mbed TLS was moved to a separate repository and since then it was used as a submodule. This was one of the main reasons behind the decision to keep master pointing to the 2.16 LTS releases.
Recently we have merged the cryptography library back into Mbed TLS. We don't have any reasons any more to keep master tracking the 2.16 LTS release. Therefore we intend to update master to the latest development release. This will happen on 3rd August.
The update will involve a force push, which can be disruptive to those users who take Mbed TLS from master. We would like to give such users enough time to adapt to this change. If you are relying on the master branch in a way that this force push affects you, please let us know on the developer mailing list<https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls> and we will do our best to accommodate your needs.
Thanks and regards,
Janos
(on behalf of the Mbed TLS maintainer team)
--
Mbed-tls-announce mailing list
Mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls-announce
Hi Jeff,
> Given the age of the version of mbedTLS I’m using, which is 2.13.1, plus the recent security alert, I think I need to upgrade the version of mbedTLS we have. The question is, which version to use?
Indeed upgrading to a maintained branch is very recommended! There are currently two actively maintained branches you could use:
* 2.16.x, which is our latest LTS branch, currently at 2.16.7. As an LTS branch, it only receives bug fixes and security updates, so it's pretty stable. In particular, since it doesn't receive any new feature, its footprint (code size) should remain mostly stable as well.
* 2.x.y, released from the development branch, currently at 2.23.0. This is the branch where new features land.
Both of these have full API compatibility with 2.13.1. We take great care not to break API compatibility between major releases - we haven't broken it since Mbed TLS 2.0.0 (release 2015-07-13), and the next release to break API compatibility with be 3.0.0 (now planned for early 2021). Until then, upgrading should be a simple matter of replacing the mbedtls directory in your source tree with the version of your choice, then rebuilding your project. (Moreover in the LTS branches we actually try maintain ABI compatibility as far as possible - that is, unless there's a security issue that can only be fixed by changing the ABI.)
Mbed TLS is designed bo be quite modular an integrate with the OS and networking stack via user-provided hooks and compile-time configuration (`include/mbedtls/config.h`). I'm not sure how the integration with LwIP and FreeRTOS was done by your MCU vendor, but I suggest you check:
* is the mbedtls directory in your source tree identical to our upstream release? If yes, you should be able to just replace it with the release of your choice and things should work.
* otherwise, what's the nature of the differences: are filed shuffled to a different directory structure? is the build system different? has the `mbedtls/config.h` file been modified? have other files been modified (which ideally really shouldn't be necessary)? In that case, you'll probably need to apply the same changes to the upgraded version of Mbed TLS. Hopefully the differences if any will be small, and otherwise perhaps you MCU vendor can provide documentation about it.
So I can't really say for this specific integration, but in principle upgrading Mbed TLS should be really painless - precisely so that people can upgrade easily in case of security fixes.
Hope this helps, and let us know how it went!
Regards,
Manuel.
________________________________
From: mbed-tls <mbed-tls-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Thompson, Jeff via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 14 July 2020 22:11
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Upgrading from 2.13.1.to ??.??.??
Given the age of the version of mbedTLS I’m using, which is 2.13.1, plus the recent security alert, I think I need to upgrade the version of mbedTLS we have. The question is, which version to use?
Because we got mbedTLS as example code from the MCU vendor, it was already integrated with lwIP and FreeRTOS. I’m sure this will not be a trivial effort, but I do need to present my management with some idea of the time it could take. Does anyone have a rough estimate of what to expect? I’m thinking on the order of 2 to 4 weeks for someone who is an experienced C programmer, but unfamiliar with either mbedTLS or lwIP. Or is that a pipe dream, with the actual time being closer to 3 or 4 months?
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D659E2.BE6C0700]
Given the age of the version of mbedTLS I'm using, which is 2.13.1, plus the recent security alert, I think I need to upgrade the version of mbedTLS we have. The question is, which version to use?
Because we got mbedTLS as example code from the MCU vendor, it was already integrated with lwIP and FreeRTOS. I'm sure this will not be a trivial effort, but I do need to present my management with some idea of the time it could take. Does anyone have a rough estimate of what to expect? I'm thinking on the order of 2 to 4 weeks for someone who is an experienced C programmer, but unfamiliar with either mbedTLS or lwIP. Or is that a pipe dream, with the actual time being closer to 3 or 4 months?
Jeff Thompson | Senior Electrical Engineer-Firmware
+1 704 752 6513 x1394
www.invue.com
[cid:image001.gif@01D659E2.BE6C0700]