- mbed-tls - lists.trustedfirmware.org

[Mbed-tls-announce] Mbed TLS 3.6.3 and 2.28.10

by Minos Galanakis via Mbed-tls-announce

Dear Mbed TLS users, We have released Mbed TLS versions 3.6.3 and 2.28.10. These releases provide bugfixes, security fixes and minor improvements. This release of Mbed TLS provides the fix for the TLS compatibility issue of handling fragmented handshake messages. This release includes fixes for security issues. Full details are available in the release notes: https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/tag/mbedtls-2.28.10 https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/tag/mbedtls-3.6.3 We recommend all users to consider whether they are impacted, and to upgrade appropriately. Many thanks, Minos Galanakis Mbed TLS developer IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. -- Mbed-tls-announce mailing list -- mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org To unsubscribe send an email to mbed-tls-announce-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org

4 months, 4 weeks

1
0
0 0

[Mbed-tls-announce] Announcing Mbed TLS 3.6.3 and 2.28.10

by Gilles Peskine via Mbed-tls-announce

Dear Mbed TLS users, The next release of Mbed TLS (3.6.3 and 2.28.10) is scheduled on Monday 2025-03-24. It will include a security fix for a vulnerability with a high impact to affected applications. Due to the nature of the vulnerability, which involves an insecure default in current versions of Mbed TLS, fixing it may require a small change in application code. We will provide instructions in the release notes. Without this change, affected applications will fail at runtime with Mbed TLS 3.6.3 or 2.28.10. Applications that are currently secure will generally not require any change. We apologize for the inconvenience. Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine On behalf of the Mbed TLS security team IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. -- Mbed-tls-announce mailing list -- mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org To unsubscribe send an email to mbed-tls-announce-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org

5 months

1
0
0 0

Inquiry about the ECC-160 bit size support in MbedTLS

by Ankita Hatmode

Hi Team, I am working on an embedded security project and exploring ECC support in MbedTLS 3.6.2. I would like to confirm whether the MbedTLS supports ECC-160 i.e. Elliptic Curve Cryptography with a 160 bit key size, in the latest version or any earlier versions. Looking forward to your response. Thanks and regards, Ankita Hatmode -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Disclaimer:** This email message including any attachments is confidential, and may be privileged and proprietary to Agiliad. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of this message including any attachments. You are NOT authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 months, 1 week

3
2
0 0

Problem during test_suite generation while cross-compiling on version 3.6.2

by Francois Mace

Hello Everybody, I am trying to migrate my cross-compilation setup from version 2.28.9 to version 3.6.2. I use a Makefile based approach for compilation. Everything seems to work fine up to the point where the compilation process reaches the test_suite data generation Gen suites/test_suite_psa_crypto_generate_key.generated.data suites/test_suite_psa_crypto_low_hash.generated.data suites/test_suite_psa_crypto_not_supported.generated.data suites/test_suite_psa_crypto_op_fail.generated.data suites/test_suite_psa_crypto_storage_format.current.data suites/test_suite_psa_crypto_storage_format.v0.data At that point it seems that the python based tools attempts to execute a temp executable (generated for my cross-compilation target ?) which fails. The traceback obtained is the following: Traceback (most recent call last): File "../framework/scripts/generate_psa_tests.py", line 849, in <module> test_data_generation.main(sys.argv[1:], __doc__, PSATestGenerator) File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/test_data_generation.py", line 224, in main generator.generate_target(target) File "../framework/scripts/generate_psa_tests.py", line 845, in generate_target super().generate_target(name, self.info) File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/test_data_generation.py", line 177, in generate_target self.write_test_data_file(name, test_cases) File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/test_data_generation.py", line 164, in write_test_data_file test_case.write_data_file(filename, test_cases) File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/test_case.py", line 88, in write_data_file for tc in test_cases: File "../framework/scripts/generate_psa_tests.py", line 694, in all_test_cases if key.location_value() != 0: File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/psa_storage.py", line 186, in location_value return self.lifetime.value() >> 8 File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/psa_storage.py", line 89, in value self.update_cache() File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/psa_storage.py", line 67, in update_cache include_path=includes) #type: List[str] File "/home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/framework/scripts/mbedtls_framework/c_build_helper.py", line 158, in get_c_expression_values output = subprocess.check_output([exe_name]) File "/usr/lib/python3.7/subprocess.py", line 395, in check_output **kwargs).stdout File "/usr/lib/python3.7/subprocess.py", line 472, in run with Popen(*popenargs, **kwargs) as process: File "/usr/lib/python3.7/subprocess.py", line 775, in __init__ restore_signals, start_new_session) File "/usr/lib/python3.7/subprocess.py", line 1522, in _execute_child raise child_exception_type(errno_num, err_msg, err_filename) OSError: [Errno 8] Exec format error: '/tmp/tmp--m95sjmdw' make[2]: *** [Makefile:127: generated_psa_test_data] Error 1 make[2] : on quitte le répertoire « /home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2/tests » make[1]: *** [Makefile:35: tests] Error 2 make[1] : on quitte le répertoire « /home/dev/test/mbed-TLS_3.6.2 » make: *** [test.make:152: all] Error 2 Looking at the format of the generated tmp executable, it seems it is generated for my cross-compilation target, it therefore cannot be executed in my compilation environment. I would like to be able to generate the test and test data in order to be able to execute them on my compilation target, which is what I used to do with the previously integrated version of the library. Is there something I am missing in my compilation? am I missing a specific setup variable in my Makefile? Thanks for your feedback. Best regards, Francois

6 months

2
1
0 0

Different performance from 2.6.2 to 3.6.2 for https file upload

by Stefano Tebaldi

Hello, I recently updated mbedTLS library version 2.6.2 to 3.6.2. I am using the library to add https to Mongoose web server on a STM32H753 with FreeRTOS + LWIP. 2.6.2 was generated in a IAR project using STMCubeMX. What I am noticing is that file transfer performance has gotten much worse. With version 2.6.2 it took a few minutes to transfer a file of around 33 MB, now with version 3.6.2 it takes around 15 min. What could this depend on? Attached is the configuration used for the two versions. The certificate for https is EC curve secp256r1. Thank you

6 months

2
4
0 0

[Mbed-tls-announce] Mbed TLS 4.0/TF-PSA Crypto 1.0 release timeline

by Janos Follath via Mbed-tls-announce

Dear Mbed TLS and PSA Crypto users, We would like to update you on the release timeline for Mbed TLS 4.0/TF-PSACrypto1.0 release. As a reminder, the key objectives of the release are a separate TF-PSA Crypto repo., PSA Crypto becoming the de facto Crypto API and Mbed TLS using PSA Crypto APIs as the crypto API by default. While TF-PSA Crypto repository is now available, the remaining effort to be ready for the release is more than we originally planned for. Based on remaining effort estimates, we plan to make Mbed TLS 4.0-Beta and TF-PSA Crypto 1.0-Beta release around end of June. The Mbed TLS 4.0, and TF-PSA Crypto 1.0 release is expected around end of September. We don’t expect users to integrate the Beta release. Beta is aimed to pipeclean the separate Mbed TLS and TF-PSA Crypto release process and get any early feedback. The release in September is expected to be integrated by users to their projects. We wanted to provide these revised release dates so that the users can plan accordingly. In the meantime, bug fixes and security fixes will continue to be provided via. Mbed TLS 3.6.x LTS releases. Thanks, Mbed TLS/PSA Crypto Maintainers. -- Mbed-tls-announce mailing list -- mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org To unsubscribe send an email to mbed-tls-announce-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

Support for Quantum Safe Algorithms

by NAYNA JAIN

Hi MbedTLS team, I have been following up the MbedTLS roadmap from here - https://mbed-tls.readthedocs.io/en/latest/project/roadmap/ . It talks about Post Quantum Cryptography support in future. And in the section of Long Term Plans for MbedTLS, I see the note related to PQC as "Regarding post-quantum cryptography (PQC) in particular, we do plan to wait until there are official standards: as of 2023, apart from stateful hash-based signatures, there are too many open questions about selected algorithms (choice of parameters, data formats, hybrid combinations…). This note seems to be pretty old as it refers to 2023.. So, are there any latest update on the roadmap? Is there any plan to support latest NIST standardized algorithms (ML-DSA, ML-KEM, SLH-DSA) in this year or next year. Thanks & Regards, * Nayna

6 months, 3 weeks

3
2
0 0

Using mbedTLS for TLS&X509 with a separate PSA Crypto Implementation

by Zak, Kevin

Hello mbedtls mailing list, I'm working to modify mbedTLS (3.6.2) to use our PSA Crypto Implementation in a separate library. Our solution does not make use of PSA 'drivers' that mbedTLS refers to. I've modified makefiles to not build PSA Crypto files, and have enabled MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_C & MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO. I've also defined MBEDTLS_PSA_ACCEL_ALG_XXX for our supported algorithms. 1. Is there a good way to determine whether a given TLS/X509 configuration would require a certain 'legacy' (maybe a better term is 'non-PSA') crypto file to be built into the mbedTLS library? * The goal is to build as few crypto source files into the mbedTLS source files as possible, maximizing usage of our separate PSA implementation 2. Example: My test application using mbedtls_x509_crt_parse() receives linking errors for mbedtls_ecp_(group/point)_xxx() and mbedtls_mpi_xxx() that are referenced in pkparse.c (which I am building into the library). * Ecp.c is currently excluded from the build (as is its define) - if I add it, I add significantly more linking errors for mbedtls_mpi APIs. I was under the impression that ECP and MPI APIs could be avoided with the correct configuration. * If ecp/mpi helper APIs are needed still for x509, this would be good to know. However, I'd like to avoid usage of MPI APIs that perform actual software calculations. See the screenshot for a list of non-PSA crypto files I am currently building to test with. I imagine I may have to add more incrementally. [cid:image001.png@01DB726D.879014D0] Any insights on this general use case or my ECP troubles with x509 would be appreciated. I plan to extend the strategy as these are the findings from an attempt to use just one x509 API. Best, Kevin Zak

6 months, 3 weeks

2
1
0 0

Use mbedtls_gcm_auth_decrypt get wrong tag

by Elva Huang

Dear mbed TLS team, Recently, while debugging my code, I encountered an issue when using the AES-GCM algorithm. I found that when calling the mbedtls_gcm_auth_decrypt interface in version 3.6.1, the calculated tag consistently does not match the input tag. However, when using the same interface in version 2.28.2, the tag is successfully calculated as expected. Below is the demo code we are using: tstSecKeyList g_stPreInterKey = { .u8KeyNum = 5U, .u8IsUse = 1U, .u16KeyLen = 16U, .u16IVLen = 12U, .u16AddLen = 16U, .enuSecType = SEC_AES_GCM, .au8Key = { 0x68U, 0xffU, 0xb7U, 0xffU, 0x5eU, 0xffU, 0x10U, 0xffU, 0x9eU, 0xffU, 0xb8U, 0xffU, 0x01U, 0xffU, 0xb9U, 0xffU, 0xa0U, 0xffU, 0x1cU, 0xffU, 0xdfU, 0xffU, 0x0aU, 0xffU, 0xe6U, 0xffU, 0xc8U, 0xffU, 0xc5U, 0xffU, 0x39U, 0xffU }, .au8Iv = { 0x3, 0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4, 0x5, 0x6, 0x7, 0x0, 0x1, 0x2, 0x3 }, .au8Add = { 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0 } .u16AddLen = 0, }; static uint8_t s_au8SecMemoryBuffer[6*1024]; mbedtls_gcm_context aesGcmContext; uint8_t *pau8EncryptedPlain = inParam0; (note: inParam0=434421d30c9abf31b96d2d28d00b5cb4e6fe84033999d53d3a50674b3aedd81f) uint8_t *pau8AesTag = inParam0 + 16; (e6fe84033999d53d3a50674b3aedd81f) uint8_t u8EncryptedPlainLen = 16; uint8_t u8AesTagKeyLen = 16; mbedtls_gcm_init(&aesGcmContext); mbedtls_memory_buffer_alloc_init(s_au8SecMemoryBuffer, 6*1024); vidPreInterKeyget(g_stPreInterKey.au8Key, au8preInterKey); mbedtls_gcm_setkey(&aesGcmContext, MBEDTLS_CIPHER_ID_AES, au8preInterKey, 16*8); s32Ret = mbedtls_gcm_auth_decrypt(&aesGcmContext, u8EncryptedPlainLen, g_stPreInterKey.au8Iv, g_stPreInterKey.u16IVLen, g_stPreInterKey.au8Add, g_stPreInterKey.u16AddLen, pau8AesTag, u8AesTagKeyLen, pau8EncryptedPlain, s_au8DecryptKey); Best regards,

6 months, 4 weeks

1
1
0 0

Question Regarding Change Cipher Spec States in the TLS 1.3 Handshake Protocol

by 千山啼祢

Dear Developer, I was reviewing the code and noticed that in the TLS 1.3 handshake protocol state machine, the "Change Cipher Spec" state has been divided into five different states based on its occurrence timing. Could you please clarify if there are any specific considerations for this approach? Additionally, these states can appear multiple times during a single handshake, which implies multiple "Change Cipher Spec" messages. However, the TLS 1.3 standard suggests that the "Change Cipher Spec" should only appear once in a single handshake. Could you kindly explain the rationale behind this design decision? Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. Best regards, XiangDong Li

7 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

mbed-tls