Dear Mbed TLS team,
I am trying to integrate Mbed TLS in our platform:
- nxp imx rt 1024 CPU (arm based)
- FreeRTOS (10.6)
- Lwip (2.2)
- Mbed TLS (3.6.2)
LWIP supports Mbed TLS when adding defines in their configuration:
/* ---------- TLS ------------------------- */
#define LWIP_ALTCP 1
#define LWIP_ALTCP_TLS 1
#define LWIP_ALTCP_TLS_MBEDTLS 1
But, unfortunately this supports an older version of Mbed TLS (I believe
2.2.x).
When I try to compile against the Mbed TLS 3.6.2 libraries, I get a bunch
of compiler warnings / errors. Most of them are mentioned in the migration
guide, but even then, I have a hard time figuring out how to resolve them
"the right way".
1. Private fields
The migration guide
<https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/blob/mbedtls-3.6/docs/3.0-migration-gui…>
explains that most structs are now considered private.
1.1: The altcp_mbed module in LWIP relies on the *out_left* field of the *ssl
context* struct.
/* calculate TLS overhead part to not send it to application */
overhead = state->overhead_bytes_adjust + state->ssl_context.out_left;
I am correct that this field is simply not exposed through accessor
functions? I can find functions like mbedtls_ssl_get_avail, so I would
expect something like mbedtls_ssl_get_bytes_to_write or something like that?
1.2: The altcp_mbed module in LWIP relies on the *start* field of the *ssl
session* struct.
err_t
altcp_tls_set_session(struct altcp_pcb *conn, struct altcp_tls_session
*session)
{
if (session && conn && conn->state) {
altcp_mbedtls_state_t *state = (altcp_mbedtls_state_t *)conn->state;
int ret = -1;
* if (session->data.start)*
ret = mbedtls_ssl_set_session(&state->ssl_context, &session->data);
return ret < 0 ? ERR_VAL : ERR_OK;
}
return ERR_ARG;
}
I also don't know how to obtain this field "the right way". I know this is
a bad idea, but it's all I got
if (session->data.*private_start)* ...
2. parse key expects a RNG function
This is also explained in the migration guide:
*Some functions gained an RNG parameterThis affects users of the following
functions: `mbedtls_ecp_check_pub_priv()`,`mbedtls_pk_check_pair()`,
`mbedtls_pk_parse_key()`, and`mbedtls_pk_parse_keyfile()`.You now need to
pass a properly seeded, cryptographically secure RNG whencalling these
functions. It is used for blinding, a countermeasure againstside-channel
attacks.*
Can you please give me some guidance here? I looked for examples in Mbed
TLS repo and ended up with this (bold parts are added, using the key_app.c
in your repo as leading example):
* mbedtls_entropy_context entropy; mbedtls_ctr_drbg_context ctr_drbg;
mbedtls_entropy_init(&entropy); mbedtls_ctr_drbg_init(&ctr_drbg); if
((ret = mbedtls_ctr_drbg_seed( &ctr_drbg,
mbedtls_entropy_func, &entropy, privkey,
privkey_len)) != 0) { // TODO: handle error } *
ret = mbedtls_pk_parse_key(
conf->pkey, privkey,
privkey_len,
privkey_pass,
privkey_pass_len,
*mbedtls_ctr_drbg_random, &ctr_drbg*);
3. The altcp_mbed module in LWIP relies on mbedtls_ssl_flush_output
The altcp_mbed module had an include on ssl internal.
#include "mbedtls/ssl_internal.h" /* to call mbedtls_flush_output after
ERR_MEM */
This header seems no longer part of the library. But the prototype of the
function is now part of ssl_misc.h, but I don't think I am supposed to rely
on this header either.
I have a couple of options:
- ignore the compiler warning
/home/dev_container/app/thirdparty/lwip/src/apps/altcp_tls/altcp_tls_mbedtls.c:535:5:
warning: implicit declaration of function 'mbedtls_ssl_flush_output'; did
you mean 'mbedtls_ssl_tls_prf'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
535 | mbedtls_ssl_flush_output(&state->ssl_context);
- copy paste the declaration in the LWIP source file
- Or.... don't flush any buffers managed by Mbed TLS in the first place?
For the last one, I could really use your input. Can you say anything
meaningful about the flush (line in bold) In the below function, Is it
mandatory? Or can I trust the Mbed TLS will flush the output buffer
whenever it needs to get flushed?
/** Sent callback from lower connection (i.e. TCP)
* This only informs the upper layer the number of ACKed bytes.
* This now take care of TLS added bytes so application receive
* correct ACKed bytes.
*/
static err_t
altcp_mbedtls_lower_sent(void *arg, struct altcp_pcb *inner_conn, u16_t len)
{
struct altcp_pcb *conn = (struct altcp_pcb *)arg;
LWIP_UNUSED_ARG(inner_conn); /* for LWIP_NOASSERT */
if (conn) {
int overhead;
u16_t app_len;
altcp_mbedtls_state_t *state = (altcp_mbedtls_state_t *)conn->state;
LWIP_ASSERT("state", state != NULL);
LWIP_ASSERT("pcb mismatch", conn->inner_conn == inner_conn);
/* calculate TLS overhead part to not send it to application */
mbedtls_ssl_get_bytes_avail(&state->ssl_context);
overhead = state->overhead_bytes_adjust +
state->ssl_context.private_out_left;
if ((unsigned)overhead > len) {
overhead = len;
}
/* remove ACKed bytes from overhead adjust counter */
state->overhead_bytes_adjust -= len;
/* try to send more if we failed before (may increase overhead adjust
counter) */
*mbedtls_ssl_flush_output(&state->ssl_context); // Does it make sense
this LWIP port is responsible for flushing here??*
/* remove calculated overhead from ACKed bytes len */
app_len = len - (u16_t)overhead;
/* update application write counter and inform application */
if (app_len) {
state->overhead_bytes_adjust += app_len;
if (conn->sent)
return conn->sent(conn->arg, conn, app_len);
}
}
return ERR_OK;
}
After applying the changes I mentioned above, the software compiles against
Mbed TLS. I haven't dared to run anything, I just want to enjoy this short
moment where I have the feeling I achieved something before runtime errors
ruin my day :).
Many thanks in advance for any reply!
Best regards, Bas
[image: image.png]
Hi Team
I am investigating the move from MbedTLS 2.25 to 3.6, however, our client uses the 2.25 currently (looks like they prefer to stay with it) and I need to provide convincing proof to move to 3.6 considering the upgrade issues that might arise. Any suggestions here that is convincing proof to do the migration to 3.6? I would appreciate your comments. Thanks
Michael
Dear Mbed TLS team,
I am at the early steps of trying to integrate Mbed TLS with LWIP for our
project (imx rt 1024 NXP micro, arm M7, running FreeRTOS and LWIP). I
understand the basics of TLS, but I am far from an expert.
Let me first apologise for the lengthy first email. I am afraid to leave
out details. Feel free to skip directly to the end marked with:
=============================
My questions:
=============================
Some background / translation of how I think it (should) work:
From a distance, I understand that LWIP has an abstraction layer on their
TCP module, which can be used to integrate Mbed TLS.
In fact, LWIP already did this, all I need to do is enable some directives
(LWIP_ALTCP_TLS and LWIP_ALTCP_TLS_MBEDTLS).
The implemented integration assumes a somewhat older version of Mbed TLS,
so I have to adjust a couple to cope with the breaking changes from Mbed
TLS 2.x to Mbed TLS 3.6.2.
But other than that, integrating Mbed TLS would mean:
- figure out which options i want to enable in Mbed TLS
- cross compile it for our arm toolchain
- extend our build scripts to compile against 3 static Mbed TLS libraries
- figure out how to read the CA certificates, and provide them to Mbed TLS
- test and fail, and hopefully be man enough to solve the challenges
ahead...
I haven't achieved much yet, but at least I managed to compile Mbed TLS
with our toolchain and recompile our project against the linked libraries.
This steps fails though, I get a bunch of linker errors :
[100%] Linking CXX executable app.axf
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_msg.c.obj):
in function `mbedtls_ssl_encrypt_buf':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_msg.c:1211:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_encrypt_buf+0x1b4):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_auth_encrypt_ext'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_msg.c.obj):
in function `mbedtls_ssl_decrypt_buf':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_msg.c:1638:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_decrypt_buf+0x180):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_auth_decrypt_ext'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_msg.c.obj):
in function `mbedtls_ssl_transform_free':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_msg.c:6213:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_transform_free+0x14):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_free'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_msg.c:6214:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_transform_free+0x1e):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_free'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_tls.c.obj):
in function `mbedtls_ssl_transform_init':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:1028:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_transform_init+0x18):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_init'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:1029:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_transform_init+0x22):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_init'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_tls.c.obj):
in function `mbedtls_ssl_get_mode_from_ciphersuite':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:2453:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_get_mode_from_ciphersuite+0x12):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_info_from_type'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_tls.c.obj):
in function `mbedtls_ssl_parse_finished':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:8680:(.text.mbedtls_ssl_parse_finished+0xac):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_ct_memcmp'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_tls.c.obj):
in function `ssl_tls12_populate_transform':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:8878:(.text.ssl_tls12_populate_transform+0xa6):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_info_from_type'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:9136:(.text.ssl_tls12_populate_transform+0x454):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setup'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:9142:(.text.ssl_tls12_populate_transform+0x476):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setup'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:9148:(.text.ssl_tls12_populate_transform+0x4a8):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setkey'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls.c:9155:(.text.ssl_tls12_populate_transform+0x4da):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setkey'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
CMakeFiles/app.dir/home/dev/app/thirdparty/lwip/src/apps/altcp_tls/altcp_tls_mbedtls.c.obj:
in function `altcp_mbedtls_sndbuf':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/lwip/src/apps/altcp_tls/altcp_tls_mbedtls.c:1192:(.text.altcp_mbedtls_sndbuf+0x7e):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_ssl_get_max_frag_len'
/opt/gcc-arm-none-eabi/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/13.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld:
/home/dev/app/source/iobox-app/../../thirdparty/mbedtls/build/library/libmbedtls.a(ssl_tls12_server.c.obj):
in function `ssl_parse_client_psk_identity':
/home/dev/app/thirdparty/mbedtls/library/ssl_tls12_server.c:3638:(.text.ssl_parse_client_psk_identity+0xb6):
undefined reference to `mbedtls_ct_memcmp'
The distinct list undefined references of the above:
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_auth_encrypt_ext'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_auth_decrypt_ext'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_free'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_init'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_info_from_type'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_ct_memcmp'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setup'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setup'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setkey'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_cipher_setkey'
undefined reference to `mbedtls_ssl_get_max_frag_len'
All except the last one are coming from Mbed TSL internally, so I *guess*
this means I am missing options? Or maybe I am still having too many?
The last one is called from the LWIP integration of Mbed TLS, and I could
"sweep this under the carpet" by disabling
"MBEDTLS_SSL_MAX_FRAGMENT_LENGTH". But I haven't looked further in what I
cause if I do not support "RFC 6066 max_fragment_length extension in SSL"
My Mbed TLS configuration:
I followed the suggestion of your documentation, and went for a minimal
example configuration. Pure on intuition, I went for
"config-ccm-psk-dtls1_2.h". Because the file name suggests it brings TSL
1.2 which is basically all I need. I think.
I did had to make the following changes in order to be able to compile it:
1. Comment out two defines in order to get rid of module requiring
"windows or unix"
//#define MBEDTLS_NET_C
//#define MBEDTLS_TIMING_C
2. Add a define, again to get rid of the compiler error "require windows or
unix"
#define MBEDTLS_NO_PLATFORM_ENTROPY
After applying these small changes to the include/mbedtls/mbedtls_config.h
I was able to cross compile (and link) Mbed TLS with arm-none-eabi
toolchain.
Once I adjusted the build scripts to lnk against the Mbed TLS static
libraries, I finally ended up with the earlier mentioned linker errors.
=============================
My questions:
=============================
1. Does my starting point configuration make sense?
As mentioned earlier, pure intuition made me try the
"config-ccm-psk-dtls1_2.h" configuration example, which after some
modifications compiled and produced 3 static libraries. but, this bit in
the example header worries me a bit:
* Distinguishing features:
* - Optimized for small code size, low bandwidth (on an unreliable
transport),
* and low RAM usage.
* - No asymmetric cryptography (no certificates, no Diffie-Hellman key
* exchange).
* - Fully modern and secure (provided the pre-shared keys are generated and
* stored securely).
* - Very low record overhead with CCM-8.
* - Includes several optional DTLS features typically used in IoT.
What does "no asymmetric cryptography" exactly mean? Isn't that the pure
basis of TLS altogether?
If I want to achieve HTTPS using TLS, is this a good starting point?
2. Undefined references: wrong configuration, or should I supply some of
the implementations?
As mentioned before, I have quite a few linking errors related to the
cipher module. I tried to find answers in the documentation, but came up
empty.
I assume (again...) that I should be able to get rid of these linking
errors by enabling more features in Mbed TLS. But I honestly get lost in
#define's. And maybe it's documented somewhere, but I couldn't find it.
3. Root CA provided by me?
I assume I *need* to provide at least one root CA for Mbed TLS to be able
to verify the public key provided by the server, at some point, right? I
would expect some callback I need to implement where such a root CA was
read (in my case, i would have to read if from flash). Am I
misunderstanding Mbed TLS on this aspect also? Or did I just miss the
obvious spot where to Mbed TLS requests a root CA?
4. More examples available for typical microcontroller projects
(FreeRTOS/LWIP)?
My experience so far is:
- Mbed TLS is well documented
- LWIP is no longer actively maintained, and lacks documentation in general
- Google finds a painful amount of LWIP/TLS integrations which are based on
really old implementations of both, which does more harm than good for me
- Chat GPT knows everything, even when it doesn't, which is a really great
recipe to get on the wrong track... It doesn't seem rather helpful on my
integration questions for Mbed TLS/LWIP. Disclaimer: could be that my lack
of knowledge is causing gpt to come up with wrong answers of course...
I understand that my email is (too?) long, and that the chance somebody
will actually find the time to help me out is limited.
I expect nothing,
I hope for everything :)
ANY help is more than welcome. Good references, links to official
documentation I missed, or in the best case: answers to my
questions/uncertainties.
Many thanks in advance.
Best regards, Bas
Hi,
I am trying to build lief which is dependent on mbedtls as a static library.
I am using conan recipe to build using cmake.
The build of the library succeeded, however later while trying to build my
own application and link with lief I get the following error:
LIEF.lib(x509.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol
mbedtls_snprintf
What do I do wrong?
Or should I configure something while building the mbedtls library ?
Thanks,
Gal.
Dear Mbed TLS maintainers,
I have surveyed Mbed TLS and know that it has features which can improve
AES block cipher performance by hardware instructions instead of SW
implementation
e.q., AESCE of ARMV8 and AESNI of INTEL.
AS far as I know about RISC-V Cryptography extension(Zkne and Zknd),
it also supports relevant AES instructions which can accelerate aes
key schedule, encryption and decryption process.
(https://tools.cloudbear.ru/docs/riscv-crypto-spec-scalar-1.0.0-rc6-20211012…)
I want to ask for your opinions and agreement.
Is there any willingness to accept this RISC-V accelerated feature
idea and contribution to Mbed TLS ?
If you agree with it, I would like to prepare a pull request for you to review.
Sincerely,
Rick
Dear Mbed TLS users,
We have released Mbed TLS version 3.6.2. This release provides a security fix for an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the pkwrite module.
Full details are available in the release notes:
https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/tag/mbedtls-3.6.2
We recommend all users to consider whether they are impacted, and to upgrade appropriately.
Many thanks,
David Horstmann
Mbed TLS developer
Hi,
I'm currently working on adding mbedTLS 3.x support for Privoxy [0].
Everything seems to be working but I ifdef'ed out the following
code in [1] that worked with mbedTLS 2.28.8:
/*
* Check if key and issuer certificate match
*/
if (!mbedtls_pk_can_do(&issuer_cert.pk, MBEDTLS_PK_RSA) ||
mbedtls_mpi_cmp_mpi(&mbedtls_pk_rsa(issuer_cert.pk)->N,
&mbedtls_pk_rsa(*issuer_key)->N) != 0 ||
mbedtls_mpi_cmp_mpi(&mbedtls_pk_rsa(issuer_cert.pk)->E,
&mbedtls_pk_rsa(*issuer_key)->E) != 0)
{
log_error(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR,
"Issuer key doesn't match issuer certificate");
ret = -1;
goto exit;
}
As N and E are private now it no longer compiles.
Is there a way to implement the check with mbedTLS 3.x?
My impression is that the sanity check is overly cautious
and we don't have equivalent code for OpenSSL and wolfSSL
but I'm curious.
Thanks,
Fabian
[0] <https://www.privoxy.org/>
[1] <https://www.privoxy.org/gitweb/?p=privoxy.git;a=blob;f=ssl.c;h=e8007cd9adad…>
Hello,
I'm running into an issue with using Mbed-TLS on an embedded device of ours and I'm curious if anyone would be able to point me in the right direction. If this is the wrong channel for general use questions, let me know and I'll search elsewhere. As a forewarning, I'm still getting my bearings around the nuts and bolts of Mbed-TLS and network security; apologies if I misstate something or jumble things up.
Our device uses Mbed-TLS 3.0.0; ideally I'd like to upgrade this to a newer version, but this version was included in a SDK package for our device and I'd like to get some basic functionality proven out first before trying to reintegrate a newer version into the rest of provided code. The current goal is to get our device to serve a web page over HTTPS with TLS.
What we currently see is that the initial hello client and server messages are exchanged without issue, but the connection is rejected after the server requests a certificate from the client. In some browsers, this opens a prompt where you can select a given certificate on the machine; in others, it skips this prompt and sends a response back with an empty certificate. In both instances, the server will return an error and deny the connection.
This seems like some sort of user configuration error, given your average web page served over HTTPS on the internet avoids making this request. The literature I've been able to find so far also seems to suggest this request is entirely optional. Is there some option I'm overlooking that makes the server skip asking the client for its certificate and lets connection continue on?
Michael Reutman
Senior Embedded Software Engineer
NovaTech Automation
261 Brodhead Rd.
Bethlehem, PA 18017
novatechautomation.com<http://www.novatechautomation.com/> | NovaTechLinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/565017>
NovaTech Automation is Net Zero committed. #KeepItCool<https://www.keepitcool.earth/>
Receipt of this email implies compliance with our terms and conditions<https://www.novatechautomation.com/email-terms-conditions>.
Hi,
I'm trying to parse this DER encoded certificate in hex format:
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
This certificate is part of a simple test for this specification
https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/master/tls/tls.md
I'm using this https://github.com/status-im/nim-mbedtls Nim language
library wrapper for mbedtls. I don't know the mbedtls version exactly,
but the lib is based on this commit
https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/tree/09d23786f6fdcb4dfa88aad30c8767bd27….
In my code I use:
proc parseUnverified*(derInput: seq[byte]) =
var crt: mbedtls_x509_crt
mbedtls_x509_crt_init(addr crt)
var ret = mbedtls_x509_crt_parse_der(addr crt, unsafeAddr
derInput[0], derInput.len.uint)
if ret != 0:
raise newException(Exception, "Failed to parse certificate, error
code: " & $ret)
which is a straightforward version of the C code, but ti fails with:
Failed to parse certificate, error code: -9186 [Exception]
It seems the problem is because the certificate doesn't have the
Distinguished Name set. Does it make sense? If this is really the
cause of the problem, is there any workaround?
Regards.
