Tested-by: Rosen Penev
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Eneas U de Queiroz via openwrt-devel
wrote:
> The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows
> sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
>
> To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped
> automatically by the mailing list software.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Eneas U de Queiroz
> To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> Cc: Eneas U de Queiroz
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 01:03:40 -0300
> Subject: [PATCH v3 0/3] ustream-ssl: support openssl 1.1.0, revised security
> I've fixed a bug in the handling of BIO flags.
>
> I've made some changes to the security options used in the library, and
> made them more uniform across all supported libraries (mbedtls, wolfssl,
> openssl 1.0.2 & openssl 1.1.0).
> The biggest, and probably most controversial change is in the
> ciphersuite ordering. Here's my reasoning:
> The first priority was key exchange, to provide forward-security.
> Then comes encryption algorithm. AEAD ciphers are chosen first. They are
> chacha20-poly1305 (256 bits), and aes-gcm (128 & 256 bits variants).
> Among the three, I've selected chacha20-poly1305 because of higher
> performance and strength. Here's a table generated by openssl speed on
> ramips:
>
> ((openssl speed -evp chacha20-poly1305 | egrep "^(type|chacha)") && \
> (openssl speed -evp aes-128-gcm && openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm) | \
> egrep "^aes") 2>/dev/null
> type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
> 16384 bytes
> chacha20-poly1305 6873.30k 10734.22k 12217.75k 12613.07k 12769.39k
> 12665.00k
> aes-128-gcm3759.88k 4280.96k 4415.66k4437.79k 4456.12k
> 4436.88k
> aes-256-gcm3408.83k 3738.10k 3838.52k3841.90k 3864.31k
> 3882.17k
>
> I'm assuming most routers running openwrt are not going to have
> AES-capable chips. If we were to run the benchmark in a newer server,
> I'd bump AES-256 to the top. This is what it looks like in my x86_64:
>
> type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
> 16384 bytes
> chacha20-poly1305 206412.13k 400740.77k 788942.85k 869130.38k 899400.83k
> 893596.97k
> aes-128-gcm 283449.15k 730408.60k 1074886.58k 1176372.95k 1232831.03k
> 1245781.87k
> aes-256-gcm 238760.79k 660843.45k 967903.44k 1071756.62k 1089887.49k
> 1089552.89k
>
> This could be added as an option, or selected automatically depending on
> architecture. The difference is more dramatic for the lesser capable
> chips anyway.
> You can check your "grade" at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/. You'll
> get an A on openssl and mbedtls, and an A- with wolfssl--the minus is
> due to lack of secure renegotiation. There's an option to enable it, but
> wolfssl does not recommend using it.I've made some changes to the
> security options used in the library, and made them more uniform across
> all supported libraries (mbedtls, wolfssl, openssl 1.0.2 & openssl
> 1.1.0)
>
> The mbedtls patch can be applied on its own, independent of the openssl
> patch.
>
> Eneas U de Queiroz (3):
> ustream-ssl: add openssl-1.1.0 compatibility
> ustream-ssl: Revised security on openssl/wolfssl
> ustream-ssl: Revised security on mbedtls
>
> openssl_bio_compat.h | 33 ++
> ustream-io-openssl.c | 46 +++---
> ustream-mbedtls.c| 49 +++-
> ustream-openssl.c| 80
>
> 4 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 openssl_bio_compat.h
>
> --
> 2.16.4
>
>
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/listinfo/openwrt-devel
