Re: [openssl-dev] rejecting elliptic_curves/supported_groups in ServerHello (new behavior in master/1.1.1 vs 1.1.0)

2017-10-04 Thread Mahesh Bhoothapuri
Thanks for the hint. The problem is fixed. Server was setting: if (SSL_CTX_set1_groups_list(ctx, "X25519:P-256") == 0) { // } The call succeeds. But the old TLS 1.2 code was setting: int nid = NID_X9_62_prime256v1; EC_KEY* ecdh = EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name(nid);

Re: [openssl-dev] [RFC] enc utility & under-documented behavior changes: improving backward compatibility

2017-10-04 Thread Michel
[...] I think we probably should have an option to not write out the header at all - but not to "increase security by obscurity". Rather it would be about having the ability to write out a "raw" encrypted file that could be consumed by some other tool. [...] +1 I will probably come back on

Re: [openssl-dev] Can I haz TLS 1.3 ?

2017-10-04 Thread Richard Levitte
It's not specific to devops. Here, a quick history lesson: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20356/origin-of-i-can-haz Cheers Richard Ted Marynicz skrev: (4 oktober 2017 10:53:35 CEST) >Haz? > >Is that some kind of devops-speak I am not (yet) aware of? > >Ted

Re: [openssl-dev] rejecting elliptic_curves/supported_groups in ServerHello (new behavior in master/1.1.1 vs 1.1.0)

2017-10-04 Thread Matt Caswell
On 03/10/17 16:15, Benjamin Kaduk via openssl-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > Doing some testing with a snapshot of master (s_client with -tls1_2 and > optionally a cipherspec that prefers ECDHE ciphers), we're running into > a sizeable number of servers that are sending extension 0xa (formerly >

Re: [openssl-dev] [RFC] enc utility & under-documented behavior changes: improving backward compatibility

2017-10-04 Thread Matt Caswell
On 03/10/17 18:51, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 09:45:43AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: >> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 08:23 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: >>> 1.2. This also opens the path to stronger key derivation (PBKDF2) 2. During decryption, if no header block is present,

Re: [openssl-dev] rejecting elliptic_curves/supported_groups in ServerHello (new behavior in master/1.1.1 vs 1.1.0)

2017-10-04 Thread Benjamin Kaduk via openssl-dev
On 10/04/2017 04:30 AM, Matt Caswell wrote: > > Looks like we should have an exception for this case (with a suitable > comment explaining why). Will you create a PR? > Yes, I was planning to.  I was just taking some time to ponder whether it's worth burning an option bit on, to allow an opt-out

Re: [openssl-dev] [RFC] enc utility & under-documented behavior changes: improving backward compatibility

2017-10-04 Thread Dr. Stephen Henson
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017, Matt Caswell wrote: > > As Tomas said - that ship has sailed. In my mind that change was a > mistake. It could have been done in a non-breaking way by introducing a > new header format at that time. > As regards a new header format. In the case of some of the structures

Re: [openssl-dev] Can I haz TLS 1.3 ?

2017-10-04 Thread Richard Moore
On 3 October 2017 at 20:45, Hanno Böck wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:36:03 + > "Salz, Rich via openssl-dev" wrote: > > So I heard chatter about this, but not much details. Which I find > unfortunate and a bit disturbing. (I'm aware of a single case

Re: [openssl-dev] rejecting elliptic_curves/supported_groups in ServerHello (new behavior in master/1.1.1 vs 1.1.0)

2017-10-04 Thread Dr. Stephen Henson
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017, Mahesh Bhoothapuri wrote: > if (SSL_CTX_set1_groups_list(ctx, "P-521:P-384:P-256") == 0) { >//error > } > If you have the above line you're telling the client to advertise support for P-521:P-384:P-256 in that order and the server to only use them. >

Re: [openssl-dev] rejecting elliptic_curves/supported_groups in ServerHello (new behavior in master/1.1.1 vs 1.1.0)

2017-10-04 Thread Mahesh Bhoothapuri
if (SSL_CTX_set1_groups_list(ctx, "P-521:P-384:P-256") == 0) { //error } The client and server both use SSL_CTX_set1_groups-list to set the supported group list. Right now, the server always has P-256 in the supported groups extension. When the the groups list is

Re: [openssl-dev] Can I haz TLS 1.3 ?

2017-10-04 Thread Ted Marynicz
Haz? Is that some kind of devops-speak I am not (yet) aware of? Ted (a grand-father) On 3 October 2017 at 18:36, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev < openssl-dev@openssl.org> wrote: > Some people have asked why TLS 1.3 isn’t available yet. This might help; > it’s a draft of a posting for my company’s

Re: [openssl-dev] rejecting elliptic_curves/supported_groups in ServerHello (new behavior in master/1.1.1 vs 1.1.0)

2017-10-04 Thread Mahesh Bhoothapuri
I am attaching a pcap where I set the supported list to contain X25519. The client extension contains X25519. However, the server still responds with keyshare extension secp256r1 in a hello retry request. This is the case for all the 5 TLS 1.3 ciphers. Is there another setting for the server to

Re: [openssl-dev] rejecting elliptic_curves/supported_groups in ServerHello (new behavior in master/1.1.1 vs 1.1.0)

2017-10-04 Thread Dr. Stephen Henson
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017, Mahesh Bhoothapuri wrote: > I am attaching a pcap where I set the supported list to contain X25519. > The client extension contains X25519. However, the server still responds > with keyshare extension secp256r1 in a hello retry request. > Are you calling

Re: [openssl-dev] Nasty bug in crypto/evp/m_sigver.c

2017-10-04 Thread Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
Forgot to add that when you do provide the engine impl in the EVP_DigestSignInit() invocation, the app fails because it tries to “outsource” the digesting of the data to the engine as well: $ ./t2a Using YubiHSM device... Signature padding is RSA-PSS padding Enter PKCS#11 token PIN for

[openssl-dev] Nasty bug in crypto/evp/m_sigver.c

2017-10-04 Thread Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
This bug prevents normal working of EVP_DigestSignInit() and subsequent calls when pkcs11 engine is involved. Scenario: hashing and signing data, when signing is done on a token that supports only internal padding (aka it performs RSA-PSS padding on-board, rather than letting software such