Re: [openssl-1.1.1l] TLS1.2 Server responses with Alert

[Mark Hack]

The server error is correct - the signature_algorithms_cert extension
does not offer rsa_pkcs1_sha256 (0x0401) which is the server
certificate signing algorithm.
If the client is written in Java, check java.security  for
"jdk.certpath.disabledAlgorithms"  and check the constraints.


On Fri, 2021-12-31 at 15:05 +, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> > From: openssl-users  On Behalf
> > Of Ma Zhenhua
> > Sent: Thursday, 30 December, 2021 23:59
> > On the SSL/TLS server, there's one error as follows. 
> > "SSL Error(118) - no suitable signature algorithm"
> 
> Debugging handshake failures isn't my area of expertise, but I note
> both ClientHellos include a signature_algorithms extension, and the
> contents are quite different. In particular, the successful
> ClientHello includes the Signature Hash Algorithm Hash and Signature
> Hash Algorithm Signature parameters, while the failing one doesn't.
> 
> The failing one also includes a signature_algorithms_cert extension,
> while the successful one does not. I don't know offhand how the
> algorithms specified in that extension correspond to the signature-
> algorithm OIDs in signatures, but the server's certificate has
> 1.2.840.113549.1.1.11 (sha256WithRSAEncryption) which seems like it
> ought to correspond to either rsa_pss_rsae_sha256 or
> rsa_pss_pss_sha256. (Apparently those are both RSA-PSS with SHA256,
> as the name implies, and the difference between the two of them is
> whether the public key is encoded using the rsaEncryption format in
> the certificate, or the id-RSASSA-PSS format. The failing client is
> saying it understands both, AIUI.)
> 
> So my guess would be the server is unhappy that the failing client's
> ClientHello doesn't include the parameters for the various supported
> signature schemes in its signature_algorithms extension. But that's
> just a guess, and I don't know how you'd fix it.
> 

RE: [openssl-1.1.1l] TLS1.2 Server responses with Alert

[Michael Wojcik]

> From: openssl-users  On Behalf Of Ma 
> Zhenhua
> Sent: Thursday, 30 December, 2021 23:59

> On the SSL/TLS server, there's one error as follows. 
> "SSL Error(118) - no suitable signature algorithm"

Debugging handshake failures isn't my area of expertise, but I note both 
ClientHellos include a signature_algorithms extension, and the contents are 
quite different. In particular, the successful ClientHello includes the 
Signature Hash Algorithm Hash and Signature Hash Algorithm Signature 
parameters, while the failing one doesn't.

The failing one also includes a signature_algorithms_cert extension, while the 
successful one does not. I don't know offhand how the algorithms specified in 
that extension correspond to the signature-algorithm OIDs in signatures, but 
the server's certificate has 1.2.840.113549.1.1.11 (sha256WithRSAEncryption) 
which seems like it ought to correspond to either rsa_pss_rsae_sha256 or 
rsa_pss_pss_sha256. (Apparently those are both RSA-PSS with SHA256, as the name 
implies, and the difference between the two of them is whether the public key 
is encoded using the rsaEncryption format in the certificate, or the 
id-RSASSA-PSS format. The failing client is saying it understands both, AIUI.)

So my guess would be the server is unhappy that the failing client's 
ClientHello doesn't include the parameters for the various supported signature 
schemes in its signature_algorithms extension. But that's just a guess, and I 
don't know how you'd fix it.

-- 
Michael Wojcik

RE: undefined symbol: OSSL_provider_init when running "make test" for OpenSSL 3.0

[Lee Staniforth]

Thanks very much, Matt and defulger.
Removing the "-fvisibility=hidden" has enabled the tests to pass.

I'll now have to see how my application (which is statically linked to OpenSSL) 
fairs.

Lee

From: Matt Caswell 
Sent: 23 December 2021 10:13
To: Lee Staniforth ; openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: undefined symbol: OSSL_provider_init when running "make test" for 
OpenSSL 3.0

On 21/12/2021 15:09, Lee Staniforth wrote: > ./Configure linux-x86_64 no-shared 
-m64 -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden Try dropping "-fvisibility=hidden". I can 
replicate this problem when using no-shared and
External (m...@openssl.org)
  Report This 
Email
  FAQ  Protection by 
INKY






On 21/12/2021 15:09, Lee Staniforth wrote:

> ./Configure linux-x86_64 no-shared -m64 -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden



Try dropping "-fvisibility=hidden". I can replicate this problem when

using no-shared and -fvisibility=hidden. If I drop the

"-fvisibility=hidden" the problem goes away.



Matt