Hi Thomas,
Can you confirm its tied to new extensions to TLS 1.2 client hello and
whether you diagnosed which one was the problem in Lotus Notes case ?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:05 AM Thomas Lußnig <open...@suche.org
<mailto:open...@suche.org>> wrote:
Hi,
maybe two points.
1) Older lotus notes server have the problem.
2) The problem can be solved if you disable TLSv1.3 or even TLSv1.2
3) Maybe it would be an good idea to build an set of client
hello's with
different options.
Or even an generator. Than you send if and check the result
since
the servers with problem
only reply with an ssl alert. So you can check it without an
ssl
engine or jdk build
Gruß Thomas
Am 13.02.2019 um 22:44:31 schrieb Xuelei Fan:
> Hi Amir,
>
> Could you build OpenJDK by yourself? If it is doable, I could send
> your a patch to disable the extension so that you can confirm if
and
> which extension is the underlying problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>
>
> On 2/13/2019 1:16 PM, Amir Khassaia wrote:
>> Hi Xuelei,
>> There were 2 distinct cases of change of behaviour.
>>
>> * The "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI provided" reliably works
>> without SNI in Java 8 but is indeed fixed by having an SNI
included
>> which perhaps was needed all along. This one is reported by
XMPP/TLS
>> connection from talk.google.com:5222
<http://talk.google.com:5222> <http://talk.google.com:5222>
>> * The aborted handshake case (client_hello traces that I've
provided)
>> this happened with a hardware device which was replicable
with an
>> SSL socket handshake program that I referenced in the gist.
>> Unfortunately replication requires a specific device model
so it
>> wont be possible to see it for yourself. The workaround
there was to
>> either downgrade JRE to < 11 or to switch JRE globally to
use TLS
>> 1.0 or TLS 1.1 via the system property. This is where your
proposed
>> enhancement will be of great help as it will allow a per
connection
>> type decision.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:01 PM Xuelei Fan
<xuelei....@oracle.com <mailto:xuelei....@oracle.com>
>> <mailto:xuelei....@oracle.com <mailto:xuelei....@oracle.com>>>
wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amir,
>>
>> It should be rare now the a TLS vendor cannot ignore unknown
>> extensions.
>>
>> > "issuer": "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI provided;
>> > please fix your client."",
>> The error message encapsulated in the certificate does not
sound
>> right
>> to me. Is it caused by the absence of SNI extension?
>>
>> Did you have a test case that I can reproduce the problem?
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Xuelei
>>
>>
>> On 1/7/2019 9:27 PM, Amir Khassaia wrote:
>> > Xuelei,
>> > The certificate in the connection is a red herring and not
>> important.
>> > It's actually a very unusual behaviour by
talk.google.com <http://talk.google.com>
>> <http://talk.google.com>
>> > <http://talk.google.com> endpoint to encapsulate an
error message
>> inside
>> > a certificate.
>> >
>> > As per the output I included:
>> >
>> > /"certificate" : { />/ "version" : "v3", />/
>> "serial number" : "00 90 76 89 18 E9 33 93 A0", />/
>> "signature algorithm": "SHA256withRSA", />/ "issuer"
>> : "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI provided; />/please
fix your
>> client."", />/ "not before" : "2015-01-01
11:00:00.000
>> AEDT", />/ "not after" : "2030-01-01
11:00:00.000 AEDT",
>> />/ "subject" : "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI
>> provided; />/please fix your client."",/
>> >
>> > /
>> > /
>> >
>> > This certificate simply masks the TLS interoperability
issue
>> as an
>> > untrusted certificate issue.
>> >
>> > The fact is, some of the extensions sent by JSSE are
changes to
>> TLS 1.2
>> > to support TLS 1.3, this however affects some clients
>> adversely in
>> > practice and usually JDK provides properties to turn new
>> enhancements
>> > off and work around such behaviour, for the extensions I
>> mentioned this
>> > is not provided and hence they are always sent for
client sockets
>> unless
>> > TLSv1.2 is not in use.
>> >
>> > The impact to us is that upgrading to JDK11 means for some
>> endpoints or
>> > devices that are not 100% compliant to the spec the
security is
>> reduced
>> > as we have to now work around to drop connections to
these to
>> TLSv1.1 or
>> > TLS1.0 or not to move to Java 11 at all.
>> >
>> > My request is simply to have all of the new extensions
>> configurable on
>> > individual basis so that they can be turned off if
needed for
>> > compatibility just like most other security enhancements
that
>> were
>> > delivered in the past.
>> >
>> > It appears some of the issues can come from
>> >
>> > - inclusion of RSASSA-PSS alg in TLS 1.2 handshakes but
these can
>> > disabled at least
>> >
>> > -signature_algorithms_cert and supported_versions extensions
>> which seem
>> > to be hardcoded for TLS 1.2 (I was not able to conclusively
>> identify
>> > which of these caused my troubles)
>> >
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446#section-1.3 does say
that TLS
>> 1.2
>> > clients are affected but in an optional manner.Just
today I've
>> > encountered another Java 11 interop issue with TLS but
this time
>> with a
>> > physical device which can have a long shelf life yet
running a
>> simple
>> > client socket handshake abruptly terminates the
connection upon
>> client
>> > hello (no server_hello at all), and downgrading the JRE
below 11
>> works
>> > fine. I'm including a trace for that as well:
>> >
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-0813:40:14.395
>> AEDT|SSLCipher.java:437|jdk.tls.keyLimits: entry =
>> AES/GCM/NoPadding KeyUpdate2^37. AES/GCM/NOPADDING:KEYUPDATE
>> =137438953472
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|WARNING|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.433
>> > AEDT|ServerNameExtension.java:255|Unable to indicate
server name
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.433
>> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
>> extension:
>> > server_name
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.433
>> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
>> extension:
>> > status_request
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|WARNING|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.443
>> > AEDT|SignatureScheme.java:282|Signature algorithm,
ed25519, is
>> not
>> > supported by the underlying providers
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|WARNING|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.444
>> > AEDT|SignatureScheme.java:282|Signature algorithm,
ed448, is not
>> > supported by the underlying providers
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|INFO|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.449
>> > AEDT|AlpnExtension.java:161|No available application
protocols
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.449
>> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
>> extension:
>> > application_layer_protocol_negotiation
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.450
>> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
>> extension:
>> > status_request_v2
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.453
>> > AEDT|ClientHello.java:651|Produced ClientHello handshake
>> message (
>> >
>> > "ClientHello": {
>> >
>> > "client version" : "TLSv1.2",
>> >
>> > "random" : "1A BA E8 FC 59 00 AB DF 9A 1A
07 94 24
>> 7F 34 3D
>> > 0B D2 7D 10 72 52 54 CD 44 43 62 E8 8B 42 C6 68",
>> >
>> > "session id" : "",
>> >
>> > "cipher suites" :
>> > "[TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0xC023),
>> > TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0xC027),
>> > TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0x003C),
>> > TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0xC029),
>> > TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA(0x002F)]",
>> >
>> > "compression methods" : "00",
>> >
>> > "extensions" : [
>> >
>> > "supported_groups (10)": {
>> >
>> > "versions": [secp256r1, secp384r1, secp521r1, secp160k1]
>> >
>> > },
>> >
>> > "ec_point_formats (11)": {
>> >
>> > "formats": [uncompressed]
>> >
>> > },
>> >
>> > "signature_algorithms (13)": {
>> >
>> > "signature schemes": [ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256,
>> ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384,
>> > ecdsa_secp512r1_sha512, rsa_pss_rsae_sha256,
rsa_pss_rsae_sha384,
>> > rsa_pss_rsae_sha512, rsa_pss_pss_sha256, rsa_pss_pss_sha384,
>> > rsa_pss_pss_sha512, rsa_pkcs1_sha256, rsa_pkcs1_sha384,
>> > rsa_pkcs1_sha512, dsa_sha256, ecdsa_sha224, rsa_sha224,
>> dsa_sha224,
>> > ecdsa_sha1, rsa_pkcs1_sha1, dsa_sha1, rsa_md5]
>> >
>> > },
>> >
>> > "signature_algorithms_cert (50)": {
>> >
>> > "signature schemes": [ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256,
>> ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384,
>> > ecdsa_secp512r1_sha512, rsa_pss_rsae_sha256,
rsa_pss_rsae_sha384,
>> > rsa_pss_rsae_sha512, rsa_pss_pss_sha256, rsa_pss_pss_sha384,
>> > rsa_pss_pss_sha512, rsa_pkcs1_sha256, rsa_pkcs1_sha384,
>> > rsa_pkcs1_sha512, dsa_sha256, ecdsa_sha224, rsa_sha224,
>> dsa_sha224,
>> > ecdsa_sha1, rsa_pkcs1_sha1, dsa_sha1, rsa_md5]
>> >
>> > },
>> >
>> > "extended_master_secret (23)": {
>> >
>> > <empty>
>> >
>> > },
>> >
>> > "supported_versions (43)": {
>> >
>> > "versions": [TLSv1.2, TLSv1.1]
>> >
>> > },
>> >
>> > "renegotiation_info (65,281)": {
>> >
>> > "renegotiated connection": [<no renegotiated connection>]
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> > ]
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> > )
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.455
>> > AEDT|Alert.java:232|Received alert message (
>> >
>> > "Alert": {
>> >
>> > "level" : "fatal",
>> >
>> > "description": "handshake_failure"
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> > )
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|ERROR|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.456
>> > AEDT|TransportContext.java:313|Fatal (HANDSHAKE_FAILURE):
>> Received fatal
>> > alert: handshake_failure (
>> >
>> > "throwable" : {
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException: Received fatal
alert:
>> > handshake_failure
>> >
>> > at
>> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:128)
>> >
>> > at
>> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:117)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.fatal(TransportContext.java:308)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert$AlertConsumer.consume(Alert.java:279)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.dispatch(TransportContext.java:181)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLTransport.decode(SSLTransport.java:164)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.decode(SSLSocketImpl.java:1152)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readHandshakeRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:1063)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.startHandshake(SSLSocketImpl.java:402)
>> >
>> > at SslSocketClient.main(SslSocketClient.kt:47)}
>> >
>> >
>> > )
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.457
>> > AEDT|SSLSocketImpl.java:1361|close the underlying socket
>> >
>> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.457
>> > AEDT|SSLSocketImpl.java:1380|close the SSL connection
>> (initiative)
>> >
>> > Exception in thread "main"
javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException:
>> Received
>> > fatal alert: handshake_failure
>> >
>> > at
>> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:128)
>> >
>> > at
>> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:117)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.fatal(TransportContext.java:308)
>> >
>> > at
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert$AlertConsumer.consume(Alert.java:279)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.dispatch(TransportContext.java:181)
>> >
>> > at
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLTransport.decode(SSLTransport.java:164)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.decode(SSLSocketImpl.java:1152)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readHandshakeRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:1063)
>> >
>> > at
>> >
>>
java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.startHandshake(SSLSocketImpl.java:402)
>> >
>> > at SslSocketClient.main(SslSocketClient.kt:47)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
