On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Andrew Cagney wrote:
On 11 December 2015 at 13:27, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
Note Hugh had one comment regarding the "stop reading when you found
an acceptable proposal to return". It could be that the unread remainder
of the proposal/transforms are badly formed. It could be argued that
we should return NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN or INVALID_SYNTAX.
How liberal should we be in what we accept :-)
liberal does apply to cryptography :)
We need to be careful. I been wondering if the current code, which
does parse the entire set of proposals, is rejecting things it should
have skipped.
How about I parse everything and:
- if packet.[hc] returns an error then I'll bail
- however, if the contents are messed up (zero or missing keylen for
aes; AEAD with AUTH; unknown type; ...), I'll skip and continue
I believe that follows the intent of the RFC.
That sounds perfect.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Swan-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
