Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SSLv3 handshake with openssl-1.0.2-fips #4476

Open
lrstewart opened this issue Mar 26, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

SSLv3 handshake with openssl-1.0.2-fips #4476

lrstewart opened this issue Mar 26, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@lrstewart
Copy link
Contributor

Problem:

If you attempt to perform an SSLv3 handshake with openssl-1.0.2-fips, it will fail with errors not obviously related to SSLv3 not being allowed by FIPS. The first error is because we're not enabling MD5 right, but when I fixed that there were others.

Solution:

If FIPS is controlled by security policies, then openssl-1.0.2-fips should be able to do SSLv3 and we should fix the handshake. You can do an SSLv3 handshake with awslc-fips.
If not, then we should probably simply error if SSLv3 is negotiated with openssl-1.0.2-fips, rather than trying to perform the handshake and failing later. The error should make it clear that FIPS+SSLv3 is the problem.

  • Does this change what S2N sends over the wire? If yes, explain.
  • Does this change any public APIs? If yes, explain.
  • Which versions of TLS will this impact?

Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:

What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?

  • RFC links: Links to relevant RFC(s)
  • Related Issues: Link any relevant issues
  • Will the Usage Guide or other documentation need to be updated?
  • Testing: How will this change be tested? Call out new integration tests, functional tests, or particularly interesting/important unit tests.
    • Will this change trigger SAW changes? Changes to the state machine, the s2n_handshake_io code that controls state transitions, the DRBG, or the corking/uncorking logic could trigger SAW failures.
    • Should this change be fuzz tested? Will it handle untrusted input? Create a separate issue to track the fuzzing work.

Out of scope:

Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants