MIRRORS/poky
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky.git synced 2025-07-19 12:59:02 +02:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

openssl: Security fix for CVE-2023-0464, CVE-2023-0465, CVE-2023-0466

Browse Source 
Upstream-Status:
- CVE-2023-0464: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=959c59c7a0164117e7f8366466a32bb1f8d77ff1]
- CVE-2023-0465: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=1dd43e0709fece299b15208f36cc7c76209ba0bb]
- CVE-2023-0466: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=51e8a84ce742db0f6c70510d0159dad8f7825908]

(From OE-Core rev: c650340c11567ae145151683a65ee54afdcf08e8)

Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi <sdoshi@mvista.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve Sakoman <steve@sakoman.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Siddharth Doshi 2023-03-29 20:23:56 +05:30 committed by Richard Purdie
parent 79dd246cc5
commit cbe5fda5a7
4 changed files with 334 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

225
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0464.patch Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
From 959c59c7a0164117e7f8366466a32bb1f8d77ff1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pauli <pauli@openssl.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:28:20 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] x509: excessive resource use verifying policy constraints
A security vulnerability has been identified in all supported versions
of OpenSSL related to the verification of X.509 certificate chains
that include policy constraints. Attackers may be able to exploit this
vulnerability by creating a malicious certificate chain that triggers
exponential use of computational resources, leading to a denial-of-service
(DoS) attack on affected systems.
Fixes CVE-2023-0464
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis <shane.lontis@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20568)
Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=959c59c7a0164117e7f8366466a32bb1f8d77ff1]
CVE: CVE-2023-0464
Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi <sdoshi@mvista.com>
---
crypto/x509/pcy_local.h | 8 +++++++-
crypto/x509/pcy_node.c | 12 +++++++++---
crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/crypto/x509/pcy_local.h b/crypto/x509/pcy_local.h
index 18b53cc..cba107c 100644
--- a/crypto/x509/pcy_local.h
+++ b/crypto/x509/pcy_local.h
@@ -111,6 +111,11 @@ struct X509_POLICY_LEVEL_st {
};
struct X509_POLICY_TREE_st {
+ /* The number of nodes in the tree */
+ size_t node_count;
+ /* The maximum number of nodes in the tree */
+ size_t node_maximum;
+
/* This is the tree 'level' data */
X509_POLICY_LEVEL *levels;
int nlevel;
@@ -157,7 +162,8 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_tree_find_sk(STACK_OF(X509_POLICY_NODE) *sk,
X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
X509_POLICY_NODE *parent,
- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree);
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
+ int extra_data);
void ossl_policy_node_free(X509_POLICY_NODE *node);
int ossl_policy_node_match(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *lvl,
const X509_POLICY_NODE *node, const ASN1_OBJECT *oid);
diff --git a/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c b/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c
index 9d9a7ea..450f95a 100644
--- a/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c
+++ b/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c
@@ -59,10 +59,15 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_level_find_node(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
X509_POLICY_NODE *parent,
- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
+ int extra_data)
{
X509_POLICY_NODE *node;
+ /* Verify that the tree isn't too large. This mitigates CVE-2023-0464 */
+ if (tree->node_maximum > 0 && tree->node_count >= tree->node_maximum)
+ return NULL;
+
node = OPENSSL_zalloc(sizeof(*node));
if (node == NULL) {
ERR_raise(ERR_LIB_X509V3, ERR_R_MALLOC_FAILURE);
@@ -70,7 +75,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
}
node->data = data;
node->parent = parent;
- if (level) {
+ if (level != NULL) {
if (OBJ_obj2nid(data->valid_policy) == NID_any_policy) {
if (level->anyPolicy)
goto node_error;
@@ -90,7 +95,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
}
}
- if (tree) {
+ if (extra_data) {
if (tree->extra_data == NULL)
tree->extra_data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_new_null();
if (tree->extra_data == NULL){
@@ -103,6 +108,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
}
}
+ tree->node_count++;
if (parent)
parent->nchild++;
diff --git a/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c b/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c
index fa45da5..f953a05 100644
--- a/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c
+++ b/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c
@@ -14,6 +14,17 @@
#include "pcy_local.h"
+/*
+ * If the maximum number of nodes in the policy tree isn't defined, set it to
+ * a generous default of 1000 nodes.
+ *
+ * Defining this to be zero means unlimited policy tree growth which opens the
+ * door on CVE-2023-0464.
+ */
+#ifndef OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX
+# define OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX 1000
+#endif
+
static void expected_print(BIO *channel,
X509_POLICY_LEVEL *lev, X509_POLICY_NODE *node,
int indent)
@@ -163,6 +174,9 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL;
}
+ /* Limit the growth of the tree to mitigate CVE-2023-0464 */
+ tree->node_maximum = OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX;
+
/*
* http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-6.1.2, figure 3.
*
@@ -180,7 +194,7 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
if ((data = ossl_policy_data_new(NULL,
OBJ_nid2obj(NID_any_policy), 0)) == NULL)
goto bad_tree;
- if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree) == NULL) {
+ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree, 1) == NULL) {
ossl_policy_data_free(data);
goto bad_tree;
}
@@ -239,7 +253,8 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
* Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise
*/
static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
- X509_POLICY_DATA *data)
+ X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
{
X509_POLICY_LEVEL *last = curr - 1;
int i, matched = 0;
@@ -249,13 +264,13 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
X509_POLICY_NODE *node = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_value(last->nodes, i);
if (ossl_policy_node_match(last, node, data->valid_policy)) {
- if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, NULL) == NULL)
+ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 0) == NULL)
return 0;
matched = 1;
}
}
if (!matched && last->anyPolicy) {
- if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL)
+ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL)
return 0;
}
return 1;
@@ -268,7 +283,8 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
* Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise.
*/
static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
- const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache)
+ const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache,
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
{
int i;
@@ -276,7 +292,7 @@ static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
X509_POLICY_DATA *data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_value(cache->data, i);
/* Look for matching nodes in previous level */
- if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data))
+ if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data, tree))
return 0;
}
return 1;
@@ -307,7 +323,7 @@ static int tree_add_unmatched(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
/* Curr may not have anyPolicy */
data->qualifier_set = cache->anyPolicy->qualifier_set;
data->flags |= POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS;
- if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree) == NULL) {
+ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 1) == NULL) {
ossl_policy_data_free(data);
return 0;
}
@@ -370,7 +386,7 @@ static int tree_link_any(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
/* Finally add link to anyPolicy */
if (last->anyPolicy &&
ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy,
- last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL)
+ last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL)
return 0;
return 1;
}
@@ -553,7 +569,7 @@ static int tree_calculate_user_set(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
extra->flags = POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS
| POLICY_DATA_FLAG_EXTRA_NODE;
node = ossl_policy_level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent,
- tree);
+ tree, 1);
}
if (!tree->user_policies) {
tree->user_policies = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_new_null();
@@ -580,7 +596,7 @@ static int tree_evaluate(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
for (i = 1; i < tree->nlevel; i++, curr++) {
cache = ossl_policy_cache_set(curr->cert);
- if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache))
+ if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache, tree))
return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL;
if (!(curr->flags & X509_V_FLAG_INHIBIT_ANY)
--
2.35.7

56
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0465.patch Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
From 1dd43e0709fece299b15208f36cc7c76209ba0bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:52:55 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Ensure that EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY is checked even in leaf
certs
Even though we check the leaf cert to confirm it is valid, we
later ignored the invalid flag and did not notice that the leaf
cert was bad.
Fixes: CVE-2023-0465
Reviewed-by: Hugo Landau <hlandau@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20587)
Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=1dd43e0709fece299b15208f36cc7c76209ba0bb]
CVE: CVE-2023-0465
Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi <sdoshi@mvista.com>
---
crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
index 9384f1d..a0282c3 100644
--- a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
+++ b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
@@ -1654,15 +1654,23 @@ static int check_policy(X509_STORE_CTX *ctx)
goto memerr;
/* Invalid or inconsistent extensions */
if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_INVALID) {
- int i;
+ int i, cbcalled = 0;
/* Locate certificates with bad extensions and notify callback. */
- for (i = 1; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) {
X509 *x = sk_X509_value(ctx->chain, i);
+ if ((x->ex_flags & EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY) != 0)
+ cbcalled = 1;
CB_FAIL_IF((x->ex_flags & EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY) != 0,
ctx, x, i, X509_V_ERR_INVALID_POLICY_EXTENSION);
}
+ if (!cbcalled) {
+ /* Should not be able to get here */
+ ERR_raise(ERR_LIB_X509, ERR_R_INTERNAL_ERROR);
+ return 0;
+ }
+ /* The callback ignored the error so we return success */
return 1;
}
if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_FAILURE) {
--
2.35.7

50
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0466.patch Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
From 51e8a84ce742db0f6c70510d0159dad8f7825908 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:15:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix documentation of X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy()
The function was incorrectly documented as enabling policy checking.
Fixes: CVE-2023-0466
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20563)
Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=51e8a84ce742db0f6c70510d0159dad8f7825908]
CVE: CVE-2023-0466
Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi <sdoshi@mvista.com>
---
doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod b/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod
index 75a1677..43c1900 100644
--- a/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod
+++ b/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod
@@ -98,8 +98,9 @@ B<trust>.
X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_time() sets the verification time in B<param> to
B<t>. Normally the current time is used.
-X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() enables policy checking (it is disabled
-by default) and adds B<policy> to the acceptable policy set.
+X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() adds B<policy> to the acceptable policy set.
+Contrary to preexisting documentation of this function it does not enable
+policy checking.
X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies() enables policy checking (it is disabled
by default) and sets the acceptable policy set to B<policies>. Any existing
@@ -400,6 +401,10 @@ The X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get_hostflags() function was added in OpenSSL 1.1.0i.
The X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get0_host(), X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get0_email(),
and X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get1_ip_asc() functions were added in OpenSSL 3.0.
+The function X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() was historically documented as
+enabling policy checking however the implementation has never done this.
+The documentation was changed to align with the implementation.
+
=head1 COPYRIGHT
Copyright 2009-2023 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
--
2.35.7

3
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl_3.0.8.bb
View File

@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ SRC_URI = "http://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-${PV}.tar.gz \
file://0001-buildinfo-strip-sysroot-and-debug-prefix-map-from-co.patch \
file://afalg.patch \
file://0001-Configure-do-not-tweak-mips-cflags.patch \
file://CVE-2023-0464.patch \
file://CVE-2023-0465.patch \
file://CVE-2023-0466.patch \
"
SRC_URI:append:class-nativesdk = " \