MIRRORS/poky
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky.git synced 2025-07-19 21:09:03 +02:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

openssl: Security fix CVE-2016-2181

Browse Source 
affects openssl < 1.0.1i

(From OE-Core rev: c3d4cc8e452b29d4ca620b5c93d22a88c5aa1f03)

Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster@mvista.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Armin Kuster 2016-09-23 23:09:29 -07:00 committed by Richard Purdie
parent 766c5ced75
commit dc61ec5f0c
4 changed files with 363 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

91
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2016-2181_p1.patch Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
From 20744f6b40b5ded059a848f66d6ba922f2a62eb3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:46:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix DTLS unprocessed records bug
During a DTLS handshake we may get records destined for the next epoch
arrive before we have processed the CCS. In that case we can't decrypt or
verify the record yet, so we buffer it for later use. When we do receive
the CCS we work through the queue of unprocessed records and process them.
Unfortunately the act of processing wipes out any existing packet data
that we were still working through. This includes any records from the new
epoch that were in the same packet as the CCS. We should only process the
buffered records if we've not got any data left.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Upstream-Status: Backport
CVE: CVE-2016-2180 patch 1
Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster@mvista.com>
---
ssl/d1_pkt.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ssl/d1_pkt.c b/ssl/d1_pkt.c
index fe30ec7..1fb119d 100644
--- a/ssl/d1_pkt.c
+++ b/ssl/d1_pkt.c
@@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ static int dtls1_retrieve_buffered_record(SSL *s, record_pqueue *queue)
static int dtls1_process_buffered_records(SSL *s)
{
pitem *item;
+ SSL3_BUFFER *rb;
item = pqueue_peek(s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.q);
if (item) {
@@ -326,6 +327,19 @@ static int dtls1_process_buffered_records(SSL *s)
if (s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.epoch != s->d1->r_epoch)
return (1); /* Nothing to do. */
+ rb = &s->s3->rbuf;
+
+ if (rb->left > 0) {
+ /*
+ * We've still got data from the current packet to read. There could
+ * be a record from the new epoch in it - so don't overwrite it
+ * with the unprocessed records yet (we'll do it when we've
+ * finished reading the current packet).
+ */
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+
/* Process all the records. */
while (pqueue_peek(s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.q)) {
dtls1_get_unprocessed_record(s);
@@ -581,6 +595,7 @@ int dtls1_get_record(SSL *s)
rr = &(s->s3->rrec);
+ again:
/*
* The epoch may have changed. If so, process all the pending records.
* This is a non-blocking operation.
@@ -593,7 +608,6 @@ int dtls1_get_record(SSL *s)
return 1;
/* get something from the wire */
- again:
/* check if we have the header */
if ((s->rstate != SSL_ST_READ_BODY) ||
(s->packet_length < DTLS1_RT_HEADER_LENGTH)) {
@@ -1830,8 +1844,13 @@ static DTLS1_BITMAP *dtls1_get_bitmap(SSL *s, SSL3_RECORD *rr,
if (rr->epoch == s->d1->r_epoch)
return &s->d1->bitmap;
- /* Only HM and ALERT messages can be from the next epoch */
+ /*
+ * Only HM and ALERT messages can be from the next epoch and only if we
+ * have already processed all of the unprocessed records from the last
+ * epoch
+ */
else if (rr->epoch == (unsigned long)(s->d1->r_epoch + 1) &&
+ s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.epoch != s->d1->r_epoch &&
(rr->type == SSL3_RT_HANDSHAKE || rr->type == SSL3_RT_ALERT)) {
*is_next_epoch = 1;
return &s->d1->next_bitmap;
--
2.7.4

239
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2016-2181_p2.patch Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
From 3884b47b7c255c2e94d9b387ee83c7e8bb981258 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:04:37 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix DTLS replay protection
The DTLS implementation provides some protection against replay attacks
in accordance with RFC6347 section 4.1.2.6.
A sliding "window" of valid record sequence numbers is maintained with
the "right" hand edge of the window set to the highest sequence number we
have received so far. Records that arrive that are off the "left" hand
edge of the window are rejected. Records within the window are checked
against a list of records received so far. If we already received it then
we also reject the new record.
If we have not already received the record, or the sequence number is off
the right hand edge of the window then we verify the MAC of the record.
If MAC verification fails then we discard the record. Otherwise we mark
the record as received. If the sequence number was off the right hand edge
of the window, then we slide the window along so that the right hand edge
is in line with the newly received sequence number.
Records may arrive for future epochs, i.e. a record from after a CCS being
sent, can arrive before the CCS does if the packets get re-ordered. As we
have not yet received the CCS we are not yet in a position to decrypt or
validate the MAC of those records. OpenSSL places those records on an
unprocessed records queue. It additionally updates the window immediately,
even though we have not yet verified the MAC. This will only occur if
currently in a handshake/renegotiation.
This could be exploited by an attacker by sending a record for the next
epoch (which does not have to decrypt or have a valid MAC), with a very
large sequence number. This means the right hand edge of the window is
moved very far to the right, and all subsequent legitimate packets are
dropped causing a denial of service.
A similar effect can be achieved during the initial handshake. In this
case there is no MAC key negotiated yet. Therefore an attacker can send a
message for the current epoch with a very large sequence number. The code
will process the record as normal. If the hanshake message sequence number
(as opposed to the record sequence number that we have been talking about
so far) is in the future then the injected message is bufferred to be
handled later, but the window is still updated. Therefore all subsequent
legitimate handshake records are dropped. This aspect is not considered a
security issue because there are many ways for an attacker to disrupt the
initial handshake and prevent it from completing successfully (e.g.
injection of a handshake message will cause the Finished MAC to fail and
the handshake to be aborted). This issue comes about as a result of trying
to do replay protection, but having no integrity mechanism in place yet.
Does it even make sense to have replay protection in epoch 0? That
issue isn't addressed here though.
This addressed an OCAP Audit issue.
CVE-2016-2181
Upstream-Status: Backport
CVE: CVE-2016-2181 patch2
Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster@mvista.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
---
ssl/d1_pkt.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
ssl/ssl.h | 1 +
ssl/ssl_err.c | 4 +++-
3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Index: openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/d1_pkt.c
===================================================================
--- openssl-1.0.2h.orig/ssl/d1_pkt.c
+++ openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/d1_pkt.c
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static int dtls1_record_needs_buffering(
#endif
static int dtls1_buffer_record(SSL *s, record_pqueue *q,
unsigned char *priority);
-static int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s);
+static int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s, DTLS1_BITMAP *bitmap);
/* copy buffered record into SSL structure */
static int dtls1_copy_record(SSL *s, pitem *item)
@@ -320,13 +320,18 @@ static int dtls1_process_buffered_record
{
pitem *item;
SSL3_BUFFER *rb;
+ SSL3_RECORD *rr;
+ DTLS1_BITMAP *bitmap;
+ unsigned int is_next_epoch;
+ int replayok = 1;
item = pqueue_peek(s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.q);
if (item) {
/* Check if epoch is current. */
if (s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.epoch != s->d1->r_epoch)
- return (1); /* Nothing to do. */
+ return 1; /* Nothing to do. */
+ rr = &s->s3->rrec;
rb = &s->s3->rbuf;
if (rb->left > 0) {
@@ -343,11 +348,41 @@ static int dtls1_process_buffered_record
/* Process all the records. */
while (pqueue_peek(s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.q)) {
dtls1_get_unprocessed_record(s);
- if (!dtls1_process_record(s))
- return (0);
+ bitmap = dtls1_get_bitmap(s, rr, &is_next_epoch);
+ if (bitmap == NULL) {
+ /*
+ * Should not happen. This will only ever be NULL when the
+ * current record is from a different epoch. But that cannot
+ * be the case because we already checked the epoch above
+ */
+ SSLerr(SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_BUFFERED_RECORDS,
+ ERR_R_INTERNAL_ERROR);
+ return 0;
+ }
+#ifndef OPENSSL_NO_SCTP
+ /* Only do replay check if no SCTP bio */
+ if (!BIO_dgram_is_sctp(SSL_get_rbio(s)))
+#endif
+ {
+ /*
+ * Check whether this is a repeat, or aged record. We did this
+ * check once already when we first received the record - but
+ * we might have updated the window since then due to
+ * records we subsequently processed.
+ */
+ replayok = dtls1_record_replay_check(s, bitmap);
+ }
+
+ if (!replayok || !dtls1_process_record(s, bitmap)) {
+ /* dump this record */
+ rr->length = 0;
+ s->packet_length = 0;
+ continue;
+ }
+
if (dtls1_buffer_record(s, &(s->d1->processed_rcds),
s->s3->rrec.seq_num) < 0)
- return -1;
+ return 0;
}
}
@@ -358,7 +393,7 @@ static int dtls1_process_buffered_record
s->d1->processed_rcds.epoch = s->d1->r_epoch;
s->d1->unprocessed_rcds.epoch = s->d1->r_epoch + 1;
- return (1);
+ return 1;
}
#if 0
@@ -405,7 +440,7 @@ static int dtls1_get_buffered_record(SSL
#endif
-static int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s)
+static int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s, DTLS1_BITMAP *bitmap)
{
int i, al;
int enc_err;
@@ -565,6 +600,10 @@ static int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s)
/* we have pulled in a full packet so zero things */
s->packet_length = 0;
+
+ /* Mark receipt of record. */
+ dtls1_record_bitmap_update(s, bitmap);
+
return (1);
f_err:
@@ -600,7 +639,7 @@ int dtls1_get_record(SSL *s)
* The epoch may have changed. If so, process all the pending records.
* This is a non-blocking operation.
*/
- if (dtls1_process_buffered_records(s) < 0)
+ if (!dtls1_process_buffered_records(s))
return -1;
/* if we're renegotiating, then there may be buffered records */
@@ -735,20 +774,17 @@ int dtls1_get_record(SSL *s)
if (dtls1_buffer_record
(s, &(s->d1->unprocessed_rcds), rr->seq_num) < 0)
return -1;
- /* Mark receipt of record. */
- dtls1_record_bitmap_update(s, bitmap);
}
rr->length = 0;
s->packet_length = 0;
goto again;
}
- if (!dtls1_process_record(s)) {
+ if (!dtls1_process_record(s, bitmap)) {
rr->length = 0;
s->packet_length = 0; /* dump this record */
goto again; /* get another record */
}
- dtls1_record_bitmap_update(s, bitmap); /* Mark receipt of record. */
return (1);
Index: openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/ssl.h
===================================================================
--- openssl-1.0.2h.orig/ssl/ssl.h
+++ openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/ssl.h
@@ -2623,6 +2623,7 @@ void ERR_load_SSL_strings(void);
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_HEARTBEAT 305
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_OUTPUT_CERT_CHAIN 255
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PREPROCESS_FRAGMENT 288
+# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_BUFFERED_RECORDS 404
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_OUT_OF_SEQ_MESSAGE 256
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_RECORD 257
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_READ_BYTES 258
Index: openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/ssl_err.c
===================================================================
--- openssl-1.0.2h.orig/ssl/ssl_err.c
+++ openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/ssl_err.c
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* ssl/ssl_err.c */
/* ====================================================================
- * Copyright (c) 1999-2015 The OpenSSL Project. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 1999-2016 The OpenSSL Project. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
@@ -93,6 +93,8 @@ static ERR_STRING_DATA SSL_str_functs[]
{ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_HEARTBEAT), "dtls1_heartbeat"},
{ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_OUTPUT_CERT_CHAIN), "dtls1_output_cert_chain"},
{ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_PREPROCESS_FRAGMENT), "DTLS1_PREPROCESS_FRAGMENT"},
+ {ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_BUFFERED_RECORDS),
+ "DTLS1_PROCESS_BUFFERED_RECORDS"},
{ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_OUT_OF_SEQ_MESSAGE),
"DTLS1_PROCESS_OUT_OF_SEQ_MESSAGE"},
{ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_RECORD), "DTLS1_PROCESS_RECORD"},

30
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2016-2181_p3.patch Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
From 26aebca74e38ae09f673c2045cc8e2ef762d265a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:55:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Update function error code
A function error code needed updating due to merge issues.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Upstream-Status: Backport
CVE: CVE-2016-2181 patch 3
Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster@mvista.com>
---
ssl/ssl.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/ssl.h
===================================================================
--- openssl-1.0.2h.orig/ssl/ssl.h
+++ openssl-1.0.2h/ssl/ssl.h
@@ -2623,7 +2623,7 @@ void ERR_load_SSL_strings(void);
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_HEARTBEAT 305
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_OUTPUT_CERT_CHAIN 255
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PREPROCESS_FRAGMENT 288
-# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_BUFFERED_RECORDS 404
+# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_BUFFERED_RECORDS 424
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_OUT_OF_SEQ_MESSAGE 256
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_RECORD 257
# define SSL_F_DTLS1_READ_BYTES 258

3
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl_1.0.2h.bb
View File

@ -41,6 +41,9 @@ SRC_URI += "file://configure-targets.patch \
file://CVE-2016-2177.patch \ file://CVE-2016-2177.patch \
file://CVE-2016-2178.patch \ file://CVE-2016-2178.patch \
file://CVE-2016-2180.patch \ file://CVE-2016-2180.patch \
file://CVE-2016-2181_p1.patch \
file://CVE-2016-2181_p2.patch \
file://CVE-2016-2181_p3.patch \
" "
SRC_URI[md5sum] = "9392e65072ce4b614c1392eefc1f23d0" SRC_URI[md5sum] = "9392e65072ce4b614c1392eefc1f23d0"