Bug 1667427
| Summary: | Multiple issues in implementation of record_size_limit extension (RFC 8449) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Alicja Kario <hkario> |
| Component: | gnutls | Assignee: | Daiki Ueno <dueno> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Tomas Mraz <tmraz> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 8.0 | CC: | dueno, hkario, mmcgrath, nmavrogi, ssorce, tmraz |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Release: | 8.1 | Flags: | ssorce:
mirror+
|
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | gnutls-3.6.8-1.el8 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-11-05 22:26:14 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1682477, 1689967 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
Hubert, should we still consider this a blocker ? It seem like it will affect only a specific and restricted scenario and could be easily fixed after GA. Upstream fix: https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/merge_requests/879 This issue was set to high priority because it impacts the core functionality of the component for a small amount of users. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3600 |
Description of problem: The implementation of record_size_limit extension in GnuTLS is not RFC 8449 compliant, with multiple issues present Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gnutls-3.6.5-2.el8.x86_64 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. run tlsfuzzer test-record-size-limit.py Actual results: 'change size in TLS 1.2 resumption' 'change size in TLS 1.3 session resumption' 'check if server accepts maximum size in TLS 1.0' 'check if server accepts maximum size in TLS 1.3' 'check if server accepts minimal size in TLS 1.0' 'check if server accepts minimal size in TLS 1.1' 'check if server accepts minimal size in TLS 1.2' 'check if server accepts minimal size in TLS 1.3' 'check interaction with sha256 prf' 'check interaction with sha384 prf' 'check server sent size in TLS 1.0' 'check server sent size in TLS 1.3' 'drop extension in TLS 1.3 session resumption' 'HRR sanity' 'modified extension in 2nd CH in HRR handshake' 'padded extension in TLS 1.2' 'padded extension in TLS 1.3' 'renegotiation with changed limit' 'renegotiation with dropped extension' 'too large record in TLS 1.2' 'too large record payload in TLS 1.3' tests fail Expected results: no test fail Additional info: