RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1160467 - support TLS 1.1 and later
Summary: support TLS 1.1 and later
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: openldap
Version: 6.7
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Jan Synacek
QA Contact: Patrik Kis
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1160466 1164889
Blocks: 1160468
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-04 21:42 UTC by Rich Megginson
Modified: 2015-07-23 11:19 UTC (History)
12 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
* Support for the TLS protocol version 1.1 and later has been added. (BZ#1160467)
Clone Of: 1160466
: 1160468 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-22 06:18:41 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
add tls1.2 ciphers (3.25 KB, patch)
2015-06-10 17:03 UTC, Martin Poole
rmeggins: review+
Details | Diff
V2 patch with more complete (and correct) cipher names (5.35 KB, patch)
2015-06-12 14:51 UTC, Martin Poole
rmeggins: review+
Details | Diff


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1231522 1 None None None 2021-01-20 06:05:38 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2015:1292 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE openldap bug fix and enhancement update 2015-07-20 17:48:41 UTC

Internal Links: 1231522

Description Rich Megginson 2014-11-04 21:42:12 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1160466 +++

Description of problem:
I don't believe tls_m.c supports TLS 1.1 and later.  This requires some additional NSS APIs.  You should be able to tell openldap to support TLS protocols > 1.0 with TLS_PROTOCOL_MIN

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

--- Additional comment from Rich Megginson on 2014-11-04 16:41:22 EST ---

This needs to go into all versions of Fedora ASAP.  Should I clone this for all Fedora releases?

Comment 2 Sankar Ramalingam 2014-11-18 07:28:47 UTC
This is blocking 389-ds-base to be tested with latest versions of TLS1.1, TLS1.2 and above. Hence, marking this as testBlocker

Comment 17 Martin Poole 2015-06-10 17:03:38 UTC
Created attachment 1037365 [details]
add tls1.2 ciphers

Comment 18 Rich Megginson 2015-06-10 18:07:11 UTC
Comment on attachment 1037365 [details]
add tls1.2 ciphers

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1037365&action=diff#openldap-2.4.40/libraries/libldap/tls_m.c.tls12_ciphers_sec4

What about adding an option for SHA384?

Comment 19 Martin Poole 2015-06-11 08:37:12 UTC
I put in the define for SSL_SHA384 since I noticed the recent discussion but I see no definitions for SHA384 hashes on ciphers in the 3.19.1 sources.

Comment 20 Rich Megginson 2015-06-11 14:21:35 UTC
(In reply to Martin Poole from comment #19)
> I put in the define for SSL_SHA384 since I noticed the recent discussion but
> I see no definitions for SHA384 hashes on ciphers in the 3.19.1 sources.

ok.  ack.

Comment 21 Martin Poole 2015-06-12 12:27:32 UTC
I appear to have got at least one name wrong, and am checking whether I managed the full suite of TLSv1.2 ciphers.  Should have new patch shortly.

Comment 22 Martin Poole 2015-06-12 14:51:28 UTC
Created attachment 1038095 [details]
V2 patch with more complete (and correct) cipher names

Comment 24 errata-xmlrpc 2015-07-22 06:18:41 UTC
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://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1292.html


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.