From: Matt Caswell Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:20:33 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Fix DTLS replay protection X-Git-Tag: OpenSSL_1_1_0~125 X-Git-Url: https://git.librecmc.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=1fb9fdc30;p=oweals%2Fopenssl.git 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 Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte --- diff --git a/include/openssl/ssl.h b/include/openssl/ssl.h index a7732ff512..4f23c9f804 100644 --- a/include/openssl/ssl.h +++ b/include/openssl/ssl.h @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ int ERR_load_SSL_strings(void); # define SSL_F_DTLS1_CHECK_TIMEOUT_NUM 318 # define SSL_F_DTLS1_HEARTBEAT 305 # define SSL_F_DTLS1_PREPROCESS_FRAGMENT 288 +# define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_BUFFERED_RECORDS 423 # define SSL_F_DTLS1_PROCESS_RECORD 257 # define SSL_F_DTLS1_READ_BYTES 258 # define SSL_F_DTLS1_READ_FAILED 339 diff --git a/ssl/record/rec_layer_d1.c b/ssl/record/rec_layer_d1.c index 0f7881ecd0..be6aac719f 100644 --- a/ssl/record/rec_layer_d1.c +++ b/ssl/record/rec_layer_d1.c @@ -230,12 +230,18 @@ int dtls1_process_buffered_records(SSL *s) { pitem *item; SSL3_BUFFER *rb; + SSL3_RECORD *rr; + DTLS1_BITMAP *bitmap; + unsigned int is_next_epoch; + int replayok = 1; item = pqueue_peek(s->rlayer.d->unprocessed_rcds.q); if (item) { /* Check if epoch is current. */ if (s->rlayer.d->unprocessed_rcds.epoch != s->rlayer.d->r_epoch) - return (1); /* Nothing to do. */ + return 1; /* Nothing to do. */ + + rr = RECORD_LAYER_get_rrec(&s->rlayer); rb = RECORD_LAYER_get_rbuf(&s->rlayer); @@ -252,12 +258,41 @@ int dtls1_process_buffered_records(SSL *s) /* Process all the records. */ while (pqueue_peek(s->rlayer.d->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; + RECORD_LAYER_reset_packet_length(&s->rlayer); + continue; + } + if (dtls1_buffer_record(s, &(s->rlayer.d->processed_rcds), - SSL3_RECORD_get_seq_num(s->rlayer.rrec)) < - 0) - return -1; + SSL3_RECORD_get_seq_num(s->rlayer.rrec)) < 0) + return 0; } } @@ -268,7 +303,7 @@ int dtls1_process_buffered_records(SSL *s) s->rlayer.d->processed_rcds.epoch = s->rlayer.d->r_epoch; s->rlayer.d->unprocessed_rcds.epoch = s->rlayer.d->r_epoch + 1; - return (1); + return 1; } /*- diff --git a/ssl/record/record_locl.h b/ssl/record/record_locl.h index 3b9a700d9f..52e59e46d5 100644 --- a/ssl/record/record_locl.h +++ b/ssl/record/record_locl.h @@ -110,5 +110,5 @@ __owur int ssl3_cbc_remove_padding(SSL3_RECORD *rec, __owur int tls1_cbc_remove_padding(const SSL *s, SSL3_RECORD *rec, unsigned block_size, unsigned mac_size); -int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s); +int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s, DTLS1_BITMAP *bitmap); __owur int dtls1_get_record(SSL *s); diff --git a/ssl/record/ssl3_record.c b/ssl/record/ssl3_record.c index c99d5e4416..32a97aff08 100644 --- a/ssl/record/ssl3_record.c +++ b/ssl/record/ssl3_record.c @@ -1273,7 +1273,7 @@ void ssl3_cbc_copy_mac(unsigned char *out, #endif } -int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s) +int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s, DTLS1_BITMAP *bitmap) { int i, al; int enc_err; @@ -1429,6 +1429,10 @@ int dtls1_process_record(SSL *s) /* we have pulled in a full packet so zero things */ RECORD_LAYER_reset_packet_length(&s->rlayer); + + /* Mark receipt of record. */ + dtls1_record_bitmap_update(s, bitmap); + return (1); f_err: @@ -1472,7 +1476,7 @@ 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 */ @@ -1580,6 +1584,10 @@ int dtls1_get_record(SSL *s) if (!BIO_dgram_is_sctp(SSL_get_rbio(s))) { #endif /* Check whether this is a repeat, or aged record. */ + /* + * TODO: Does it make sense to have replay protection in epoch 0 where + * we have no integrity negotiated yet? + */ if (!dtls1_record_replay_check(s, bitmap)) { rr->length = 0; RECORD_LAYER_reset_packet_length(&s->rlayer); /* dump this record */ @@ -1604,20 +1612,17 @@ int dtls1_get_record(SSL *s) (s, &(DTLS_RECORD_LAYER_get_unprocessed_rcds(&s->rlayer)), rr->seq_num) < 0) return -1; - /* Mark receipt of record. */ - dtls1_record_bitmap_update(s, bitmap); } rr->length = 0; RECORD_LAYER_reset_packet_length(&s->rlayer); goto again; } - if (!dtls1_process_record(s)) { + if (!dtls1_process_record(s, bitmap)) { rr->length = 0; RECORD_LAYER_reset_packet_length(&s->rlayer); /* dump this record */ goto again; /* get another record */ } - dtls1_record_bitmap_update(s, bitmap); /* Mark receipt of record. */ return (1); diff --git a/ssl/ssl_err.c b/ssl/ssl_err.c index 9644fd2466..1fddda612a 100644 --- a/ssl/ssl_err.c +++ b/ssl/ssl_err.c @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ static ERR_STRING_DATA SSL_str_functs[] = { {ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_CHECK_TIMEOUT_NUM), "dtls1_check_timeout_num"}, {ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_HEARTBEAT), "dtls1_heartbeat"}, {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_RECORD), "dtls1_process_record"}, {ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_READ_BYTES), "dtls1_read_bytes"}, {ERR_FUNC(SSL_F_DTLS1_READ_FAILED), "dtls1_read_failed"},