June 2024 - mbed-tls - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Connect using IP address instead of URL "509 - Certificate verification failed, e.g. CRL, CA or signature check failed"

by M M

I am using MbedTLS client code based on this: https://github.com/machinezone/IXWebSocket/blob/master/ixwebsocket/IXSocket… I am connecting to a server via it's URL. However, I would like to connect directly using an IP address returned from running the traceroute command on the URL. So I replaced the URL with the IP address. However, MBedTLS fails on the handshake: https://github.com/machinezone/IXWebSocket/blob/master/ixwebsocket/IXSocket… I get the error: "error in handshake : X509 - Certificate verification failed, e.g. CRL, CA or signature check failed" If I revert back to URL, it works. The IP address does exist. How can I connect using the IP address, instead of the URL?

2 weeks, 1 day

3
3
0 0

TLS 1.3 failures in Mbed TLS 3.6.0

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, Mbed TLS 3.6.0 was the first release to enable TLS 1.3 support by default. Unfortunately, this breaks many applications that open a TLS connection with default settings, which are now negotiating TLS 1.3 instead of TLS 1.2, but hit a difference in how Mbed TLS 3.6.0 implements the two versions of the protocol. The most common symptom is: you are using the default configuration (or something close), and your application fails in the handshake with an internal error whenever it negotiates TLS 1.3. To resolve this, call psa_crypto_init() before starting a TLS handshake. For a list of other known issues, please see https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/issues/9223 If you are encountering a problem due to the enablement of TLS 1.3 that is not listed on that page, please let us know by opening an issue on GitHub. If no workaround or patch is available for your problem yet, you can disable TLS 1.3 by calling mbedtls_ssl_conf_max_tls_version(ssl_config, MBEDTLS_SSL_VERSION_TLS1_2) before mbedtls_ssl_setup(). We are planning to fix all the issues listed on that page before the 3.6.1 patch release. We do not yet have a date for the 3.6.1 release. Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

2 months

2
1
0 0

Reminder: MBed TLS Tech Forum - Asia/Europe

by Don Harbin

Hi All, A gentle reminder that the Asia-Europe timezone-friendly MBed TLS Tech forum is next Monday at 10:00am PM UK time. Invite details can be found on the online calendar here <https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/>. If you have any topics, please let Dave Rodgman know. :) Best regards, Don Harbin TrustedFirmware Community Manager don.harbin(a)linaro.org ReplyReply to allForward Compose: Community activity: OpenCV, Sensors, AI [image: Minimise][image: Pop-out][image: Close] Compose: Reminder: MBed TLS Tech Forum - Asia/Europe [image: Minimise][image: Pop-out][image: Close] Recipients

2 months, 2 weeks

1
3
0 0

Question about random number g

by Zhang, Hao

Hi TF-M and mbedtls community, I am new to TF-M, I have a few questions about CryptoCell and random number generation. Thank you in advance. 1. I figure there seems to have two CryptoCell 312 implementations within TF-M. One under lib/ext/cryptocell-312-runtime and the other under platform/ext/accelerator/cc312/cc312-rom. What are the difference between these two? 2. For lib/ext/cryptocell-312-runtime, it does not define MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_EXTERNAL_RNG whereas /ext/accelerator/cc312/cc312-rom does. Does that mean cryptocell-312-runtime is initiating RNG cryptodriver by using mbedtls_entropy_add_source whereas cc312-rom is using mbedtls_psa_external_get_random<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…>. If so, may I ask why these two cryptocells take two different approaches? I read from one of the documentation that mbedtls_psa_external_get_random is used when entropy is sufficient. So if entropy is sufficient, is it always preferred to have MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_EXTERNAL_RNG defined and implements mbedtls_psa_external_get_random? What are the differences between the two approaches. 3. I also found cryptocell-312-runtime defines the entry point function cc3xx_init_random<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…>. But since PSA random number entry point funciton is not complete, the cc3xx_init_random is not being called anywhere, right? [https://opengraph.githubassets.com/17cdebc400b0ed807c620b586b21f3f77ff9c5d3…]<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…> trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/accelerator/cc312/cc312-rom/psa_driver_api/src/cc3xx_psa_random.c at 8df9cc8baf46252fd188bba1d87333a8daa9a5e8 · zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…> Zephyr repository tracking https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/ - zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m github.com 4. I know random number generation PSA entry point function is in development, may I ask when that would be expected to complete? Thank you very much! Best regards, Hao

3 months

1
0
0 0

Request for feedback about Mbed TLS 4: DRBG interfaces

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, This is a request for feedback about the next major release of Mbed TLS (TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0 + Mbed TLS 4.0). (Mbed TLS 3.6 LTS will remain supported with its current feature set until at least Q2 2027.) Please reply to this thread or on the GitHub issue linked below. If you wish to leave feedback privately, you can reply privately and your feedback will be anonymized before sharing outside Arm. https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/TF-PSA-Crypto/issues/107 Should TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0 (and thus Mbed TLS 4.0) have an interface for *pseudo*-random generation? It will, of course, still have a pseudorandom generator (= deterministic random bit generator = DRBG) internally, to power psa_generate_random(), psa_generate_key(), etc. The question is whether there will still be a public interface to create other DRBG instances, and if so, with what interface. If you want to be able to create instances of HMAC_DRBG and CTR_DRBG from application code in TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0, please let us know what your use case is. In particular, what parameters do you need (HMAC_DRBG and CTR_DRBG have many)? Do you need reseeding, and if so under whose control (the DRBG, or the caller)? In the absence of feedback, it is likely that HMAC_DRBG and CTR_DRBG will not be publicly available. Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

3 months

1
0
0 0

mbedtls 3.6.0: zero-sized array gives compiler warning (is undefined behavior)

by Almut Herzog

Hi all, I have a custom configuration where MBEDTLS_ECDSA_C is defined but MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_C and MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_CONFIG are not. This leads to a compiler warning in e.g. psa_util.c because a zero-sized array is declared (because PSA_VENDOR_ECC_MAX_CURVE_BITS is defined as 0). As of C99, §6.7.5.2 Array declarators: "If the expression is a constant expression, it shall have a value greater than zero." psa_util.c: #if defined(MBEDTLS_PSA_UTIL_HAVE_ECDSA) // Line 368 int mbedtls_ecdsa_raw_to_der(...) // Line 433 unsigned char r[PSA_BITS_TO_BYTES(PSA_VENDOR_ECC_MAX_CURVE_BITS)]; // Line 436 --> becomes in my config: unsigned char r[0]; MBEDTLS_PSA_UTIL_HAVE_ECDSA is automatically defined in my configuration due to the following code in config_adjust_legacy_crypto.h: #if defined(MBEDTLS_ECDSA_C) || (defined(MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_C) && \ (defined(PSA_WANT_ALG_ECDSA) || defined(PSA_WANT_ALG_DETERMINISTIC_ECDSA))) #define MBEDTLS_PSA_UTIL_HAVE_ECDSA #endif PSA_VENDOR_ECC_MAX_CURVE_BITS only receives a non-zero value if a PSA_WANT_<CURVE>, e.g. PSA_WANT_ECC_BRAINPOOL_P_R1_256, is defined. PSA_WANT_<CURVE> only gets defined in crypto_config.h if MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_CONFIG is defined (which it is not in my configuration). I have worked around it by explicitly defining e.g. PSA_WANT_ECC_BRAINPOOL_P_R1_256 in my configuration. But I believe there is some mismatch in the defines, at least in this example case, because mbedtls_ecdsa_raw_to_der() is only used in pk_wrap.c if MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO is defined. Impact: * In general, zero-sized arrays have undefined behavior in C (but are allowed by some compiler extensions) and thus behave differently for different compilers --> you might want to review PSA_VENDOR_ECC_MAX_CURVE_BITS and PSA_VENDOR_FFDH_MAX_KEY_BITS (and possibly more definitions) that fall through to 0 and are used as array sizes. * In my particular case, I believe code is compiled that is not needed (defines in psa_util.c and pk_wrap.c do not seem to match)

3 months

2
1
0 0

Request for feedback about Mbed TLS 4: size_t printing with %zu

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, This is a request for feedback about the next major release of Mbed TLS (Mbed TLS 4.0). (Mbed TLS 3.6 LTS will remain supported with its current feature set until at least Q2 2027.) Please reply to this thread or on the GitHub issue linked below. If you wish to leave feedback privately, you can reply privately and your feedback will be anonymized before sharing outside Arm. https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/issues/9307 Mbed TLS requires a C99 platform, with some pragmatic restrictions. One restriction is that we do not require printf and friends to support %zu for size_t printing. Starting with Mbed TLS 4.0, we are considering requiring printf() and friends (or the mbedtls_printf() and friends alternatives if overridden) to support %zu. This only affects the TLS library, not X.509 and crypto. Is it still necessary in 2025 to support platforms where printf() does not support the z modifier? Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

3 months

1
0
0 0

Request for feedback about Mbed TLS 4 and TF-PSA-Crypto: build system

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, This is a request for feedback about the next major release of Mbed TLS (TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0 + Mbed TLS 4.0). (Mbed TLS 3.6 LTS will remain supported with its current feature set until at least Q2 2027.) Please reply to this thread or on the GitHub issue linked below. If you wish to leave feedback privately, you can reply privately and your feedback will be anonymized before sharing outside Arm. https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/TF-PSA-Crypto/issues/106 We are evaluating build systems for TF-PSA-Crypto, and this will influence the Mbed TLS build as well (the Mbed TLS build scripts will call the TF-PSA-Crypto build scripts, whatever they are). Our current thinking is that we would like to have *CMake as the sole build system*. (We're still investigating whether CMake can do all we need.) That would mean that we would no longer provide GNU makefiles or Visual Studio solutions. As this remains a C project, for just building the library, compiling all the .c files with an include path covering all the .h files will keep working in common cases (but, as today, it isn't something we support officially). The main case I can think of where this wouldn't work is when cryptographic accelerator support requires special includes or compiler flags. Are there environments where the use of CMake is a problem? What is the oldest version of CMake that you'd like us to be compatible with? Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

3 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

Request for feedback about Mbed TLS 4: RSA decryption cipher suites

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, This is a request for feedback about the next major release of Mbed TLS (Mbed TLS 4.0). (Mbed TLS 3.6 LTS will remain supported with its current feature set until at least Q2 2027.) Please reply to this thread or on the GitHub issue linked below. If you wish to leave feedback privately, you can reply privately and your feedback will be anonymized before sharing outside Arm. https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/issues/8170 We are considering removing support for RSA and RSA-PSK key exchanges in Mbed TLS 4. These are cipher suites that use RSA encryption, as opposed to cipher suites using a key agreement (ECDHE) plus RSA signature. These key exchanges are hard to implement securely (we believe we got it right, but it's very delicate code), and they add significantly to the complexity of the TLS code. They have been formally deprecated for a long time and were removed in TLS 1.3. However, I'm aware that some ecosystems are clinging to RSA key exchange. Are RSA-encryption key exchanges still relevant for Mbed TLS? If you want Mbed TLS 4 to keep supporting RSA-encryption cipher suites in TLS 1.2, please let us know and tell us about your use cases. Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

3 months, 1 week

1
1
0 0

Request for feedback about Mbed TLS 4: AESNI without compiler intrinsics

by Gilles Peskine

Hello, This is a request for feedback about the next major release of Mbed TLS (TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0 + Mbed TLS 4.0). (Mbed TLS 3.6 LTS will remain supported with its current feature set until at least Q2 2027.) Please reply to this thread or on the GitHub issue linked below. If you wish to leave feedback privately, you can reply privately and your feedback will be anonymized before sharing outside Arm. https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/issues/8231 We currently have two implementations of accelerated AES on x86_64 using AESNI (Intel AES acceleration): using assembly or using compiler intrinsics. The assembly code works with GCC and Clang without any compilation options, but not with MSVC. The intrinsics work with MSVC, but not with ancient GCC/Clang and they require compiling at least aesni.c with suitable CPU variant options (e.g. -maes -mpclmul for Clang). We're considering removing the assembly implementation. Is there still interest in compiling AESNI support with older compilers or with simple build systems that don't pass machine options? Best regards, -- Gilles Peskine Mbed TLS developer

3 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

mbed-tls June 2024