Not possible to disable new TLS extensions for TLS 1.2 connections
Thomas Lußnig
openjdk at suche.org
Wed Feb 13 22:22:27 UTC 2019
Hi,
i check the old mails. In your case the problem was about the EC-Group
extensions. If the server receive an unknown group he break the
handshake with an alert. What was interesting is the fact it did not
break after client hello but after Client-RSA-Key with alert
illgegalParameter. I managed to establish the connection by disable all
cipher suites using ec (only for this destination) not an good but an
working solution.
Maybe you can provide an ssl debug log or pcap so that is is possible to
see if the same type of error happen.
Gruß Thomas
Sequence was:
Client-Hello (SSLv3 - TLSv1.2)
Server-Hello(SSLv3)
Server-Certificates(SSLv3)
Client-RSA-Key(TLSv1.2)
Server-Alert(SSLv3 , FATAL , IllegalParameter)
p.s. for the Problem with exception about unsupported group in jdk10
(fixed in 11) i found an workaround by only offering RSA and no EC suites
to the server that send 65535 as EC group that was causing the trouble.
Am 13.02.2019 um 23:08:22 schrieb Amir Khassaia:
> Hi Thomas,
> Can you confirm its tied to new extensions to TLS 1.2 client hello and
> whether you diagnosed which one was the problem in Lotus Notes case ?
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:05 AM Thomas Lußnig <openjdk at suche.org
> <mailto:openjdk at suche.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> maybe two points.
>
> 1) Older lotus notes server have the problem.
> 2) The problem can be solved if you disable TLSv1.3 or even TLSv1.2
> 3) Maybe it would be an good idea to build an set of client
> hello's with
> different options.
> Or even an generator. Than you send if and check the result
> since
> the servers with problem
> only reply with an ssl alert. So you can check it without an
> ssl
> engine or jdk build
>
>
> Gruß Thomas
>
> Am 13.02.2019 um 22:44:31 schrieb Xuelei Fan:
> > Hi Amir,
> >
> > Could you build OpenJDK by yourself? If it is doable, I could send
> > your a patch to disable the extension so that you can confirm if
> and
> > which extension is the underlying problem.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Xuelei
> >
> >
> > On 2/13/2019 1:16 PM, Amir Khassaia wrote:
> >> Hi Xuelei,
> >> There were 2 distinct cases of change of behaviour.
> >>
> >> * The "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI provided" reliably works
> >> without SNI in Java 8 but is indeed fixed by having an SNI
> included
> >> which perhaps was needed all along. This one is reported by
> XMPP/TLS
> >> connection from talk.google.com:5222
> <http://talk.google.com:5222> <http://talk.google.com:5222>
> >> * The aborted handshake case (client_hello traces that I've
> provided)
> >> this happened with a hardware device which was replicable
> with an
> >> SSL socket handshake program that I referenced in the gist.
> >> Unfortunately replication requires a specific device model
> so it
> >> wont be possible to see it for yourself. The workaround
> there was to
> >> either downgrade JRE to < 11 or to switch JRE globally to
> use TLS
> >> 1.0 or TLS 1.1 via the system property. This is where your
> proposed
> >> enhancement will be of great help as it will allow a per
> connection
> >> type decision.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:01 PM Xuelei Fan
> <xuelei.fan at oracle.com <mailto:xuelei.fan at oracle.com>
> >> <mailto:xuelei.fan at oracle.com <mailto:xuelei.fan at oracle.com>>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Amir,
> >>
> >> It should be rare now the a TLS vendor cannot ignore unknown
> >> extensions.
> >>
> >> > "issuer": "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI provided;
> >> > please fix your client."",
> >> The error message encapsulated in the certificate does not
> sound
> >> right
> >> to me. Is it caused by the absence of SNI extension?
> >>
> >> Did you have a test case that I can reproduce the problem?
> >>
> >> Thanks & Regards,
> >> Xuelei
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/7/2019 9:27 PM, Amir Khassaia wrote:
> >> > Xuelei,
> >> > The certificate in the connection is a red herring and not
> >> important.
> >> > It's actually a very unusual behaviour by
> talk.google.com <http://talk.google.com>
> >> <http://talk.google.com>
> >> > <http://talk.google.com> endpoint to encapsulate an
> error message
> >> inside
> >> > a certificate.
> >> >
> >> > As per the output I included:
> >> >
> >> > /"certificate" : { />/ "version" : "v3", />/
> >> "serial number" : "00 90 76 89 18 E9 33 93 A0", />/
> >> "signature algorithm": "SHA256withRSA", />/ "issuer"
> >> : "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI provided; />/please
> fix your
> >> client."", />/ "not before" : "2015-01-01
> 11:00:00.000
> >> AEDT", />/ "not after" : "2030-01-01
> 11:00:00.000 AEDT",
> >> />/ "subject" : "CN=invalid2.invalid, OU="No SNI
> >> provided; />/please fix your client."",/
> >> >
> >> > /
> >> > /
> >> >
> >> > This certificate simply masks the TLS interoperability
> issue
> >> as an
> >> > untrusted certificate issue.
> >> >
> >> > The fact is, some of the extensions sent by JSSE are
> changes to
> >> TLS 1.2
> >> > to support TLS 1.3, this however affects some clients
> >> adversely in
> >> > practice and usually JDK provides properties to turn new
> >> enhancements
> >> > off and work around such behaviour, for the extensions I
> >> mentioned this
> >> > is not provided and hence they are always sent for
> client sockets
> >> unless
> >> > TLSv1.2 is not in use.
> >> >
> >> > The impact to us is that upgrading to JDK11 means for some
> >> endpoints or
> >> > devices that are not 100% compliant to the spec the
> security is
> >> reduced
> >> > as we have to now work around to drop connections to
> these to
> >> TLSv1.1 or
> >> > TLS1.0 or not to move to Java 11 at all.
> >> >
> >> > My request is simply to have all of the new extensions
> >> configurable on
> >> > individual basis so that they can be turned off if
> needed for
> >> > compatibility just like most other security enhancements
> that
> >> were
> >> > delivered in the past.
> >> >
> >> > It appears some of the issues can come from
> >> >
> >> > - inclusion of RSASSA-PSS alg in TLS 1.2 handshakes but
> these can
> >> > disabled at least
> >> >
> >> > -signature_algorithms_cert and supported_versions extensions
> >> which seem
> >> > to be hardcoded for TLS 1.2 (I was not able to conclusively
> >> identify
> >> > which of these caused my troubles)
> >> >
> >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446#section-1.3 does say
> that TLS
> >> 1.2
> >> > clients are affected but in an optional manner.Just
> today I've
> >> > encountered another Java 11 interop issue with TLS but
> this time
> >> with a
> >> > physical device which can have a long shelf life yet
> running a
> >> simple
> >> > client socket handshake abruptly terminates the
> connection upon
> >> client
> >> > hello (no server_hello at all), and downgrading the JRE
> below 11
> >> works
> >> > fine. I'm including a trace for that as well:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-0813:40:14.395
> >> AEDT|SSLCipher.java:437|jdk.tls.keyLimits: entry =
> >> AES/GCM/NoPadding KeyUpdate2^37. AES/GCM/NOPADDING:KEYUPDATE
> >> =137438953472
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|WARNING|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.433
> >> > AEDT|ServerNameExtension.java:255|Unable to indicate
> server name
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.433
> >> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
> >> extension:
> >> > server_name
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.433
> >> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
> >> extension:
> >> > status_request
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|WARNING|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.443
> >> > AEDT|SignatureScheme.java:282|Signature algorithm,
> ed25519, is
> >> not
> >> > supported by the underlying providers
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|WARNING|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.444
> >> > AEDT|SignatureScheme.java:282|Signature algorithm,
> ed448, is not
> >> > supported by the underlying providers
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|INFO|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.449
> >> > AEDT|AlpnExtension.java:161|No available application
> protocols
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.449
> >> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
> >> extension:
> >> > application_layer_protocol_negotiation
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.450
> >> > AEDT|SSLExtensions.java:235|Ignore, context unavailable
> >> extension:
> >> > status_request_v2
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.453
> >> > AEDT|ClientHello.java:651|Produced ClientHello handshake
> >> message (
> >> >
> >> > "ClientHello": {
> >> >
> >> > "client version" : "TLSv1.2",
> >> >
> >> > "random" : "1A BA E8 FC 59 00 AB DF 9A 1A
> 07 94 24
> >> 7F 34 3D
> >> > 0B D2 7D 10 72 52 54 CD 44 43 62 E8 8B 42 C6 68",
> >> >
> >> > "session id" : "",
> >> >
> >> > "cipher suites" :
> >> > "[TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0xC023),
> >> > TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0xC027),
> >> > TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0x003C),
> >> > TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256(0xC029),
> >> > TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA(0x002F)]",
> >> >
> >> > "compression methods" : "00",
> >> >
> >> > "extensions" : [
> >> >
> >> > "supported_groups (10)": {
> >> >
> >> > "versions": [secp256r1, secp384r1, secp521r1, secp160k1]
> >> >
> >> > },
> >> >
> >> > "ec_point_formats (11)": {
> >> >
> >> > "formats": [uncompressed]
> >> >
> >> > },
> >> >
> >> > "signature_algorithms (13)": {
> >> >
> >> > "signature schemes": [ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256,
> >> ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384,
> >> > ecdsa_secp512r1_sha512, rsa_pss_rsae_sha256,
> rsa_pss_rsae_sha384,
> >> > rsa_pss_rsae_sha512, rsa_pss_pss_sha256, rsa_pss_pss_sha384,
> >> > rsa_pss_pss_sha512, rsa_pkcs1_sha256, rsa_pkcs1_sha384,
> >> > rsa_pkcs1_sha512, dsa_sha256, ecdsa_sha224, rsa_sha224,
> >> dsa_sha224,
> >> > ecdsa_sha1, rsa_pkcs1_sha1, dsa_sha1, rsa_md5]
> >> >
> >> > },
> >> >
> >> > "signature_algorithms_cert (50)": {
> >> >
> >> > "signature schemes": [ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256,
> >> ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384,
> >> > ecdsa_secp512r1_sha512, rsa_pss_rsae_sha256,
> rsa_pss_rsae_sha384,
> >> > rsa_pss_rsae_sha512, rsa_pss_pss_sha256, rsa_pss_pss_sha384,
> >> > rsa_pss_pss_sha512, rsa_pkcs1_sha256, rsa_pkcs1_sha384,
> >> > rsa_pkcs1_sha512, dsa_sha256, ecdsa_sha224, rsa_sha224,
> >> dsa_sha224,
> >> > ecdsa_sha1, rsa_pkcs1_sha1, dsa_sha1, rsa_md5]
> >> >
> >> > },
> >> >
> >> > "extended_master_secret (23)": {
> >> >
> >> > <empty>
> >> >
> >> > },
> >> >
> >> > "supported_versions (43)": {
> >> >
> >> > "versions": [TLSv1.2, TLSv1.1]
> >> >
> >> > },
> >> >
> >> > "renegotiation_info (65,281)": {
> >> >
> >> > "renegotiated connection": [<no renegotiated connection>]
> >> >
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > ]
> >> >
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.455
> >> > AEDT|Alert.java:232|Received alert message (
> >> >
> >> > "Alert": {
> >> >
> >> > "level" : "fatal",
> >> >
> >> > "description": "handshake_failure"
> >> >
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|ERROR|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.456
> >> > AEDT|TransportContext.java:313|Fatal (HANDSHAKE_FAILURE):
> >> Received fatal
> >> > alert: handshake_failure (
> >> >
> >> > "throwable" : {
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException: Received fatal
> alert:
> >> > handshake_failure
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:128)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:117)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.fatal(TransportContext.java:308)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert$AlertConsumer.consume(Alert.java:279)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.dispatch(TransportContext.java:181)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLTransport.decode(SSLTransport.java:164)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.decode(SSLSocketImpl.java:1152)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readHandshakeRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:1063)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.startHandshake(SSLSocketImpl.java:402)
> >> >
> >> > at SslSocketClient.main(SslSocketClient.kt:47)}
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.457
> >> > AEDT|SSLSocketImpl.java:1361|close the underlying socket
> >> >
> >> > javax.net.ssl|DEBUG|01|main|2019-01-08 13:40:14.457
> >> > AEDT|SSLSocketImpl.java:1380|close the SSL connection
> >> (initiative)
> >> >
> >> > Exception in thread "main"
> javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException:
> >> Received
> >> > fatal alert: handshake_failure
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:128)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert.createSSLException(Alert.java:117)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.fatal(TransportContext.java:308)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.Alert$AlertConsumer.consume(Alert.java:279)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.TransportContext.dispatch(TransportContext.java:181)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLTransport.decode(SSLTransport.java:164)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.decode(SSLSocketImpl.java:1152)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readHandshakeRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:1063)
> >> >
> >> > at
> >> >
> >>
> java.base/sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.startHandshake(SSLSocketImpl.java:402)
> >> >
> >> > at SslSocketClient.main(SslSocketClient.kt:47)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20190213/936397d8/attachment.htm>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list