openssl: bump to 1.1.1u

Changes between 1.1.1t and 1.1.1u [30 May 2023]

  *) Mitigate for the time it takes for `OBJ_obj2txt` to translate gigantic
     OBJECT IDENTIFIER sub-identifiers to canonical numeric text form.

     OBJ_obj2txt() would translate any size OBJECT IDENTIFIER to canonical
     numeric text form.  For gigantic sub-identifiers, this would take a very
     long time, the time complexity being O(n^2) where n is the size of that
     sub-identifier.  (CVE-2023-2650)

     To mitigitate this, `OBJ_obj2txt()` will only translate an OBJECT
     IDENTIFIER to canonical numeric text form if the size of that OBJECT
     IDENTIFIER is 586 bytes or less, and fail otherwise.

     The basis for this restriction is RFC 2578 (STD 58), section 3.5. OBJECT
     IDENTIFIER values, which stipulates that OBJECT IDENTIFIERS may have at
     most 128 sub-identifiers, and that the maximum value that each sub-
     identifier may have is 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal).

     For each byte of every sub-identifier, only the 7 lower bits are part of
     the value, so the maximum amount of bytes that an OBJECT IDENTIFIER with
     these restrictions may occupy is 32 * 128 / 7, which is approximately 586
     bytes.

     Ref: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2578#section-3.5

     [Richard Levitte]

  *) Reworked the Fix for the Timing Oracle in RSA Decryption (CVE-2022-4304).
     The previous fix for this timing side channel turned out to cause
     a severe 2-3x performance regression in the typical use case
     compared to 1.1.1s. The new fix uses existing constant time
     code paths, and restores the previous performance level while
     fully eliminating all existing timing side channels.
     The fix was developed by Bernd Edlinger with testing support
     by Hubert Kario.
     [Bernd Edlinger]

  *) Corrected documentation of X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() to mention
     that it does not enable policy checking. Thanks to
     David Benjamin for discovering this issue. (CVE-2023-0466)
     [Tomas Mraz]

  *) Fixed an issue where invalid certificate policies in leaf certificates are
     silently ignored by OpenSSL and other certificate policy checks are skipped
     for that certificate. A malicious CA could use this to deliberately assert
     invalid certificate policies in order to circumvent policy checking on the
     certificate altogether. (CVE-2023-0465)
     [Matt Caswell]

  *) Limited the number of nodes created in a policy tree to mitigate
     against CVE-2023-0464.  The default limit is set to 1000 nodes, which
     should be sufficient for most installations.  If required, the limit
     can be adjusted by setting the OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX build
     time define to a desired maximum number of nodes or zero to allow
     unlimited growth. (CVE-2023-0464)
     [Paul Dale]

Removed upstreamed patches.

Signed-off-by: Tianling Shen <cnsztl@immortalwrt.org>
This commit is contained in:
Tianling Shen 2023-06-01 16:33:24 +08:00
parent 17c880c005
commit 8715c83b9d
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 6850B6345C862176
3 changed files with 3 additions and 265 deletions

View File

@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ include $(TOPDIR)/rules.mk
PKG_NAME:=openssl
PKG_BASE:=1.1.1
PKG_BUGFIX:=t
PKG_BUGFIX:=u
PKG_VERSION:=$(PKG_BASE)$(PKG_BUGFIX)
PKG_RELEASE:=2
PKG_RELEASE:=1
PKG_USE_MIPS16:=0
ENGINES_DIR=engines-1.1
@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ PKG_SOURCE_URL:= \
ftp://ftp.pca.dfn.de/pub/tools/net/openssl/source/ \
ftp://ftp.pca.dfn.de/pub/tools/net/openssl/source/old/$(PKG_BASE)/
PKG_HASH:=8dee9b24bdb1dcbf0c3d1e9b02fb8f6bf22165e807f45adeb7c9677536859d3b
PKG_HASH:=e2f8d84b523eecd06c7be7626830370300fbcc15386bf5142d72758f6963ebc6
PKG_LICENSE:=OpenSSL
PKG_LICENSE_FILES:=LICENSE

View File

@ -1,214 +0,0 @@
From 879f7080d7e141f415c79eaa3a8ac4a3dad0348b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pauli <pauli@openssl.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:28:20 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] x509: excessive resource use verifying policy constraints
A security vulnerability has been identified in all supported versions
of OpenSSL related to the verification of X.509 certificate chains
that include policy constraints. Attackers may be able to exploit this
vulnerability by creating a malicious certificate chain that triggers
exponential use of computational resources, leading to a denial-of-service
(DoS) attack on affected systems.
Fixes CVE-2023-0464
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis <shane.lontis@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20569)
diff --git a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h
index 5daf78de45..344aa06765 100644
--- a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h
+++ b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h
@@ -111,6 +111,11 @@ struct X509_POLICY_LEVEL_st {
};
struct X509_POLICY_TREE_st {
+ /* The number of nodes in the tree */
+ size_t node_count;
+ /* The maximum number of nodes in the tree */
+ size_t node_maximum;
+
/* This is the tree 'level' data */
X509_POLICY_LEVEL *levels;
int nlevel;
@@ -159,7 +164,8 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *tree_find_sk(STACK_OF(X509_POLICY_NODE) *sk,
X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
X509_POLICY_NODE *parent,
- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree);
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
+ int extra_data);
void policy_node_free(X509_POLICY_NODE *node);
int policy_node_match(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *lvl,
const X509_POLICY_NODE *node, const ASN1_OBJECT *oid);
diff --git a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c
index e2d7b15322..d574fb9d66 100644
--- a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c
+++ b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c
@@ -59,10 +59,15 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_find_node(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
X509_POLICY_NODE *parent,
- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
+ int extra_data)
{
X509_POLICY_NODE *node;
+ /* Verify that the tree isn't too large. This mitigates CVE-2023-0464 */
+ if (tree->node_maximum > 0 && tree->node_count >= tree->node_maximum)
+ return NULL;
+
node = OPENSSL_zalloc(sizeof(*node));
if (node == NULL) {
X509V3err(X509V3_F_LEVEL_ADD_NODE, ERR_R_MALLOC_FAILURE);
@@ -70,7 +75,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
}
node->data = data;
node->parent = parent;
- if (level) {
+ if (level != NULL) {
if (OBJ_obj2nid(data->valid_policy) == NID_any_policy) {
if (level->anyPolicy)
goto node_error;
@@ -90,7 +95,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
}
}
- if (tree) {
+ if (extra_data) {
if (tree->extra_data == NULL)
tree->extra_data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_new_null();
if (tree->extra_data == NULL){
@@ -103,6 +108,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
}
}
+ tree->node_count++;
if (parent)
parent->nchild++;
diff --git a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c
index 6e8322cbc5..6c7fd35405 100644
--- a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c
+++ b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c
@@ -13,6 +13,18 @@
#include "pcy_local.h"
+/*
+ * If the maximum number of nodes in the policy tree isn't defined, set it to
+ * a generous default of 1000 nodes.
+ *
+ * Defining this to be zero means unlimited policy tree growth which opens the
+ * door on CVE-2023-0464.
+ */
+
+#ifndef OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX
+# define OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX 1000
+#endif
+
/*
* Enable this to print out the complete policy tree at various point during
* evaluation.
@@ -168,6 +180,9 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL;
}
+ /* Limit the growth of the tree to mitigate CVE-2023-0464 */
+ tree->node_maximum = OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX;
+
/*
* http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-6.1.2, figure 3.
*
@@ -184,7 +199,7 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
level = tree->levels;
if ((data = policy_data_new(NULL, OBJ_nid2obj(NID_any_policy), 0)) == NULL)
goto bad_tree;
- if (level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree) == NULL) {
+ if (level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree, 1) == NULL) {
policy_data_free(data);
goto bad_tree;
}
@@ -243,7 +258,8 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
* Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise
*/
static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
- X509_POLICY_DATA *data)
+ X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
{
X509_POLICY_LEVEL *last = curr - 1;
int i, matched = 0;
@@ -253,13 +269,13 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
X509_POLICY_NODE *node = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_value(last->nodes, i);
if (policy_node_match(last, node, data->valid_policy)) {
- if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, NULL) == NULL)
+ if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 0) == NULL)
return 0;
matched = 1;
}
}
if (!matched && last->anyPolicy) {
- if (level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL)
+ if (level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL)
return 0;
}
return 1;
@@ -272,7 +288,8 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
* Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise.
*/
static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
- const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache)
+ const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache,
+ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
{
int i;
@@ -280,7 +297,7 @@ static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
X509_POLICY_DATA *data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_value(cache->data, i);
/* Look for matching nodes in previous level */
- if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data))
+ if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data, tree))
return 0;
}
return 1;
@@ -311,7 +328,7 @@ static int tree_add_unmatched(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
/* Curr may not have anyPolicy */
data->qualifier_set = cache->anyPolicy->qualifier_set;
data->flags |= POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS;
- if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree) == NULL) {
+ if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 1) == NULL) {
policy_data_free(data);
return 0;
}
@@ -373,7 +390,7 @@ static int tree_link_any(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
}
/* Finally add link to anyPolicy */
if (last->anyPolicy &&
- level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL)
+ level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL)
return 0;
return 1;
}
@@ -555,7 +572,7 @@ static int tree_calculate_user_set(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
extra->qualifier_set = anyPolicy->data->qualifier_set;
extra->flags = POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS
| POLICY_DATA_FLAG_EXTRA_NODE;
- node = level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent, tree);
+ node = level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent, tree, 1);
}
if (!tree->user_policies) {
tree->user_policies = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_new_null();
@@ -582,7 +599,7 @@ static int tree_evaluate(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
for (i = 1; i < tree->nlevel; i++, curr++) {
cache = policy_cache_set(curr->cert);
- if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache))
+ if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache, tree))
return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL;
if (!(curr->flags & X509_V_FLAG_INHIBIT_ANY)

View File

@ -1,48 +0,0 @@
From b013765abfa80036dc779dd0e50602c57bb3bf95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:52:55 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Ensure that EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY is checked even in leaf
certs
Even though we check the leaf cert to confirm it is valid, we
later ignored the invalid flag and did not notice that the leaf
cert was bad.
Fixes: CVE-2023-0465
Reviewed-by: Hugo Landau <hlandau@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20588)
diff --git a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
index 925fbb5412..1dfe4f9f31 100644
--- a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
+++ b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
@@ -1649,18 +1649,25 @@ static int check_policy(X509_STORE_CTX *ctx)
}
/* Invalid or inconsistent extensions */
if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_INVALID) {
- int i;
+ int i, cbcalled = 0;
/* Locate certificates with bad extensions and notify callback. */
- for (i = 1; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) {
X509 *x = sk_X509_value(ctx->chain, i);
if (!(x->ex_flags & EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY))
continue;
+ cbcalled = 1;
if (!verify_cb_cert(ctx, x, i,
X509_V_ERR_INVALID_POLICY_EXTENSION))
return 0;
}
+ if (!cbcalled) {
+ /* Should not be able to get here */
+ X509err(X509_F_CHECK_POLICY, ERR_R_INTERNAL_ERROR);
+ return 0;
+ }
+ /* The callback ignored the error so we return success */
return 1;
}
if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_FAILURE) {