From patchwork Sun Apr 2 16:41:58 2023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Steve Sakoman X-Patchwork-Id: 22085 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E95DC76196 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2023 16:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-f172.google.com (mail-pl1-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.48696.1680453750816217484 for ; Sun, 02 Apr 2023 09:42:30 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@sakoman-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.s=20210112 header.b=vCiamAeI; spf=softfail (domain: sakoman.com, ip: 209.85.214.172, mailfrom: steve@sakoman.com) Received: by mail-pl1-f172.google.com with SMTP id kc4so25816753plb.10 for ; Sun, 02 Apr 2023 09:42:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sakoman-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; t=1680453750; x=1683045750; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=xowJx/9yXxxy72+Lpar+LDADjdGdQCmiVoGy+8XckII=; b=vCiamAeIBfrbuh58yhzzSbGriDyL9NglOHCcKgqGIPmJ1EH2djTUPcy0CA/gAWS5k9 xjeAyrPXvdYHKrpHBkML98W3fDPS0pMPE2SFyARAfcN2IZ31pM96Hhx5sRPR5zinf0tg kcvc7JQIQu0RKBPV5SOLX3BoBdTWaO/m6hdDvF9njxYWHWdzUmi1AT4VhofBHNNgo0B7 aiOs1N3DbUMT70dibqxlG7UV7oTTdRMY00LYVkVvjhzpBVaOXZrABW103420Iu7wmDDR nU9D5m3i/l/SJH3FG3jB17HpIwHU4ffc4ck1H2oeFVl48CKQ5/cQNdh6EJVPHu9zAwmn zfPA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680453750; x=1683045750; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xowJx/9yXxxy72+Lpar+LDADjdGdQCmiVoGy+8XckII=; b=ooluKaGAWaBD6WHf066zB7bQmb4n84xTsXD9s59BRUa/30CeqYvo+ZOy3O/lP1WnCu hzL7sS7V6080kRv6t9z7wW3QXCxuOSpRfzUcJYmpaRaKt8vyFfdUTvSTi2bpdhyJiu6M gW48wAxk4mKZJQeUHPfeaisdzdOWQUJhAwYjvKrtas0dnJI4FYzhhvoxzvBHxkG22ZWy hOVtNtA3Nn7MvsCoi29GBGR/oL4io7ITG8rqWjQObVgBbQzwnkql3ccm52PSamjiNPBu YRL3I/wL6Tpc4a9BFWUd/nNMHJWQCt97VIK4jhbjnBaL7FfI+27kPCc76SSQUaP4JDZf W64Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fBIdlSTIyeq6s7/kqsMoEtjwG985DT2xmoVR8jEvEHyvRnlnrp wtLzhNLBDXaQ71GPdGaJmldbjmfqZd5YAr/sgLY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZqaEZuZVQ6w7h1YJnPQ9gSzO4iTYt5sFYVxn3Vxrx4RRs9S1adrWqAYp4BW/HeCzBOHXBSfw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e812:b0:19c:e440:9256 with SMTP id u18-20020a170902e81200b0019ce4409256mr42179744plg.35.1680453749585; Sun, 02 Apr 2023 09:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hexa.router0800d9.com (dhcp-72-253-4-112.hawaiiantel.net. [72.253.4.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ja7-20020a170902efc700b001a1ddd224desm5042079plb.89.2023.04.02.09.42.28 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 02 Apr 2023 09:42:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Sakoman To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: [OE-core][kirkstone 03/21] openssl: Security fix for CVE-2023-0464, CVE-2023-0465, CVE-2023-0466 Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2023 06:41:58 -1000 Message-Id: <699ed495ee65991bf4ab286070d72109e72b1f81.1680453201.git.steve@sakoman.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Sun, 02 Apr 2023 16:42:39 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/179584 From: Siddharth Doshi Upstream-Status: - CVE-2023-0464: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=959c59c7a0164117e7f8366466a32bb1f8d77ff1] - CVE-2023-0465: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=1dd43e0709fece299b15208f36cc7c76209ba0bb] - CVE-2023-0466: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=51e8a84ce742db0f6c70510d0159dad8f7825908] Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi Signed-off-by: Steve Sakoman --- .../openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0464.patch | 225 ++++++++++++++++++ .../openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0465.patch | 56 +++++ .../openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0466.patch | 50 ++++ .../openssl/openssl_3.0.8.bb | 3 + 4 files changed, 334 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0464.patch create mode 100644 meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0465.patch create mode 100644 meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0466.patch diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0464.patch b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0464.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..3b94c48e8d --- /dev/null +++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0464.patch @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +From 959c59c7a0164117e7f8366466a32bb1f8d77ff1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Pauli +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 +Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis +(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20568) + +Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=959c59c7a0164117e7f8366466a32bb1f8d77ff1] +CVE: CVE-2023-0464 +Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi +--- + crypto/x509/pcy_local.h | 8 +++++++- + crypto/x509/pcy_node.c | 12 +++++++++--- + crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- + 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/crypto/x509/pcy_local.h b/crypto/x509/pcy_local.h +index 18b53cc..cba107c 100644 +--- a/crypto/x509/pcy_local.h ++++ b/crypto/x509/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; +@@ -157,7 +162,8 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_tree_find_sk(STACK_OF(X509_POLICY_NODE) *sk, + X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_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 ossl_policy_node_free(X509_POLICY_NODE *node); + int ossl_policy_node_match(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *lvl, + const X509_POLICY_NODE *node, const ASN1_OBJECT *oid); +diff --git a/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c b/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c +index 9d9a7ea..450f95a 100644 +--- a/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c ++++ b/crypto/x509/pcy_node.c +@@ -59,10 +59,15 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_level_find_node(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_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) { + ERR_raise(ERR_LIB_X509V3, ERR_R_MALLOC_FAILURE); +@@ -70,7 +75,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *ossl_policy_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 *ossl_policy_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 *ossl_policy_level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + } + } + ++ tree->node_count++; + if (parent) + parent->nchild++; + +diff --git a/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c b/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c +index fa45da5..f953a05 100644 +--- a/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c ++++ b/crypto/x509/pcy_tree.c +@@ -14,6 +14,17 @@ + + #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 ++ + static void expected_print(BIO *channel, + X509_POLICY_LEVEL *lev, X509_POLICY_NODE *node, + int indent) +@@ -163,6 +174,9 @@ 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. + * +@@ -180,7 +194,7 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs, + if ((data = ossl_policy_data_new(NULL, + OBJ_nid2obj(NID_any_policy), 0)) == NULL) + goto bad_tree; +- if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree) == NULL) { ++ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree, 1) == NULL) { + ossl_policy_data_free(data); + goto bad_tree; + } +@@ -239,7 +253,8 @@ 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; +@@ -249,13 +264,13 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, + X509_POLICY_NODE *node = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_value(last->nodes, i); + + if (ossl_policy_node_match(last, node, data->valid_policy)) { +- if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, NULL) == NULL) ++ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 0) == NULL) + return 0; + matched = 1; + } + } + if (!matched && last->anyPolicy) { +- if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL) ++ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL) + return 0; + } + return 1; +@@ -268,7 +283,8 @@ 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; + +@@ -276,7 +292,7 @@ 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; +@@ -307,7 +323,7 @@ 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 (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree) == NULL) { ++ if (ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 1) == NULL) { + ossl_policy_data_free(data); + return 0; + } +@@ -370,7 +386,7 @@ static int tree_link_any(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, + /* Finally add link to anyPolicy */ + if (last->anyPolicy && + ossl_policy_level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy, +- last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL) ++ last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL) + return 0; + return 1; + } +@@ -553,7 +569,7 @@ static int tree_calculate_user_set(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree, + extra->flags = POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS + | POLICY_DATA_FLAG_EXTRA_NODE; + node = ossl_policy_level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent, +- tree); ++ tree, 1); + } + if (!tree->user_policies) { + tree->user_policies = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_new_null(); +@@ -580,7 +596,7 @@ static int tree_evaluate(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree) + + for (i = 1; i < tree->nlevel; i++, curr++) { + cache = ossl_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) +-- +2.35.7 + diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0465.patch b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0465.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..57fd494464 --- /dev/null +++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0465.patch @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +From 1dd43e0709fece299b15208f36cc7c76209ba0bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Matt Caswell +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 +Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz +(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20587) + +Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=1dd43e0709fece299b15208f36cc7c76209ba0bb] +CVE: CVE-2023-0465 +Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi +--- + crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c | 12 ++++++++++-- + 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c +index 9384f1d..a0282c3 100644 +--- a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c ++++ b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c +@@ -1654,15 +1654,23 @@ static int check_policy(X509_STORE_CTX *ctx) + goto memerr; + /* 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) != 0) ++ cbcalled = 1; + CB_FAIL_IF((x->ex_flags & EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY) != 0, + ctx, x, i, X509_V_ERR_INVALID_POLICY_EXTENSION); + } ++ if (!cbcalled) { ++ /* Should not be able to get here */ ++ ERR_raise(ERR_LIB_X509, ERR_R_INTERNAL_ERROR); ++ return 0; ++ } ++ /* The callback ignored the error so we return success */ + return 1; + } + if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_FAILURE) { +-- +2.35.7 + diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0466.patch b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0466.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a16bfe42ca --- /dev/null +++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl/CVE-2023-0466.patch @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +From 51e8a84ce742db0f6c70510d0159dad8f7825908 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Tomas Mraz +Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:15:47 +0100 +Subject: [PATCH] Fix documentation of X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() + +The function was incorrectly documented as enabling policy checking. + +Fixes: CVE-2023-0466 + +Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell +Reviewed-by: Paul Dale +(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20563) + +Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=51e8a84ce742db0f6c70510d0159dad8f7825908] +CVE: CVE-2023-0466 +Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi +--- + doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod | 9 +++++++-- + 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod b/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod +index 75a1677..43c1900 100644 +--- a/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod ++++ b/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod +@@ -98,8 +98,9 @@ B. + X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_time() sets the verification time in B to + B. Normally the current time is used. + +-X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() enables policy checking (it is disabled +-by default) and adds B to the acceptable policy set. ++X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() adds B to the acceptable policy set. ++Contrary to preexisting documentation of this function it does not enable ++policy checking. + + X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies() enables policy checking (it is disabled + by default) and sets the acceptable policy set to B. Any existing +@@ -400,6 +401,10 @@ The X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get_hostflags() function was added in OpenSSL 1.1.0i. + The X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get0_host(), X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get0_email(), + and X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get1_ip_asc() functions were added in OpenSSL 3.0. + ++The function X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() was historically documented as ++enabling policy checking however the implementation has never done this. ++The documentation was changed to align with the implementation. ++ + =head1 COPYRIGHT + + Copyright 2009-2023 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved. +-- +2.35.7 + diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl_3.0.8.bb b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl_3.0.8.bb index 75f9e44748..e1f30d7a47 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl_3.0.8.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl_3.0.8.bb @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ SRC_URI = "http://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-${PV}.tar.gz \ file://0001-buildinfo-strip-sysroot-and-debug-prefix-map-from-co.patch \ file://afalg.patch \ file://0001-Configure-do-not-tweak-mips-cflags.patch \ + file://CVE-2023-0464.patch \ + file://CVE-2023-0465.patch \ + file://CVE-2023-0466.patch \ " SRC_URI:append:class-nativesdk = " \