Fix RFC 7250 Compliance #1
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- We worked with the assumption that a client would never send a RawPublicKey Certificate Type in the ClientHello if the server does not support RawPublicKeys. If a client did send a RawPublicKey Certificate Type in the ClientHello, the handshake would fail with an `UnsolicitedCertificateTypeExtension`. - In practice, this is not the case. Clients may send a RawPublicKey Certificate Type in the ClientHello even if the server does not support RawPublicKeys. - This commit fixes the issue by changing the way the server handles the `certificate_type_extensions` in the ClientHello. - Also added a test to check if the server can handle a RawPublicKey Certificate Type in the ClientHello even if the server does not support RawPublicKeys. - The client is handling the `certificate_type_extensions` in the ServerHello in the same way as before
aochagavia
reviewed
Dec 11, 2024
| @@ -697,13 +697,13 @@ pub(super) fn process_server_cert_type_extension( | |||
| .requires_raw_public_keys(); | |||
| let server_offers_rpk = matches!(server_cert_extension, Some(CertificateType::RawPublicKey)); | |||
|
|
|||
| let raw_key_negotation_params = RawKeyNegotiationParams { | |||
| let raw_key_negotation_params = NegotationCertificateTypeExtension { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ik vind de naam NegotationCertificateTypeExtension onduidelijk. Kun je het uitleggen, of kunnen we beter iets anders gebruiken, zoals CertificateTypeExtensionNegotiationParams of CertificateTypeExtensionParams?
Daarnaast moeten we de naam van de variabele updaten (nu heet het nog raw_key_negotation_params)
| @@ -735,3 +742,33 @@ pub(crate) enum HandshakeHashOrBuffer { | |||
| Buffer(HandshakeHashBuffer), | |||
| Hash(HandshakeHash), | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #[derive(Debug)] | |||
| struct NegotationCertificateTypeExtension { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Deze struct heeft dezelfde naam als die andere boven, dat lijkt me verwarrend. Zou NegotatedCertificateTypeExtension een duidelijkere naam zijn?
| fn validate_certificate_type_extension( | ||
| &self, | ||
| ) -> CertificateTypeExtensionNegotationResult { | ||
| // TODO WHAT IS MORE CLEAR? THE MATCH OR THE IF ELSE? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ik heb wat ideeën om dit te herschrijven, zonder een match
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
UnsolicitedCertificateTypeExtension.certificate_type_extensionsin the ClientHello.certificate_type_extensionsin the ServerHello in the same way as before