[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] ustream-ssl: support openssl 1.1.0, revised security

[Rosen Penev]

Tested-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp at gmaiil.com>

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Eneas U de Queiroz via openwrt-devel
<openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org> wrote:
> The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows
> sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
>
> To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped
> automatically by the mailing list software.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Eneas U de Queiroz <cote2004-github at yahoo.com>
> To: openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> Cc: Eneas U de Queiroz <cote2004-github at yahoo.com>
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 01:03:40 -0300
> Subject: [PATCH v3 0/3] ustream-ssl: support openssl 1.1.0, revised security
> I've fixed a bug in the handling of BIO flags.
>
> I've made some changes to the security options used in the library, and
> made them more uniform across all supported libraries (mbedtls, wolfssl,
> openssl 1.0.2 & openssl 1.1.0).
> The biggest, and probably most controversial change is in the
> ciphersuite ordering. Here's my reasoning:
> The first priority was key exchange, to provide forward-security.
> Then comes encryption algorithm. AEAD ciphers are chosen first. They are
> chacha20-poly1305 (256 bits), and aes-gcm (128 & 256 bits variants).
> Among the three, I've selected chacha20-poly1305 because of higher
> performance and strength. Here's a table generated by openssl speed on
> ramips:
>
> ((openssl speed -evp chacha20-poly1305 | egrep "^(type|chacha)") && \
> (openssl speed -evp aes-128-gcm && openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm) | \
> egrep "^aes") 2>/dev/null
> type              16 bytes   64 bytes  256 bytes  1024 bytes  8192 bytes 16384 bytes
> chacha20-poly1305  6873.30k  10734.22k  12217.75k   12613.07k 12769.39k   12665.00k
> aes-128-gcm        3759.88k   4280.96k   4415.66k    4437.79k  4456.12k    4436.88k
> aes-256-gcm        3408.83k   3738.10k   3838.52k    3841.90k  3864.31k    3882.17k
>
> I'm assuming most routers running openwrt are not going to have
> AES-capable chips. If we were to run the benchmark in a newer server,
> I'd bump AES-256 to the top. This is what it looks like in my x86_64:
>
> type               16 bytes   64 bytes   256 bytes   1024 bytes  8192 bytes  16384 bytes
> chacha20-poly1305 206412.13k 400740.77k  788942.85k   869130.38k  899400.83k   893596.97k
> aes-128-gcm       283449.15k 730408.60k 1074886.58k  1176372.95k 1232831.03k  1245781.87k
> aes-256-gcm       238760.79k 660843.45k  967903.44k  1071756.62k 1089887.49k  1089552.89k
>
> This could be added as an option, or selected automatically depending on
> architecture. The difference is more dramatic for the lesser capable
> chips anyway.
> You can check your "grade" at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/. You'll
> get an A on openssl and mbedtls, and an A- with wolfssl--the minus is
> due to lack of secure renegotiation. There's an option to enable it, but
> wolfssl does not recommend using it.I've made some changes to the
> security options used in the library, and made them more uniform across
> all supported libraries (mbedtls, wolfssl, openssl 1.0.2 & openssl
> 1.1.0)
>
> The mbedtls patch can be applied on its own, independent of the openssl
> patch.
>
> Eneas U de Queiroz (3):
>   ustream-ssl: add openssl-1.1.0 compatibility
>   ustream-ssl: Revised security on openssl/wolfssl
>   ustream-ssl: Revised security on mbedtls
>
>  openssl_bio_compat.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  ustream-io-openssl.c | 46 +++++++++++++++---------------
>  ustream-mbedtls.c    | 49 +++++++++++++++-----------------
>  ustream-openssl.c    | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  4 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 openssl_bio_compat.h
>
> --
> 2.16.4
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/listinfo/openwrt-devel