Re: [Serusers] Re: [Serdev] Patched free-TLS implementation - sr-users

4 May 2005

Hi,

Yeah ... I send it with my default config which is using client and server
authentication.
I use this settings with minisip client (supports client side certs) and for tls between
ser proxies. It works perfect.

To turn client authentication off, check:
tls/tls_init.c  file
init_ssl_ctx_behavior function

the line
SSL_CTX_set_verify( _ctx, SSL_VERIFY_PEER | SSL_VERIFY_FAIL_IF_NO_PEER_CERT, 0);

means that the server will request a certificate from the client and if it doesn't get
one, it will fail.

Try changing it with:
SSL_CTX_set_verify( _ctx, SSL_VERIFY_PEER | SSL_VERIFY_CLIENT_ONCE, 0);
this way the server will request a cert, the client will not provide, but on the following
renegotiation, the server (ser) will not ask for a cert. 

And if you want to turn verification off ... completely ... 
SSL_CTX_set_verify( _ctx, SSL_VERIFY_NONE, 0);
this will also work for you if only using tls for ser2phone ... it will not work if you
want tls between proxies ... as the ser client will accept ANY certificate from the ser
server.
And then, from the prompt: 
...
  make TLS=1 all && make TLS=1 install    ;)

This whole verification thing needs to be improved and probably the parameters should be
changeable directly from the config file. This and many other parameters should be
exchangeable without the need to recompile.

Any volunteer for a ser-tls.README? :D

Can you provide me with some extra info from the snom phones and the messenger? Do it
offline, so you can send me some ethereal captures and ser logs ... 

Regards,

Cesc

...
 >> Alex Mack &lt;amack(a)fhm.edu&gt; 05/04/05
02:01PM >>> Hi Cesc!

I compiled in your patch.

Now I'm facing a new problem: SER wants a client certificate from the 
UA. Snom phones immediately reply with an ALERT and break up connection 
upon the certificate requests. MS Messenger on the other hand sends at 
least a reply - without certificate - and SER rejects the Client Hello 
because of the missing client certificate:

tls_accept: Error in SSL:
tls_error: error:140890C7:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_CLIENT_CERTIFICATE:peer 
did not return a certificate

Could you please provide some more documentation about the new TLS 
options you added? It seems you've implemented support for client 
certificates for a two-way certificate authorization - which would be a 
good thing if supported by the UAs, which don't right now. So how can I 
turn it off again and get back to server side certification?

Alex Mack

Cesc Santasusana schrieb:

...
 Hi everybody,

The last i sent is a replacement as a whole for the original code sent by P. Griffiths.
Sorry i forgot to mention that.

The patches for cfg.y and cfg.lex are both in the same file (patch.core.cfg..files.diff)
within the zip. I was lazy :)
I resent it as a whole, and not as a diff, because i indented all the code with tabs,
instead of spaces (so a diff would be bigger than  just sending all the files).

As for the CVS thing ... i agree with Juha. Either gets into the "official" cvs
or we do something about it. The code i think is rather stable as it is (i only tested on
my debian linux box, soon i will try on an ARM linux and i will report back on that too).
For me, as long as it gets into a CVS, i don't care if it is mantained against HEAD or
0.9.0 (i use 0.9.0 .... so all my patches are against it). 

On a more philosophical level, i understand the "quietness" on iptel's side
... they have their own version, and make money on it. But the thing is that this free
version is here to stay ... it is the "problem" of opensource. 
Another option would be for them to release their proprietary implementation if they feel
that it is a better, more tested one. 
In any case, i think that this whole thing needs to be decided fast.

Regards!

Cesc

 >>Alex Mack &lt;amack(a)fhm.edu&gt; 05/03/05
01:26PM >>>
>> Hi Cesc!

Nice to have those fixes in a package.

Is your cfg.y-patch to be applied *after* cfg.y.patch was applied or 
*instead* of cfg.y.patch?

Or is your version a patched one which replaces the original 
implementation as a whole? In that case where's cfg.lex.patch?

Alex Mack

Cesc Santasusana schrieb:

>Hi,
>
>I really hate to be so pushy, but i dont understand how such an important piece of
code as TLS is not moving on into CVS ... or anywhere else by this matter. I will keep
sending patches till i get tired (soon).
>
>Anyway ... i thought someone may be interested in a compilation fix for cfg.y
introduced with the tls_domains (it would not compile if the cfg.y file had been patched
but the tls-core files were not there); a bug fix for the session caching (fixed by
turning session caching and resumption off); and an extension (the ability to choose the
list of allowed ciphers from the config file). Oh, and all the files have been tabbed,
instead of spaced (for indentation).
>
>Enjoy!
>
>Cesc
>
> Unclassified
...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Serdev mailing list
serdev(a)lists.iptel.org 
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev 

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org 
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org 
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 