Closed
Bug 811331
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Implement self-contained testing of OCSP STAPLING
Categories
(NSS :: Test, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
3.15
People
(Reporter: KaiE, Assigned: KaiE)
References
(Depends on 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(4 files, 1 obsolete file)
26.73 KB,
patch
|
rrelyea
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
24.02 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
13.36 KB,
patch
|
rrelyea
:
review+
KaiE
:
checked-in+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
26.20 KB,
patch
|
KaiE
:
review+
KaiE
:
checked-in+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
After the various dependency bugs are done,
once we have a selfserv that implements OCSP stapling,
we should replace the tests from bug 360420 (currently in proposed state), that depend on external well known HTTPS servers that implement OCSP stapling.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
This patch applies on top of the patches "round 36" from bug 360420.
Some review comments from Wan-Teh (in bug 360420) have already been addressed in this patch.
Assignee: nobody → kaie
Attachment #701838 -
Flags: review?(rrelyea)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Note this patch also implements the server side of the SSL OCSP stapling protocol.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 701838 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for round 36
I'm going to split this patch into two pieces.
Attachment #701838 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #701838 -
Flags: review?(rrelyea)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
This patch implements the libssl server side of OCSP stapling, this is what you had asked for in bug 360420 comment 141.
Attachment #703310 -
Flags: review?(rrelyea)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
Note there is one block of code that LOOKS like there many removals and additions.
This whitespace-ignoring diff shows, the existing block in CERT_CreateEncodedOCSPSuccessResponse remains unchanged - only new code being added.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
Note - the two patches I've attached - part 5 and part 6 - are identical to the earlier combined patch.
Attachment #703314 -
Flags: review?(rrelyea)
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 703310 [details] [diff] [review]
round 36 - part 5 - OCSP stapling server side protocol
r+ but I have a question. You send the certificate status in both the server and cient handshakes. Was this intentional, and if so, should we change or clarify the comment above ssl3_Send CertificateStatus?
Attachment #703310 -
Flags: review?(rrelyea) → review+
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 703314 [details] [diff] [review]
round 36 - part 6 - server side tools and testing enhancements
r+ to answer your question abiutbthe extended test.... its ok to skip them. We can revisit this when we wnat tonteapst multistapling.
Attachment #703314 -
Flags: review?(rrelyea) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Robert Relyea from comment #7)
> Comment on attachment 703310 [details] [diff] [review]
> round 36 - part 5 - OCSP stapling server side protocol
>
> r+ but I have a question. You send the certificate status in both the server
> and cient handshakes. Was this intentional
No, thanks for catching this mistake.
We don't want to send a cert status after sending the client side sends a client cert.
I'll remove this chunk from patch part 5:
@@ -6184,16 +6185,20 @@ ssl3_SendClientSecondRound(sslSocket *ss
if (rv != SECSuccess) {
goto loser; /* error code is set. */
}
} else if (sendClientCert) {
rv = ssl3_SendCertificate(ss);
if (rv != SECSuccess) {
goto loser; /* error code is set. */
}
+ rv = ssl3_SendCertificateStatus(ss);
+ if (rv != SECSuccess) {
+ return rv; /* error code is set. */
+ }
}
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
Removed the incorrect duplicate block, as identified by Bob.
Otherwise identical to the patch that Bob gave r+ to
Attachment #711547 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #711547 -
Attachment description: 703310: round 40 - part 5 - OCSP stapling server side protocol → round 40 - part 5 - OCSP stapling server side protocol
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 711547 [details] [diff] [review]
round 40 - part 5 - OCSP stapling server side protocol
Checking in security/nss/lib/certhigh/ocsp.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/certhigh/ocsp.c,v <-- ocsp.c
new revision: 1.79; previous revision: 1.78
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/certhigh/ocspi.h;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/certhigh/ocspi.h,v <-- ocspi.h
new revision: 1.14; previous revision: 1.13
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/certhigh/ocspsig.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/certhigh/ocspsig.c,v <-- ocspsig.c
new revision: 1.10; previous revision: 1.9
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl.def;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl.def,v <-- ssl.def
new revision: 1.42; previous revision: 1.41
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl.h;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl.h,v <-- ssl.h
new revision: 1.62; previous revision: 1.61
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl3con.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl3con.c,v <-- ssl3con.c
new revision: 1.204; previous revision: 1.203
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl3ext.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/ssl/ssl3ext.c,v <-- ssl3ext.c
new revision: 1.32; previous revision: 1.31
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/ssl/sslimpl.h;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/ssl/sslimpl.h,v <-- sslimpl.h
new revision: 1.112; previous revision: 1.111
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/ssl/sslsock.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/ssl/sslsock.c,v <-- sslsock.c
new revision: 1.102; previous revision: 1.101
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/util/nssutil.def;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/util/nssutil.def,v <-- nssutil.def
new revision: 1.20; previous revision: 1.19
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/util/secitem.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/util/secitem.c,v <-- secitem.c
new revision: 1.20; previous revision: 1.19
done
Checking in security/nss/lib/util/secitem.h;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/lib/util/secitem.h,v <-- secitem.h
new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10
done
Attachment #711547 -
Flags: checked-in+
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 703314 [details] [diff] [review]
round 36 - part 6 - server side tools and testing enhancements
Checking in security/nss/cmd/selfserv/selfserv.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/cmd/selfserv/selfserv.c,v <-- selfserv.c
new revision: 1.104; previous revision: 1.103
done
Checking in security/nss/cmd/strsclnt/strsclnt.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/cmd/strsclnt/strsclnt.c,v <-- strsclnt.c
new revision: 1.75; previous revision: 1.74
done
Checking in security/nss/cmd/tstclnt/tstclnt.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/cmd/tstclnt/tstclnt.c,v <-- tstclnt.c
new revision: 1.75; previous revision: 1.74
done
Checking in security/nss/tests/all.sh;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/tests/all.sh,v <-- all.sh
new revision: 1.60; previous revision: 1.59
done
Checking in security/nss/tests/cert/cert.sh;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/tests/cert/cert.sh,v <-- cert.sh
new revision: 1.64; previous revision: 1.63
done
Checking in security/nss/tests/common/init.sh;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/tests/common/init.sh,v <-- init.sh
new revision: 1.76; previous revision: 1.75
done
Checking in security/nss/tests/dbupgrade/dbupgrade.sh;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/tests/dbupgrade/dbupgrade.sh,v <-- dbupgrade.sh
new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5
done
Checking in security/nss/tests/ocsp/ocsp.sh;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/tests/ocsp/ocsp.sh,v <-- ocsp.sh
new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4
done
Checking in security/nss/tests/ssl/ssl.sh;
/cvsroot/mozilla/security/nss/tests/ssl/ssl.sh,v <-- ssl.sh
new revision: 1.116; previous revision: 1.115
done
Attachment #703314 -
Flags: checked-in+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
fixed
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → 3.14.4
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Target Milestone: 3.14.4 → 3.15
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•