From: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
To: 49035@debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Emmanuel Agullo <emmanuel.agullo@inria.fr>, gnutls-help@lists.gnutls.org
Subject: bug#49035: TLS downgrade at bitbucket.org
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 23:51:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87eed2re43.fsf_-_@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pmwns3of.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic Courtès"'s message of "Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:38:56 +0200")
Hi,
(+Cc: gnutls-help; this is about a TLS 1.3→1.2 downgrade at
bitbucket.org, see <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49035> for context.)
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
> And indeed, cURL 7.77 (the replacement) exhibits the bogus behavior:
>
> $ guix environment -CN --no-grafts --ad-hoc curl@7.77 nss-certs -- curl https://bitbucket.org > /dev/null
> % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
> Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
> curl: (35) gnutls_handshake() failed: An illegal parameter has been received.
> $ guix environment -CN --no-grafts --ad-hoc curl@7.74 nss-certs -- curl https://bitbucket.org > /dev/null
> % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
> Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
> 100 75735 100 75735 0 0 134k 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 134k
So these two cURL versions use different TLS priority strings; here’s
the one that cURL 7.77 uses (bad) vs. the one that 7.74 uses (good):
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ gnutls-cli --priority="NORMAL:-ARCFOUR-128:-CTYPE-ALL:+CTYPE-X509:-VERS-SSL3.0:-VERS-TLS-ALL:+VERS-TLS1.0:+VERS-TLS1.1:+VERS-TLS1.2:+VERS-TLS1.3" -p https bitbucket.org
Processed 444 CA certificate(s).
Resolving 'bitbucket.org:https'...
Connecting to '2406:da00:ff00::6b17:d1f5:443'...
|<1>| Detected downgrade to TLS 1.2 from TLS 1.3
*** Fatal error: An illegal parameter has been received.
$ gnutls-cli --priority="NORMAL:-ARCFOUR-128:-CTYPE-ALL:+CTYPE-X509:-VERS-SSL3.0" -p https bitbucket.org
Processed 444 CA certificate(s).
Resolving 'bitbucket.org:https'...
Connecting to '2406:da00:ff00::6b17:d1f5:443'...
- Certificate type: X.509
- Got a certificate list of 2 certificates.
- Certificate[0] info:
- subject `CN=bitbucket.org,OU=Bitbucket,O=Atlassian\, Inc.,L=San Francisco,ST=California,C=US,serialNumber=3928449,jurisdictionOfIncorporationStateOrProvinceName=Delaware,jurisdictionOfIncorporationCountryName=US,businessCategory=Private Organization', issuer `CN=DigiCert SHA2 Extended Validation Server CA,OU=www.digicert.com,O=DigiCert Inc,C=US', serial 0x040c19f4e9ba36e333316834b8908235, EC/ECDSA key 256 bits, signed using RSA-SHA256, activated `2020-03-27 00:00:00 UTC', expires `2022-05-23 12:00:00 UTC', pin-sha256="nFuN2gwclU/9rBe3vz/UUe48hIdL5wLVY8Zke9vApM0="
Public Key ID:
sha1:5f7c6de5e52a6bc39dfdcd5230220f1a7957772b
sha256:9c5b8dda0c1c954ffdac17b7bf3fd451ee3c84874be702d563c6647bdbc0a4cd
Public Key PIN:
pin-sha256:nFuN2gwclU/9rBe3vz/UUe48hIdL5wLVY8Zke9vApM0=
- Certificate[1] info:
- subject `CN=DigiCert SHA2 Extended Validation Server CA,OU=www.digicert.com,O=DigiCert Inc,C=US', issuer `CN=DigiCert High Assurance EV Root CA,OU=www.digicert.com,O=DigiCert Inc,C=US', serial 0x0c79a944b08c11952092615fe26b1d83, RSA key 2048 bits, signed using RSA-SHA256, activated `2013-10-22 12:00:00 UTC', expires `2028-10-22 12:00:00 UTC', pin-sha256="RRM1dGqnDFsCJXBTHky16vi1obOlCgFFn/yOhI/y+ho="
- Status: The certificate is trusted.
- Description: (TLS1.3-X.509)-(ECDHE-SECP256R1)-(ECDSA-SECP256R1-SHA256)-(AES-128-GCM)
- Options: OCSP status request,
- Handshake was completed
- Simple Client Mode:
C-c C-c
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
The key thing here is “Detected downgrade to TLS 1.2 from TLS 1.3”.
Why is a downgrade detected when using the most explicit priority
string and not when using the shorter string?
Aren’t these two priority strings supposed to be equivalent today?
(This is with GnuTLS 3.6.16.)
Thanks,
Ludo’.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-15 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-15 9:16 bug#49035: Git 2.32.0 fails with ‘gnutls_handshake’ error Ludovic Courtès
2021-06-15 12:38 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-06-15 21:51 ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2021-06-18 12:10 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-06-18 15:43 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-06-19 15:17 ` bug#49035: [gnutls-help] TLS downgrade at bitbucket.org Daiki Ueno
2021-06-20 21:26 ` Ludovic Courtès
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87eed2re43.fsf_-_@gnu.org \
--to=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=49035@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=emmanuel.agullo@inria.fr \
--cc=gnutls-help@lists.gnutls.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).