Check for invalid certificate_authorities extensions

Our parsers were neither rejecting trailing data, nor an empty list.
(Empty lists aren't allowed because the sender should have skipped the
extension.)

Update-Note: Our TLS 1.3 parsers are slightly more spec-compliant and
may reject messages from buggy peers. This isn't expected to have any
impact. Confirmed that OpenSSL correctly skips the extension when empty.
Any stack tested against our SSL tests also would have sent it
correctly. Additionally, as a server, clients that send
certificate_authorities are rare. As a client, servers that send
CertificateRequest are rare.

Change-Id: I12c9821c12f0c075fc32635d447417b19e95263f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/93727
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Lily Chen <chlily@google.com>
Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
8 files changed
tree: 0bf6cb3c646fddf55c7c34035bb0ce9ed8c7c50a
  1. .bcr/
  2. .github/
  3. bench/
  4. cmake/
  5. crypto/
  6. decrepit/
  7. docs/
  8. fuzz/
  9. gen/
  10. include/
  11. infra/
  12. pki/
  13. rust/
  14. ssl/
  15. third_party/
  16. tool/
  17. util/
  18. .bazelignore
  19. .bazelrc
  20. .bazelversion
  21. .clang-format
  22. .clang-format-ignore
  23. .clangd
  24. .gitattributes
  25. .gitignore
  26. API-CONVENTIONS.md
  27. AUTHORS
  28. BREAKING-CHANGES.md
  29. BUILD.bazel
  30. build.json
  31. BUILDING.md
  32. CMakeLists.txt
  33. codereview.settings
  34. CONTRIBUTING.md
  35. FUZZING.md
  36. go.mod
  37. go.sum
  38. INCORPORATING.md
  39. LICENSE
  40. MODULE.bazel
  41. MODULE.bazel.lock
  42. PORTING.md
  43. PRESUBMIT.py
  44. PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy
  45. README.md
  46. SANDBOXING.md
  47. SECURITY.md
  48. STYLE.md
README.md

BoringSSL

BoringSSL is a fork of OpenSSL that is designed to meet Google's needs.

Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it. Doing so is likely to be frustrating because there are no guarantees of API or ABI stability.

Programs ship their own copies of BoringSSL when they use it and we update everything as needed when deciding to make API changes. This allows us to mostly avoid compromises in the name of compatibility. It works for us, but it may not work for you.

BoringSSL arose because Google used OpenSSL for many years in various ways and, over time, built up a large number of patches that were maintained while tracking upstream OpenSSL. As Google's product portfolio became more complex, more copies of OpenSSL sprung up and the effort involved in maintaining all these patches in multiple places was growing steadily.

Currently BoringSSL is the SSL library in Chrome/Chromium, Android (but it's not part of the NDK) and a number of other apps/programs.

Project links:

To file a security issue, use the Chromium process and mention in the report this is for BoringSSL. You can ignore the parts of the process that are specific to Chromium/Chrome.

There are other files in this directory which might be helpful: