and then we fully linearize every possible valid order of states ... https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/blob/master/tls/s2n_handshake_io.c#L85 …
-
Show this thread
-
With that approach, when we negotiate what options/modes/extensions you're going to use, we do it just once and handcuff ourselves to the corresponding linearized set of state transitions. That is the only order we will then follow. An out of order message shuts everything down.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
That makes our state machine itself tiny, it's here: https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/blob/master/tls/s2n_handshake_io.c#L253 … all it does is increment a value! Btw one of our coding tenets is never to mix control flow and message parsing in the same function. Big win here!
1 reply 1 retweet 39 likesShow this thread -
O.k. so that's the basic approach, but how do we then test it? how do we make sure that all of our valid states are correct? With some help from
@galois , we formally verify it! Here's how ...1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
So we have a declarative definition of the valid TLS states that come from the RFC. It's written in Cryptol, and is here: https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/blob/master/tests/saw/spec/rfc-handshake.cry#L134 … now that's done by hand and we have to trust it, it's the "bottom turtle" in the proof, but it's easy to read and review.
2 replies 1 retweet 34 likesShow this thread -
We then use SAW to map our s2n_handshake C code to something that can be symbolically executed for all possible inputs. Here's the SAW code that does the mapping: https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/blob/master/tests/saw/s2n_handshake_io.saw …
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
So together, these actually check that our handshake code really does all TLS valid state transitions correctly, and only those. We caught bugs when we first added it too! Not a security issue, but it turns out we didn't support an obscure combination of OSCP and resumption.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
Now my favorite part ... how do we know that the verification itself actually works? We run it on every build, but what does that say?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
We *also* "verify the verifier" by forcing some negative test cases. We actually patch the code with known errors: https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/tree/master/tests/saw/failure_tests … and check that the formal verification fails! This is super important for checking formal verf btw, and often overlooked.
2 replies 8 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
We also do fuzz tests (https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/tree/master/tests/fuzz …) and we have integration tests with other implementations, to check for inter-op.
2 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread
Our goal with tooling is to ensure that we have failsafes beyond code-review. For these state machine type bugs, it actually takes quite a lot! There's a lot more code verifying it than implementing it. It's not surprising that these issues crop up in real world software.
-
-
Anyway, that's it unless you want to AMA. I'll just ask
@threadreaderapp to please unroll this thread!5 replies 0 retweets 28 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.