lwip-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lwip-users] BEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED in altcp_tls_mbedtls


From: Indan Zupancic
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] BEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED in altcp_tls_mbedtls
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:58:05 +0200

Hello Cesare,

> LWIP builds by default with TLS ca certificate verification optional 
> (MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_OPTIONAL),
> which is unsuitable for production as it bypasses TLS authentication.

This depends on how you use TLS. For e.g. HTTP it is the client that requires 
verification 
and not the server (client certification is also possible, but unusual). If 
that server runs 
on lwIP then I don't think you want to enable MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED.

Best regards,

Indan Zupancic



TT Vasumweg 150  |  1033 SH Amsterdam  |  The Netherlands
Phone: + 31 [0]20 482 56 32  |   Fax: + 31 [0]20 482 00 77  |  Email: 
indan.zupancic@mep-info.com

-----Original Message-----
From: lwip-users <lwip-users-bounces+indan.zupancic=mep-info.com@nongnu.org> On 
Behalf Of Cesare Garlati
Sent: Monday, 22 June 2020 20:14
To: lwip-users@nongnu.org
Subject: [lwip-users] BEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED in altcp_tls_mbedtls

LWIP builds by default with TLS ca certificate verification optional 
(MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_OPTIONAL), which is unsuitable for production as it 
bypasses TLS authentication.

Question: is there a way to change the mbedTLS setting into 
MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED without hacking the lwip code?

Would it make sense to add a new lwip config macro ALTCP_MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY 
with the 4 mbedTLS options below?

#define MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_NONE           0 #define MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_OPTIONAL 
    1 #define MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED    2 #define MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_UNSET 
         3

Alternatively, Would it make sense to ship lwip with security enabled by 
default and simply replace  the current MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_OPTIONAL with 
MBEDTLS_SSL_VERIFY_REQUIRED in apps/altcp_tls/altcp_tls_mbedtls?

Happy to submit a patch if it makes sense.


Cesare






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]