On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:34:43AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 22:48 +0100, David Woodhouse via RT wrote: > > Commit 9cf0f187 in HEAD, and 68039af3 in 1.0.2, removed a version check > > from dtls1_buffer_message() which was needed to distinguish between DTLS > > 1.x and Cisco's pre-standard version of DTLS. > > Further testing shows that simply reverting the offending commit isn't > sufficient -- as the commit comment hinted. We need to treat DTLS v1.2 > the same as DTLS v1.0. So invert it to check explicitly for > DTLS1_BAD_VER instead. And in fact we might as well clean it up a little > to look like this:
I previously mailed something to that effect to rt@, but that seems to not have made it. Anyway, I'm wondering about that assert. Is this something a the other side could potentionally trigger, and so be a remote DoS? I think you showed that you ran into it. If that's the case wouldn't it be better to generate an error instead? Kurt _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
