Hi
Simon,
First
results:
Openssl
1.1.1 uses 1.0, mbedtls uses 1.2 for that
HelloVerifyRequest.
Both
clients works with 1.2 or 1.0
From
your previous mail:
The server MUST use the same
version number in the HelloVerifyRequest that it would use when
sending a ServerHello.
That’s
interesting … and doesn’t fit. So I will write to the
ietf-tls-list.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Achim Kraus
Bosch IoT Hub - Product Area IoT Platform (IOC/PAP-HU)
Bosch.IO GmbH | Stuttgarter Straße 130 | 71332 Waiblingen |
GERMANY | www.bosch.io
Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg;
HRB 148411 B
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke;
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Dr. Aleksandar
Mitrovic, Yvonne Reckling
As you are here Achim, I will not open a dedicated
issue in californium.
Let discuss about it here.
My first point : I'm not sure this is a good idea to change
default behavior in a minor version release. In this
particular case we could maybe considered this as a bug fix
(But I'm not sure of this as this is just a SHOULD and not a
MUST).
My second point : About the RFC, it says :
1. TLS 1.2 server implementations SHOULD use DTLS
2. version 1.0 regardless of the version of TLS that is expected to be
3. negotiated. DTLS 1.2 and 1.0 clients MUST use the version solely to
4. indicate packet formatting (which is the same in both DTLS 1.2 and
5. 1.0) and not as part of version negotiation. In particular, DTLS 1.2
6. clients MUST NOT assume that because the server uses version 1.0 in
7. the HelloVerifyRequest that the server is not DTLS 1.2 or that it
8. will eventually negotiate DTLS 1.0 rather than DTLS 1.2.
9. The server MUST use the same
10. version number in the HelloVerifyRequest that it would use when
11. sending a ServerHello.
So
I'm not sure to understand this correctly ? Does it means that
a DTLS 1.2 server SHOULD use 1.2 version in
hello_verfiy_request ? Using 1.0 version is only for server
which support 1.0 to 1.2 ?
(I suppose you have another understanding else you didn't
implement this ? or maybe you just missed the second sentence
?)
Mark,
no matter how this discussion will end, your device seems
to not respect this part of the RFC :
In particular, DTLS 1.2
clients MUST NOT assume that because the server uses version 1.0 in
the HelloVerifyRequest that the server is not DTLS 1.2 or that it
will eventually negotiate DTLS 1.0 rather than DTLS 1.2.
So you should report this.
Simon
Le 23/11/2020 à 16:48, Kraus Achim
(IOC/PAP-HU) a écrit :
Hi
together,
there
is a
DtlsConfiguration.Builder.setProtocolVersionForHelloVerifyRequests.
That
may help out.
It’s
always not too easy, to fix something according a RFC,
if some implementations are used to behave different
;-).
Mit
freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Achim Kraus
Bosch IoT Hub - Product Area IoT Platform (IOC/PAP-HU)
Bosch.IO GmbH | Stuttgarter Straße 130 | 71332
Waiblingen |
GERMANY | www.bosch.io
Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht
Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke;
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Dr. Aleksandar
Mitrovic, Yvonne Reckling
I bet this could be because
of :
https://github.com/eclipse/californium/pull/1397
See :
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6347#section-4.2.1
The default VERSION value changes which change default
behavior, but this changes follow a RFC recommendation so
I'm not sure if this will(or even should) be changed back
? (My guess is probably not)
This is possible to change it using the API, see :
https://github.com/eclipse/californium/pull/1397/files#diff-3c57eeacb63a45e50c11737e09d3e166367773a093f2cb216e3ece81f2477597R1606
(but this will probably not changed on the sandbox)
Le
23/11/2020 à 16:17, Simon Bernard a écrit :
We succeed to get a capture. I joined it.
Your device sounds to not answer to HELLO_VERIFY_REQUEST
from the server.
I guess there is some changes about this at Californium
side. I will open a ticket to discuss about this. Please
do not hesitate to join the discussion.
Le
23/11/2020 à 15:36, Simon Bernard a écrit :
Hi,
You can eventually run leshan-server-demo locally and
so run wireshark at server side.
Or Eventually, I can try to do a capture at server
side. (as there is not so much traffic) I'm currently
running a tcpdump on the sandbox. If you make your
device communicate now I can see the exchange.
(This will maybe be complicated to synchronize
ourself, I will let the tcpdump capturing for the next
hour but I will stop it before the end of the day)
Simon
Le
23/11/2020 à 15:00, Mark Lugovskoy a écrit :
Hi,
I
tried to connect using this sequence of commands
from GSM modem:
AT#LWM2MINJKEYS=0,1,"mark123456","mark123456","0987654321"
AT#LWM2MSTS=0,999,"coaps://leshan.eclipseprojects.io:5784",1
at#reboot
AT#LWM2MENA=1
With this
sequence, I managed to connect until Thursday
after noon. In the evening I already couldn’t
connect.
I pretty
much use my GSM modem as black box, so I can’t
provide much more details. I also don’t have
Wireshark.
I’ll try
to find more information that you asked.
Thank
you,
Mark
From:
Thomas LE ROUX [mailto:thomas.leroux@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 3:33 PM
To: leshan developer discussions <leshan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mark Lugovskoy <mark.lugovskoy-ext@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [leshan-dev] A question
regarding Leshan demo web site
There
must be something wrong with either your
computer's networking options, the sequence of
command you used, registration to the server
(wrong key, or a device with the same identity
is registered with a wrong key. You can check
this out at
https://leshan.eclipseprojects.io/#/security)
or something else.
Hi,
Is
there some problem with this server?
It should not. But you maybe found a bug ?
Thursday I integrated in master (and so
applied on Leshan sandbox) some commits
about integration of the new Californium
version, there is maybe a regression with
this. (Californium itself or my
modifications)
This could help if you provide more
context. (which client used ? DTLS or not ?,
if DTLS, rpk psk or x509 ? providing
wireshark capture or log could help too)
If you prefer you can use github issue ?
(Mailing list is fine too)
Simon
Le
23/11/2020 à 13:17, Mark Lugovskoy a
écrit :
Hi,
Last
week I connected with my device
successfully to the demo LESHAN server:
https://leshan.eclipseprojects.io/#/clients.
But
since Thursday I can’t connect to it,
with the same sequence of commands that
I used before.
Is
there some problem with this server?
Thank
you,
Mark
_______________________________________________
leshan-dev mailing list
leshan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/leshan-dev
_______________________________________________
leshan-dev mailing list
leshan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/leshan-dev
_______________________________________________
leshan-dev mailing list
leshan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/leshan-dev
_______________________________________________
leshan-dev mailing list
leshan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/leshan-dev
