RFC7250 - RawPublicKey - No Suitable Certificate?
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Stale
- Tech stack
- c
- Domain
- networking, security
Research direction
Start with the linked dtls.c location, check_server_hellodone, and compare the current handshake behavior with RFC 5246 section 7.4.6. The issue asks whether to send an empty certificate list when no suitable certificate is available; done would mean implementing the agreed behavior so the server can decide whether to continue or abort.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
I'm currently on testing the interoperability of the OpenSSL - RPK PR.
If the client has "no suitable certificate", the current implementation in "main" branch aborts the handshake.
dtls.c: check_server_hellodone
An alternative approach would be, to implement RFC 5246 - 7.4.6 - Client Certificate :
If no suitable certificate is available, the client MUST send a certificate message containing no certificates. That is, the certificate_list structure has a length of zero.
That enables an server to decide to continue or abort.
Any opinions?
- Dominant language
- C
- Stars
- 122
- Forks
- 67
- Avg merge
- 6d 8h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Getting set up
- No Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- No pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from eclipse-tinydtls/tinydtls
-
ECDHE_ECDSA ClientKeyExchange rejected as too short when DTLS_PSK_MAX_CLIENT_IDENTITY_LEN > 64Possibly taken A pull request linked to this issue is open or already merged. Openbug good first issue please retest
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
eclipse-tinydtls/tinydtls#298 · 2 comments ·
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
-
`dtls_get_cookie`: dereference before the length check (currently masked by `dtls_create_cookie`)Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
eclipse-tinydtls/tinydtls#279 · 2 comments · 1 reaction ·
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
-
MSVC build is broken (undeclared `DTLS_DEBUG_BUF_SIZE`)Possibly taken @mrdeep1 claimed this 9 days ago. Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 25/100
eclipse-tinydtls/tinydtls#283 · 5 comments ·
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 57/100
eclipse-tinydtls/tinydtls#278 · 3 comments · 1 reaction ·
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
eclipse-tinydtls/tinydtls#274 · 2 comments ·
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
All issues in eclipse-tinydtls/tinydtls
Similar issues
-
type: feature
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 77/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
FujiNetWIFI/fujinet-firmware#1932 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 63/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
stdlib
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
[LOGO] kairo linuxOpenlogo request
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
fastfetch-cli/fastfetch#2650 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day