Bugzilla Bug 357197: a small but subtle change to reject a hash algorithm

identifier with bogus 'parameters', and a large but straightforward change
of renaming function arguments and improving comments to clarify the
asymmetry between the two certID arguments. r=nelsonb
This commit is contained in:
wtchang%redhat.com 2006-12-08 22:10:52 +00:00
Родитель fb6bef7f39
Коммит 36db94292d
1 изменённых файлов: 30 добавлений и 25 удалений

Просмотреть файл

@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
* Implementation of OCSP services, for both client and server.
* (XXX, really, mostly just for client right now, but intended to do both.)
*
* $Id: ocsp.c,v 1.31 2006/12/06 02:25:52 wtchang%redhat.com Exp $
* $Id: ocsp.c,v 1.32 2006/12/08 22:10:52 wtchang%redhat.com Exp $
*/
#include "prerror.h"
@ -2809,12 +2809,14 @@ CERT_VerifyOCSPResponseSignature(CERTOCSPResponse *response,
}
/*
* See if two certIDs match. This can be easy or difficult, depending
* on whether the same hash algorithm was used.
* See if the request's certID and the single response's certID match.
* This can be easy or difficult, depending on whether the same hash
* algorithm was used.
*/
static PRBool
ocsp_CertIDsMatch(CERTCertDBHandle *handle,
CERTOCSPCertID *certID1, CERTOCSPCertID *certID2)
CERTOCSPCertID *requestCertID,
CERTOCSPCertID *responseCertID)
{
PRBool match = PR_FALSE;
SECOidTag hashAlg;
@ -2827,51 +2829,54 @@ ocsp_CertIDsMatch(CERTCertDBHandle *handle,
*
* We just compare the easier things first.
*/
if (SECITEM_CompareItem(&certID1->serialNumber,
&certID2->serialNumber) != SECEqual) {
if (SECITEM_CompareItem(&requestCertID->serialNumber,
&responseCertID->serialNumber) != SECEqual) {
goto done;
}
/*
* For all the supported hash algorithms, 'parameters' is NULL (two
* bytes 0x05 0x00), but we allow it to be missing (zero length).
* Make sure the "parameters" are not too bogus. Since we encoded
* requestCertID->hashAlgorithm, we don't need to check it.
*/
if ((SECITEM_CompareItem(&certID1->hashAlgorithm.algorithm,
&certID2->hashAlgorithm.algorithm) == SECEqual)
&& (certID1->hashAlgorithm.parameters.len <= 2)
&& (certID2->hashAlgorithm.parameters.len <= 2)) {
if (responseCertID->hashAlgorithm.parameters.len > 2) {
goto done;
}
if (SECITEM_CompareItem(&requestCertID->hashAlgorithm.algorithm,
&responseCertID->hashAlgorithm.algorithm) == SECEqual) {
/*
* If the hash algorithms match then we can do a simple compare
* of the hash values themselves.
*/
if ((SECITEM_CompareItem(&certID1->issuerNameHash,
&certID2->issuerNameHash) == SECEqual)
&& (SECITEM_CompareItem(&certID1->issuerKeyHash,
&certID2->issuerKeyHash) == SECEqual)) {
if ((SECITEM_CompareItem(&requestCertID->issuerNameHash,
&responseCertID->issuerNameHash) == SECEqual)
&& (SECITEM_CompareItem(&requestCertID->issuerKeyHash,
&responseCertID->issuerKeyHash) == SECEqual)) {
match = PR_TRUE;
}
goto done;
}
hashAlg = SECOID_FindOIDTag(&certID2->hashAlgorithm.algorithm);
hashAlg = SECOID_FindOIDTag(&responseCertID->hashAlgorithm.algorithm);
switch (hashAlg) {
case SEC_OID_SHA1:
keyHash = &certID1->issuerSHA1KeyHash;
nameHash = &certID1->issuerSHA1NameHash;
keyHash = &requestCertID->issuerSHA1KeyHash;
nameHash = &requestCertID->issuerSHA1NameHash;
break;
case SEC_OID_MD5:
keyHash = &certID1->issuerMD5KeyHash;
nameHash = &certID1->issuerMD5NameHash;
keyHash = &requestCertID->issuerMD5KeyHash;
nameHash = &requestCertID->issuerMD5NameHash;
break;
case SEC_OID_MD2:
keyHash = &certID1->issuerMD2KeyHash;
nameHash = &certID1->issuerMD2NameHash;
keyHash = &requestCertID->issuerMD2KeyHash;
nameHash = &requestCertID->issuerMD2NameHash;
break;
}
if ((keyHash != NULL)
&& (SECITEM_CompareItem(nameHash, &certID2->issuerNameHash) == SECEqual)
&& (SECITEM_CompareItem(keyHash, &certID2->issuerKeyHash) == SECEqual)) {
&& (SECITEM_CompareItem(nameHash,
&responseCertID->issuerNameHash) == SECEqual)
&& (SECITEM_CompareItem(keyHash,
&responseCertID->issuerKeyHash) == SECEqual)) {
match = PR_TRUE;
}