-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
TLS Alerts not skipped #6
Comments
The problem with the filter is, it is getting complex already. Could you provide a pcap of such an Alert record packet please? I'd like to look into it to determine what could be done. However, I don't particularly like the idea of implementing a TLS record parser in BPF ;-) We might revert to passing all TLS packets to userland instead and do some more parsing/processing there. |
You can test yourself, with the alias https://neskaya.eckenfels.com apache will generate an warning, with https://eckenfels.com you will get a sucessful handshake. A sample trace is here http://bernd.eckenfels.net/view/alert.pcap . The alert record is 15(alert) 0303(tls12) 0002(2bytes) 01(warn) 70(unrecognized name) I am afraid the trace is somewhat before fragmentation (from the server), so the certificate record is corrupt, but the ServerHello is complete. |
Okay, so this looks like we need a rule of the kind As we need one level of indirection already to access the payload ( I am not saying this is impossible, just that it is not pretty. I could probably live with a BPF+parser extension to allow for the Hello to be the second TLS record, which should account for your alert use case. |
I had some ServerHello messages missing. Upon closer inspection it was due to Alert records (SNI host_unknown warning) before the actual ServerHello record. Since they are all in the same segment/package I think it would be a usefull addition to be able to skip alerts. This would also mean to change the default packet filter a bit.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: