Skip to content

scep: require transactionID and senderNonce before dispatch - #22

Open
yosuke-wolfssl wants to merge 1 commit into
wolfSSL:mainfrom
yosuke-wolfssl:fix/f_8042
Open

scep: require transactionID and senderNonce before dispatch#22
yosuke-wolfssl wants to merge 1 commit into
wolfSSL:mainfrom
yosuke-wolfssl:fix/f_8042

Conversation

@yosuke-wolfssl

@yosuke-wolfssl yosuke-wolfssl commented Aug 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Problem

The SCEP server validated only messageType before dispatch.
wolfcert_scep_parse_pki_message() leaves transactionID / senderNonce NULL when the attribute is absent rather than failing, and build_signed_attribs() silently omits any NULL field. A CMS-valid PKCSReq/RenewalReq omitting either therefore reached issuance, and the server signed and returned a CertRep missing transactionID and/or recipientNonce instead of refusing.

RFC 8894 §3.2.1 makes both mandatory in every pkiMessage; §3.2.1.1 and §3.2.1.5 require the response to echo them. Closes f-8042 (High). Also removes a zero-length-transactionID collision in the pending queue and a NULL-to-memcmp() in pending_find().

Fix (src/scep/scep_server.c)

handle_pki_op() rejects a pkiMessage missing either attribute with HTTP 400, before decrypting or dispatching:

if (tid == NULL || tid_len == 0 || snonce == NULL || snonce_len == 0) {
    s->keep_alive = 0;
    send_text(s, fd, 400, "Bad Message", "text/plain", "");
    rc = WOLFCERT_ERR_PROTOCOL;
    goto out;
}
  • Why 400 and not a FAILURE CertRep. recipientNonce is copied from the request's senderNonce, so a reply to a request lacking one cannot carry it — that CertRep would be non-conforming in exactly the way this PR exists to stop, and our own client rejects it outright (scep_client.c:882), so the failInfo never reaches the caller. This matches the file's split: a malformed request gets a plain 400 (:815 decrypt failure, :828 unknown messageType), while a PKI decision on a well-formed request gets a signed CertRep. No send_cert_rep() call now passes recipient_nonce = NULL.
  • len == 0 matters. An empty attribute on the wire yields a non-NULL zero-length buffer, which a NULL-only check would miss.
  • The guard precedes wolfcert_scep_deenvelop(), so a rejected request costs neither an RSA private-key operation nor a CA signature.

Tests (tests/integration/test_scep_roundtrip.c)

raw_http_status() is generalized to raw_http_req() (method, content type, binary body, persistent flag, returns the response body); a GET wrapper leaves the existing call sites unchanged. write_all_fd() loops over short writes, and the read loop returns -1 on a grow failure or timeout rather than parsing a status out of a truncated response. check_required_attrs() POSTs five hand-built pkiMessages:

Round Expect
no transactionID HTTP 400
zero-length transactionID HTTP 400
no senderNonce HTTP 400
zero-length senderNonce HTTP 400
both present (control) pkiStatus 0, envelope, echoed transactionID and recipientNonce

A sixth request over a keep-alive connection confirms the reject closes the socket.

Verification

  • Clean build under both CMake and autoconf, no warnings.
  • 26/26 ctest pass; 26/26 clean under ASan + UBSan.
  • Mutation-tested: deleting either transactionID check fails round 0 or 1, either senderNonce check fails round 2 or 3, and removing both connection-close mechanisms fails the keep-alive check. The control passes with and without the fix, proving the harness reaches the issuance path.

Not in this PR

The 400 "Cannot Decrypt" reply is a decryption oracle against PKCS#1 v1.5 key transport; this change narrows reachability but does not close it. PR #23 reworks the remaining rejection paths — note its send_pki_failure() passes snonce through unvalidated, so it should gain the same senderNonce guard when the two are reconciled.

@yosuke-wolfssl yosuke-wolfssl self-assigned this Aug 21, 2026
Copilot AI lite review requested due to automatic review settings August 21, 2026 05:40

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR enforces mandatory SCEP transactionID and senderNonce attributes before dispatch and adds regression coverage.

Changes:

  • Rejects missing or empty required attributes.
  • Adds raw POST handling and malformed-request tests.
  • Covers valid and invalid SCEP message cases.

Review findings:

  • src/scep/scep_server.c:798 — wrap protocol errors to update thread-local diagnostics (moderate, 2 votes).
  • tests/integration/test_scep_roundtrip.c:125 — handle short socket writes (moderate, 2 votes).

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File Summary
src/scep/scep_server.c Validates required SCEP attributes before processing.
tests/integration/test_scep_roundtrip.c Adds raw HTTP handling and required-attribute tests.
Suppressed comments (2)

src/scep/scep_server.c:802

  • The new snonce_len == 0 path is not exercised: the added malformed round at check_required_attrs() omits sender_nonce entirely, while only transactionID gets a dedicated zero-length case. Please add an analogous non-NULL sender_nonce with length 0 and assert the same signed FAILURE response, otherwise the empty-senderNonce regression remains untested.
    if (snonce == NULL || snonce_len == 0) {

tests/integration/test_scep_roundtrip.c:780

  • The new check also rejects a non-NULL senderNonce with snonce_len == 0, but this round only exercises an absent senderNonce (a.sender_nonce == NULL). A regression that drops the length check would still pass the suite; add a hand-built empty OCTET STRING senderNonce round and assert the same failure CertRep/no-recipientNonce behavior.
        else if (i == 2) {                  /* no senderNonce */
            a.transaction_id = tid;   a.transaction_id_len = sizeof(tid);
        }

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Comment thread src/scep/scep_server.c
Comment thread tests/integration/test_scep_roundtrip.c Outdated

@wolfSSL-Fenrir-bot wolfSSL-Fenrir-bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fenrir Automated Review — PR #22

Scan targets checked: wolfcert-bugs, wolfcert-src

No new issues found in the changed files. ✅

@Frauschi Frauschi left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Two comments. The senderNonce guard is the substantive one - I think it should return 400 like the transactionID guard directly above it, since no conforming CertRep exists without a senderNonce to echo. The other is a nit on the test harness. The fix itself is right, and both guards correctly land before the deenvelop.

Comment thread src/scep/scep_server.c Outdated
goto out;
}

if (snonce == NULL || snonce_len == 0) {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The transactionID branch right above gets this right: with nothing to echo there is no conforming CertRep, so it answers 400. The same argument applies here. recipientNonce is copied from the senderNonce (RFC 8894 3.2.1), so with no senderNonce this CertRep cannot carry one either - send_cert_rep(..., NULL, 0, ...) leaves attrs.recipient_nonce = NULL and scep_msg.c:189 then drops the attribute. We end up signing a response that is non-conforming in exactly the way this PR exists to stop. Our own client rejects it unconditionally (scep_client.c:882, WOLFCERT_ERR_PROTOCOL), so the failInfo=badRequest never reaches the caller - it surfaces as a generic protocol error - and we have spent a CA private-key signature on an unauthenticated malformed request.

The convention argument in the description doesn't quite hold either: :815 (deenvelop failure) and :828 (unknown messageType) both have tid and snonce in hand and still return a plain 400. The split in this file is malformed request -> 400, PKI decision on a well-formed request -> signed CertRep, and this is the only send_cert_rep() call passing recipient_nonce = NULL. Can we fold this into the guard above and flip round 3 of check_required_attrs() to expect 400?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed on all counts, applied. Both cases now share one guard:

if (tid == NULL || tid_len == 0 || snonce == NULL || snonce_len == 0) {
    s->keep_alive = 0;
    send_text(s, fd, 400, "Bad Message", "text/plain", "");
    rc = WOLFCERT_ERR_PROTOCOL;
    goto out;
}

No send_cert_rep() call passes recipient_nonce = NULL any more, and the CA signature is off the unauthenticated malformed-request path. You were also right that my convention argument was wrong: :815 and :828 both hold tid and snonce and still answer 400, so the split is malformed -> 400, PKI decision -> CertRep. The description is updated.

check_required_attrs() rounds 0-3 now expect 400; only the both-present control parses a CertRep.

if (write_all_fd(fd, (const uint8_t*)hdr, (size_t)n) != 0 ||
(body_len > 0 && write_all_fd(fd, body, body_len) != 0)) {
close(fd);
return -1;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The loop breaks identically on a clean EOF, on realloc failure, and on the 5s SO_RCVTIMEO expiry, then parses a status out of whatever arrived - so a truncated response is indistinguishable from a complete one. In check_required_attrs() a transport hiccup would surface as a parse failure attributed to the round under test, which is annoying to chase. Worth tracking why the loop exited and returning -1 on the non-EOF cases. Bounds handling itself is fine: the reserve leaves room for the read plus the terminator even after a failed grow.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed. The loop now records a clean EOF and returns -1 otherwise, so a grow failure or an SO_RCVTIMEO expiry can no longer pass for a complete response:

if (r < 0)
    break;
if (r == 0) {
    eof = 1;
    break;
}
...
if (resp == NULL || !eof) {
    free(resp);
    return -1;
}

That also made a new check possible: a rejected pkiMessage sent over a keep-alive connection must still come back 400, which only holds if the server hangs up. Verified by mutation - removing both close mechanisms fails it.

- handle_pki_op() answers a pkiMessage whose transactionID or
  senderNonce is absent or empty with HTTP 400, clearing keep_alive
  and returning WOLFCERT_ERR_PROTOCOL, ahead of
  wolfcert_scep_deenvelop().
- raw_http_req() replaces the body of raw_http_status() in the SCEP
  roundtrip test, taking a method, content type, binary body and
  persistent flag, and returning the response body; a read error,
  timeout or failed grow returns -1. write_all_fd() loops over short
  writes. raw_http_status() wraps it for GET.
- check_required_attrs() POSTs five pkiMessages -- no transactionID,
  zero-length transactionID, no senderNonce, zero-length
  senderNonce, both present -- expecting HTTP 400 on the first four
  and a full CertRep on the last, then one over a keep-alive
  connection to confirm the reject closes it.

Issue: F-8042

@wolfSSL-Fenrir-bot wolfSSL-Fenrir-bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fenrir Automated Review — PR #22

Scan targets checked: wolfcert-bugs, wolfcert-src

Fenrir result: Approved ✅

No new issues found in the changed files.

Advisory only — this automated result does not count as a GitHub approval.

@yosuke-wolfssl

yosuke-wolfssl commented Sep 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hello @Frauschi ,
I fixed the issues you mentioned.
Can you check this please ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants