There was one place in curve25519-donna-c64 that was relying on
unaligned access and relying on little-endian values. This patch
fixes that.
I've sent Adam a pull request.
Our old warn_nonlocal_client_ports() would give a bogus warning for
every nonlocal port every time it parsed any ports at all. So if it
parsed a nonlocal socksport, it would complain that it had a nonlocal
socksport...and then turn around and complain about the nonlocal
socksport again, calling it a nonlocal transport or nonlocal dnsport,
if it had any of those.
Fixes bug 7836; bugfix on 0.2.3.3-alpha.
mr-4 reports on #7799 that he was seeing it several times per second,
which suggests that things had gone very wrong.
This isn't a real fix, but it should make Tor usable till we can
figure out the real issue.
This implements the server-side of proposal 198 by detecting when
clients lack the magic list of ciphersuites that indicates that
they're lying faking some ciphers they don't really have. When
clients lack this list, we can choose any cipher that we'd actually
like. The newly allowed ciphersuites are, currently, "All ECDHE-RSA
ciphers that openssl supports, except for ECDHE-RSA-RC4".
The code to detect the cipher list relies on on (ab)use of
SSL_set_session_secret_cb.
We already use this classification for deciding whether (as a server)
to do a v2/v3 handshake, and we're about to start using it for
deciding whether we can use good ciphersuites too.
This is less easy than you might think; we can't just look at the
client ciphers list, since openssl doesn't remember client ciphers if
it doesn't know about them. So we have to keep a list of the "v2"
ciphers, with the ones we don't know about removed.
It's important not to call choose_array_element_by_weight and then
pass its return value unchecked to smartlist_get : it is allowed to
return -1.
Fixes bug 7756; bugfix on 4e3d07a6 (not in any released Tor)
This is good enough to give P_success >= 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 so
long as the address space is less than 97.95 full. It'd be ridiculous
for that to happen for IPv6, and usome reasonable assumptions, it
would also be pretty silly for IPv4.
