These were meant to demonstrate old behavior, or old rust behavior.
One of them _should_ work in Rust, but won't because of
implementation details. We'll fix that up later.
The C code and the rust code had different separate integer overflow
bugs here. That suggests that we're better off just forbidding this
pathological case.
Also, add tests for expected behavior on receiving a bad protocol
list in a consensus.
Fixes another part of 25249.
I've refactored these to be a separate function, to avoid tricky
merge conflicts.
Some of these are disabled with "XXXX" comments; they should get
fixed moving forward.
This one can only be exploited if you can generate a correctly
signed consensus, so it's not as bad as 25074.
Fixes bug 25251; also tracked as TROVE-2018-004.
In some cases we had checked for it, but in others we had not. One
of these cases could have been used to remotely cause
denial-of-service against directory authorities while they attempted
to vote.
Fixes TROVE-2018-001.
* ADD includes for "torint.h" and "container.h" to crypto_digest.h.
* ADD includes for "crypto_digest.h" to a couple places in which
crypto_digest_t was then missing.
* FIXES part of #24658: https://bugs.torproject.org/24658#comment:30
Folks have found two in the past week or so; we may as well fix the
others.
Found with:
\#!/usr/bin/python3
import re
def findMulti(fname):
includes = set()
with open(fname) as f:
for line in f:
m = re.match(r'^\s*#\s*include\s+["<](\S+)[>"]', line)
if m:
inc = m.group(1)
if inc in includes:
print("{}: {}".format(fname, inc))
includes.add(m.group(1))
import sys
for fname in sys.argv[1:]:
findMulti(fname)
We moved the crypto_pk_obselete_* functions into crypto_rsa.[ch] because they fit
better with the RSA module.
Follows #24658.
Signed-off-by: Fernando Fernandez Mancera <ffmancera@riseup.net>
since all it does is produce false positives
this commit should get merged into 0.2.9 and 0.3.0 *and* 0.3.1, even
though the code in the previous commit is already present in 0.3.1. sorry
for the mess.
[Cherry-picked]
since all it does is produce false positives
this commit should get merged into 0.2.9 and 0.3.0 *and* 0.3.1, even
though the code in the previous commit is already present in 0.3.1. sorry
for the mess.
