IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Our code won’t use this, but NIST’s test vectors are based on handing a
fixed buffer to the key derivation function.
View with ‘git show -b’.
Signed-off-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Rename smb2_key_derivation() to samba_gnutls_sp800_108_derive_key() and
move it to GNUTLS_HELPERS.
Signed-off-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
The Contains and Any_of operators could use a sorted comparison like
compare_composites_via_sort(), rather than O(n²) nested loops. But
that would involve amount of quite fiddly work that I am not starting
on now.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Nov 27 23:38:13 UTC 2023 on atb-devel-224
We know from the way claims are defined, and from the code that checks
sortedness and sets the flag.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
The ordinary comparison path, using the sorted arrays, already implicitly
checks for comparability. We only need this when we're leaving early.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
If the number of members does not match in certain ways we can
say the sets are not equal without comparing the members.
We first need to check for comparability, though, so that we can return
an error if things aren't comparable.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We had the comparison method wrong. Composites are compared as sets or
flabby sets, depending on their origin. Until now we compared them as
something a bit like sets, but not quite, in a maximally inefficient way.
Claims are always sets, and the left hand side is always a claim, but
literal composites on the right hand side can be multi-sets
(containing duplicate values). When it comes to comparison, composites
are reduced down to sets. To do the comparison we sort each side and
compare in order.
The fact that either side might ask for case-sensitive comparison (if
it is a claim) is an interesting complication.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
For SDDL Resource ACE conversions we don't want to check too much
claim validity so that a semi-invalid ACE can round-trip through
deserialisation and serialisation. This is because Windows allows it,
but also because if the check puts the values in a sorted order that
makes the round-trip less round (that is, the return string is
semantically the same but possibly different in byte order).
The validity we're talking about is mostly uniqueness. For example
`S:(RA;;;;;WD;("foo",TU,0,7,5,7))` has two 7s, and that would be
invalid as a claim, but this is not checked while in ACE form.
On the other hand `S:(RA;;;;;WD;("foo",TU,0,3,2))` is valid, but the
return string will have 3 and 2 reversed when the check is made. We
prefer the ACE to stay the same while it is just being an ACE.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
If it is a wire claim (which is probably most common), the checking
and sorting has already happened. We don't need to make a copy to
sort and check.
In either case, there is still a copy step to make the conditional ACE
token.
This shuffles around some knownfails because the claim_v1_copy()
function we were using is checking for duplicates, which we don't
always want. That will be fixed soon.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This function is used in tests and fuzzing.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Because RA ACEs live a double life, sometimes being ACEs and sometimes
being claims, we make a copy of the claim strucutre for sorting and
further use in conditional ACEs.
We don't need to do that for wire claims, because they are not
persistent or forwarded on to somewhere else.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This roughly returns things to where they were a few commits ago, with
the claims being checked for uniqueness.
The difference is the claims will be sorted afterwards, and the
uniqueness check will be far more efficient on large claims.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
To manage this sort we need a qsort_r-like sort context which holds:
a) the value type,
b) a case sensitive flag for the string compare, and
c) a return flag indicating a failure. Failures are not picked up until
after the sort finishes.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
claim_v1_check_and_sort() is meant to sort the claim values and check
that there are no duplicates, as well as making some value checks.
In order to ease into the idea, we look first at the case where the claim
has Boolean values. There are only two values allowed, which limits the
length of a valid claim set and means we only really need to "sort" in
the {1, 0} case, which we rewrite in place as {0, 1}.
That's what will happen with other types: we'll sort in-place, make
some checks on values, set flags, and return an error if there are
duplicates or value errors.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This restores the behaviour with regard to duplicate NULL strings that
existed before the last commit. I'm putting it separately, because it
seems so strange, and I not entirely certain the behaviour is
intentional.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This changes the behaviour when one of the strings is NULL. Previously
a single NULL string would be ignored, and two would cause an error.
That will be restored in the next commit.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
And we allocate all the values together as an array, because
we might as well.
This and the next couple of commits might look like steps backwards,
and they are, but they allow us to get a run-up to leap over a big
fence.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
The interstitial tmp_ctx now does nothing but be interstitial, so
let's get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
These values would have leaked in the event of failure (but only onto
the caller mem_ctx, which might be fleeting -- especially as its
security token is now failing).
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
The reason for this, apart from weighing up possible over-allocations
vs realloc costs, is in the first iteration of the loop,
claim_values = talloc_array(claims,
would allocate onto NULL, which leaks.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We don't change these when writing the SDDL.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
In some circumstances we are going to know general comparability
without having an operator around to use.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Existing callers already make this check, but we are soon going to use
it in contexts that don't.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
These are unit tests for converting wire claims into sorted claims v1
structures.
These are based from packets derived from the krb5.conditional_ace
tests, and currently don't test more than they do, but they work about
a hundred thousand times quicker.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
No -d, just `bin/test_run_conditional_ace 3`.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
blob_string_sid_to_sid() immediately checks the size is within 5-191, so the 1-10000
just gives you a different message in chircumstances you'll never see.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Apart from the leak fix, this is faster and stricter, not accepting
SID string buffers with trailing garbage ("S-1-2-3qwerty" would have
been accepted, but not now).
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
These are just as readable with `less` as they were with `zless`.
This file has been slightly manually edited to add line-breaks. There
is not an easy setting in Python's json module to get good formatting.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Nov 27 02:10:12 UTC 2023 on atb-devel-224
We had two sets of test vectors (Windows ground-truth for SDDL
compilation) that got mixed up.
The "oversized ACLs" set is ACLs that contain repeated ACEs, like
"D:P(D;;;;;MP)(D;;;;;MP)" -- Windows will assign a size to the ACL
that is greater than the sum of the ACEs, while Samba will not (in
part because we don't actually store a size for the ACL, instead
calculating it on the fly from the size of the ACEs).
The "TX integers" set is for resource attribute ACEs with octet-string
data that contains pure integers (lacking '#' characters) in their
SDDL, like «(RA;;;;;WD;("bar",TX,0x0,0077,00,0077,00))». We used to
think that was weird, and that RA-TX ACEs should contain octet-strings
in the conditional ACE style. But now we have realised it's not weird,
it's normal, and we have fixed our handling of these ACEs.
As a result of this mix-up, some of the tests labelled as "oversized
ACLs" started passing when we fixed the TX integer problem, and that
was confusing. All of the removed tests are already on the TX integer
set -- the removed ones were duplicates.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This is unneeded, as now all the checks are done in the relevant
parse_* functions.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We were reusing parse_literal() because it almost does what we need,
but it is different enough that check_resource_attr_type() is large
and complicated, and can't handle all the cases (in particular octet-
strings and SIDs are different in resource ACEs).
This way is better because we know the type in advance, so we can use
that to choose the parser, which will help with octet-strings that are
only digits.
In this commit we're leaving the check there, but it soon won't do
anything that the parse_* functions don't, and we will remove it.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We are going to parse octet strings like Windows (as opposed to like
Windows docs), so the tests need changing.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
