auth: add tls channel binding (RFC 9266) to sshauth#4
Merged
Conversation
mvo5
changed the title
mvo5
force-pushed
the
tls-binding
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4176c8a to
09f4bd1
Compare
This commit adds tls channel binding for the sshauth authentication. We only support the mechanism described in rfc9266 which implies that we will only support TLS1.3. This should be fine as we control both the client and server side. Thanks to bjorn3 for reporting this! Closes: https://github.com/mvo5/varlink-http-bridge/issues/17
The sshauth tests became a bit too repetative/duplicated. This commit cleans this up a bit by extracting two helpers.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This commit adds tls channel binding for the sshauth authentication.
We only support the mechanism described in rfc9266 which implies that
we will only support TLS1.3. This should be fine as we control both
the client and server side.
Thanks to bjorn3 for reporting this!
Closes: https://github.com/mvo5/varlink-http-bridge/issues/17