stunnel-users July 2013

20 participants
18 discussions

Feature requests
by Death Master 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

Can you implement some features? 1) Load balancing leastconn (like leastconn in haproxy) 2) UDT transport between stunnel instances(with several congestion controls which are already implemented for UDT) 3) SCTP transport between stunnel instances (if can be done in userspace) P.S. I'm using 400mbit WAN with 55-90ms latency+0-10%packet loss and on one end I can't control TCP settings at all (remote end is on OpenVZ VPS).

2 1

Line 51: "[pop3s]": Failed to initialize SSL
by Laura Fried 15 Jul '13

15 Jul '13

Beginning with Stunnel version 4.55 and continuing with 4.56 I can configure, make and make install without issue. But as soon as I try to start stunnel with the following command: /usr/local/bin/stunnel /usr/local/etc/stunnel/stunnel.conf I get the folllowing error message: Clients allowed=500 stunnel 4.56 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu platform Compiled/running with OpenSSL 1.0.1 14 Mar 2012 Threading:PTHREAD Sockets:POLL,IPv6 SSL:ENGINE,OCSP,FIPS Reading configuration from file /usr/local/etc/stunnel/stunnel.conf FIPS_mode_set: F06D065: error:0F06D065:common libcrypto routines:FIPS_mode_set:fips mode not supported Line 51: "[pop3s]": Failed to initialize SSL str_stats: 9 block(s), 163 data byte(s), 522 control byte(s) Any insight into this issue would be greatly appreciated. -- Laura J. Fried

3 5

is verify level 4 working?
by dansmith 11 Jul '13

11 Jul '13

I would expect that level 4 only compares locally installed certificates, however I get the same behaviour as with level 3, stunnel expects a CA cert. Here'e the relevant log when on level 4 Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG7[7870:140491349628672]: Starting certificate verification: depth=0, /C=qq/ST=qq/O=qqq/OU=rer/CN=redf/emailAddress=rfd Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG4[7870:140491349628672]: CERT: Verification error: unable to get local issuer certificate Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG4[7870:140491349628672]: Certificate check failed: depth=0, /C=qq/ST=qq/O=qqq/OU=rer/CN=redf/emailAddress=rfd Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG7[7872:140080853112576]: SSL alert (read): fatal: unknown CA What am I missing in understanding verify's level 4 ?

3 6

Creating a Centralized Secure Log Server with syslog-ng and Stunnel
by Szajt, Pablo 10 Jul '13

10 Jul '13

Hi guys, I have the task to install a secure syslog server using syslog-ng and stunnel. The Syslog server is a Solaris 10 and Syslog clients are HP-UX 11.31. I've spent already so many hours and I cannot make it run properly. I know syslog-ng works well without stunnel. I'm pretty sure someone is already using it. I'd like to have step by step installation process. I have no issue if I have to start from scratch. Thanks for your help, Pablo Pablo Szajt

2 1

Stunnel 4.56 and FIPS
by Ondrej Hrebicek 09 Jul '13

09 Jul '13

Hello stunnel users, I'm trying to compile stunnel 4.56 with FIPS support on Ubuntu 12.04. Always end up with the infamous "fingerprint does not match" error. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. 1. Download openssl-fips-2.0.2.tar.gz, unpack, ./config, make, and sudo make install (as specified in http://www.openssl.org/docs/fips/UserGuide-2.0.pdf) 2. Download openssl-1.0.1e.tar.gz, unpack, ./config fips --with-fipslibdir=/usr/local/ssl/fips-2.0/lib/ --with-fipsdir=/usr/local/ssl/fips-2.0/, make depend, make, and sudo make install 3. At this point, openssl is working in FIPS mode: > OPENSSL_FIPS=1 /usr/local/ssl/bin/openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 > OPENSSL_FIPS=1 /usr/local/ssl/bin/openssl sha1 c_rehash SHA1(c_rehash)= 5af9e1479950bbbd9d3304c181b3f802c54f64fd > OPENSSL_FIPS=1 /usr/local/ssl/bin/openssl md5 c_rehash Error setting digest md5 139806582736544:error:060A80A3:digital envelope routines:FIPS_DIGESTINIT:disabled for fips:fips_md.c:180: 4. Download stunnel-4.56.tar.gz, unpack, ./configure --enable-fips --with-ssl=/usr/local/ssl, make, and sudo make install 5. While configuring and building stunnel completes as expected, the following does appear in ./configure's output: checking whether to enable FIPS mode support... yes configure: **************************************** SSL checking for SSL directory... /usr/local/ssl checking /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/engine.h usability... yes checking /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/engine.h presence... yes checking for /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/engine.h... yes checking /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/ocsp.h usability... yes checking /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/ocsp.h presence... yes checking for /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/ocsp.h... yes checking /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/fips.h usability... no checking /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/fips.h presence... no checking for /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/fips.h... no configure: WARNING: OpenSSL fips header not found This is not entirely unexpected as fips.h only exists in /usr/local/ssl/fips-2.0/include/openssl. 6. Running stunnel however fails: > /usr/local/bin/stunnel Clients allowed=500 stunnel 4.56 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu platform Compiled/running with OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 Threading:PTHREAD Sockets:POLL,IPv6 SSL:ENGINE,OCSP,FIPS Reading configuration from file /usr/local/etc/stunnel/stunnel.conf FIPS_mode_set: 2D06B06F: error:2D06B06F:FIPS routines:FIPS_check_incore_fingerprint:fingerprint does not match Line 61: "[pop3s]": Failed to initialize SSL str_stats: 5 block(s), 120 data byte(s), 290 control byte(s) I can't figure out what's causing this, hoping someone on the list may have a couple suggestions. Thanks in advance!

2 2

Re: [stunnel-users] is verify level 4 working?
by Thomas Eifert 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

dansmith, I'd be the last to argue with you. Purely as an experiment, I tried changing the verify level from 4 to 3, but it didn't fly. I most likely missed the entirety of the signing chain, as I only added the certificate of the *issuing* CA. Regards, Thomas On 7/8/2013 7:01 PM, dansmith wrote: > Thomas, the recent exception you are describing - needing a CA > sertificate and server certificate is what verify=3 does. > So, I guess there is some regression in the code. > When I look at stunnel's verify.c code, there is only one reference to > level 4 in line 225. It seems like verify=4 functionality is missing > from the code. > > On 07/08/2013 11:44 PM, Thomas Eifert wrote: >> dansmith, >> >> It's my understanding that verify = 4 should, theoretically, look only >> for the server certificate, and this is the way I've been using it >> with great success over the past year or so. Recently, however, I ran >> into an exception to that behavior. >> >> In my case, I only had to download and install one certificate; that >> of the signing CA. I simply pasted it directly below the server >> certificate in the associated .pem file. The CA certificate wasn't >> originally in .pem format, so I converted it beforehand. OpenSSL has >> conversion capability, and there are also online certificate tools >> available. Your mileage may vary. >> >> Good luck. >> >> Thomas >> >> >> On 7/8/2013 3:01 PM, dansmith wrote: >> >>> Could you kindly break it down for me. Are you saying that I need to >>> have two CAs A & B. A signs the certificate of B and B signs the >>> certificate of my server? >>> Do I understand correctly that verify=4 is supposed to simply ignore >> any >>> CAs and only look at the actual certificate, comparing it to the >>> certificate in CAfile ? >>> >>> >>> On 07/08/2013 06:32 PM, Thomas Eifert wrote: >>>> You're not missing anything. I've experienced a similar issue. While >>>> verify = 4 generally works well in most cases and will ignore the CA >>>> chain, I've encountered a few isolated incidences in which I've had to >>>> append or "chain" the server certificate with the certificate of the >>>> CA. Give it a shot and see if it resolves your issue. >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> On 7/8/2013 3:02 AM, dansmith wrote: >>>>> I would expect that level 4 only compares locally installed >>>>> certificates, however I get the same behaviour as with level 3, >> stunnel >>>>> expects a CA cert. >>>>> Here'e the relevant log when on level 4 >>>>> >>>>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG7[7870:140491349628672]: Starting >>>>> certificate verification: depth=0, >>>>> /C=qq/ST=qq/O=qqq/OU=rer/CN=redf/emailAddress=rfd >>>>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG4[7870:140491349628672]: CERT: >>>>> Verification error: unable to get local issuer certificate >>>>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG4[7870:140491349628672]: Certificate >>>>> check failed: depth=0, >> /C=qq/ST=qq/O=qqq/OU=rer/CN=redf/emailAddress=rfd >>>>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG7[7872:140080853112576]: SSL alert >>>>> (read): fatal: unknown CA >>>>> >>>>> What am I missing in understanding verify's level 4 ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> stunnel-users mailing list >>>>> stunnel-users(a)stunnel.org >>>>> https://www.stunnel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Attention: This message and all attachments are private and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message immediately.

1 0

is verify level 4 working?
by Thomas Eifert 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

dansmith, It's my understanding that verify = 4 should, theoretically, look only for the server certificate, and this is the way I've been using it with great success over the past year or so. Recently, however, I ran into an exception to that behavior. In my case, I only had to download and install one certificate; that of the signing CA. I simply pasted it directly below the server certificate in the associated .pem file. The CA certificate wasn't originally in .pem format, so I converted it beforehand. OpenSSL has conversion capability, and there are also online certificate tools available. Your mileage may vary. Good luck. Thomas On 7/8/2013 3:01 PM, dansmith wrote: > Could you kindly break it down for me. Are you saying that I need to > have two CAs A & B. A signs the certificate of B and B signs the > certificate of my server? > Do I understand correctly that verify=4 is supposed to simply ignore any > CAs and only look at the actual certificate, comparing it to the > certificate in CAfile ? > > > On 07/08/2013 06:32 PM, Thomas Eifert wrote: >> You're not missing anything. I've experienced a similar issue. While >> verify = 4 generally works well in most cases and will ignore the CA >> chain, I've encountered a few isolated incidences in which I've had to >> append or "chain" the server certificate with the certificate of the >> CA. Give it a shot and see if it resolves your issue. >> >> Thomas >> >> On 7/8/2013 3:02 AM, dansmith wrote: >>> I would expect that level 4 only compares locally installed >>> certificates, however I get the same behaviour as with level 3, stunnel >>> expects a CA cert. >>> Here'e the relevant log when on level 4 >>> >>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG7[7870:140491349628672]: Starting >>> certificate verification: depth=0, >>> /C=qq/ST=qq/O=qqq/OU=rer/CN=redf/emailAddress=rfd >>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG4[7870:140491349628672]: CERT: >>> Verification error: unable to get local issuer certificate >>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG4[7870:140491349628672]: Certificate >>> check failed: depth=0, /C=qq/ST=qq/O=qqq/OU=rer/CN=redf/emailAddress=rfd >>> Jul 6 23:46:31 mmm stunnel: LOG7[7872:140080853112576]: SSL alert >>> (read): fatal: unknown CA >>> >>> What am I missing in understanding verify's level 4 ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> stunnel-users mailing list >>> stunnel-users(a)stunnel.org >>> https://www.stunnel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users >>> >> > > -- Attention: This message and all attachments are private and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message immediately. -- Attention: This message and all attachments are private and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message immediately.

1 0

Re: [stunnel-users] accept : too many open files error(24)
by Senthil Naidu 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Hi, We are using 64 bit version of centos, and the ram of this system is 1gb so should we increase this limit to 100000 in the limits.conf Regards senthil On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Michael Curran <mike_curran(a)hotmail.com>wrote: > Are you running 32-kernel for centos? > > 32-bit limits in the 4500 range for open connections due to the memory > constraints > > We usually set our open file limits to 100I specifically for Stunnel user > > *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID* > > > Senthil Naidu <senthil.naidu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > > We are using stunnel 4.32 on centos and our ulimits in limits.conf are as > follows > > > > * soft nofile 16384 > > * hard nofile 65536 > > > > We keep getting the error “too many open files(24)” and stunnel does not > accept new connection till we restart the same > > > > Is this ulimit proper or we need to increase the same , we are look for > 3000 to 5000 connections > > > > Regards > > Senthil >

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

stunnel-users July 2013