token validation in check_header_response

[donaldrs]

There is a slight bug in the token validation in check_header_response in context.c. The token as read from the message is now calculated as
token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) |
(msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 24U);

This should be
token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) |
(msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B2] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B3] << 24U);

This causes all request from token 256 on to fail. When changing the last two "B1"s to 'B2" and "B3" everything works fine.

[coldtobi]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:17:46AM +0000, donaldrs wrote: There is a slight bug in the token validation in check_header_response. The token as read from the message is now calculated as token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 24U); This should be token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B2] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B3] << 24U); This causes all request from token 256 on to fail. When changing the last two "B1"s to 'B2" and "B3" everything works fine.

Thanks for spotting that! Can you provide a PR?

…

-- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #1

[donaldrs]

Tobias, To be honest, I have a lot of programming experience, but I’ve never used git as an author before. I would have to find out how it works. I’ll see what I can do. Richard From: Tobias Frost <notifications@github.com> Reply-To: coldtobi/liblightify <reply@reply.github.com> Date: Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 18:37 To: coldtobi/liblightify <liblightify@noreply.github.com> Cc: donaldrs <reg@hierzo.com>, Author <author@noreply.github.com>

Subject: Re: [coldtobi/liblightify] token validation in check_header_response (#1) On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:17:46AM +0000, donaldrs wrote: There is a slight bug in the token validation in check_header_response. The token as read from the message is now calculated as token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 24U); This should be token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B2] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B3] << 24U); This causes all request from token 256 on to fail. When changing the last two "B1"s to 'B2" and "B3" everything works fine.

Thanks for spotting that! Can you provide a PR?

-- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #1

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[donaldrs]

OK,  creating the pull-request turned out to be relatively easy. You learn something new every day. Thanks for the great work! I was absolutelu not looking forward to digging through my wireshark output for Lightify; glad you (and the people you got information from) made my life easier! Richard From: Tobias Frost <notifications@github.com> Reply-To: coldtobi/liblightify <reply@reply.github.com> Date: Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 18:37 To: coldtobi/liblightify <liblightify@noreply.github.com> Cc: donaldrs <reg@hierzo.com>, Author <author@noreply.github.com>

Subject: Re: [coldtobi/liblightify] token validation in check_header_response (#1) On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:17:46AM +0000, donaldrs wrote: There is a slight bug in the token validation in check_header_response. The token as read from the message is now calculated as token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 24U); This should be token2 = msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B0] | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B1] << 8U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B2] << 16U) | (msg[HEADER_REQ_ID_B3] << 24U); This causes all request from token 256 on to fail. When changing the last two "B1"s to 'B2" and "B3" everything works fine.

Thanks for spotting that! Can you provide a PR?

-- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #1

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.