From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C051FF0DC for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2026 10:06:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 55FD6214BE; Tue, 10 Nov 2026 10:06:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 10:06:29 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup] pbs-key-config: ensure password-protected key is long enough To: Christian Ebner , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261105110750.805444-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1794301542.iv0x4kkfm6.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1794301592168 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.559 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 47Q3ZFW43YVPYHLSTKK6V2I6XAIZYFLB X-Message-ID-Hash: 47Q3ZFW43YVPYHLSTKK6V2I6XAIZYFLB X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On November 10, 2026 10:01 am, Christian Ebner wrote: > On 11/5/26 12:07 PM, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >> while openssl fails if provided an empty slice, the resulting error mess= age >> points at the password instead of the key. checking for at least one byt= e of >> data ensures plain and password-protected keys are distinguished. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler >> --- >> pbs-key-config/src/lib.rs | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>=20 >> diff --git a/pbs-key-config/src/lib.rs b/pbs-key-config/src/lib.rs >> index 7b87b4ea9..0cffdf008 100644 >> --- a/pbs-key-config/src/lib.rs >> +++ b/pbs-key-config/src/lib.rs >> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ impl KeyConfig { >> =20 >> let derived_key =3D kdf.derive_key(&passphrase)?; >> =20 >> - if raw_data.len() < 32 { >> + if raw_data.len() < EXPECTED_KEY_LEN + 1 { >> bail!("Unable to decrypt key - short data"); >> } >> let iv =3D &raw_data[0..16]; >=20 > +1 for the check, should this really use the EXPECTED_KEY_LEN constant=20 > though? >=20 > After all the first 32 bytes here are the IV and tag, not really the key=20 > data... So either we have constants for these as well or stick to the=20 > plain numeric values? right, probably separate constants and using them in the slice access as well makes sense.. will send a v2!