From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FCF31FF13C for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:03:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 051CB3749; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:03:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Shannon Sterz To: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [PATCH proxmox 04/17] client: ignore certificate trust store validation result on fp option Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:03:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20260611120327.257523-5-s.sterz@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260611120327.257523-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> References: <20260611120327.257523-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781179363958 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.109 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [owasp.org,client.rs] Message-ID-Hash: FKRS3RHXSTC4SHKVIUIFCSOJHS3TEMGZ X-Message-ID-Hash: FKRS3RHXSTC4SHKVIUIFCSOJHS3TEMGZ X-MailFrom: s.sterz@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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: when a fingerprint is provided, the assumption is, that it acts like a pinned certificate [1]. by short-circuiting if the certificate is trusted by the system's trust store (meaning, returning `true` if the `valid` parameter to the verify callback is `true`), this assumption is broken. any certificate, whether the fingerprint matches or not, that is trusted by the system's trust store is considered valid. [1]: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Pinning_Cheat_Sheet.html#what-is-pinning Signed-off-by: Shannon Sterz --- proxmox-client/src/client.rs | 5 +---- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/proxmox-client/src/client.rs b/proxmox-client/src/client.rs index 26913dbb..7617fee2 100644 --- a/proxmox-client/src/client.rs +++ b/proxmox-client/src/client.rs @@ -109,10 +109,7 @@ impl Client { TlsOptions::Verify => (), TlsOptions::Insecure => connector.set_verify(SslVerifyMode::NONE), TlsOptions::Fingerprint(expected_fingerprint) => { - connector.set_verify_callback(SslVerifyMode::PEER, move |valid, chain| { - if valid { - return true; - } + connector.set_verify_callback(SslVerifyMode::PEER, move |_valid, chain| { verify_fingerprint(chain, &expected_fingerprint) }); } -- 2.47.3