Reputation: 1971
In istio
1.5.1, when I tried to add a particular cipher suit to the gateway
's tls
section using this syntax:
minProtocolVersion: TLSV1_3
mode: SIMPLE
cipherSuites: [TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256]
I got the following error in the istio-ingress pod's logs:
[Envoy (Epoch 0)] [2020-06-08 15:15:44.033][22][warning][config] [external/envoy/source/common/config/grpc_subscription_impl.cc:87]
gRPC config for type.googleapis.com/envoy.api.v2.Listener rejected:
Error adding/updating listener(s) 0.0.0.0_443: Failed to initialize cipher suites TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256.
The following ciphers were rejected when tried individually: TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
If I remove the cipherSuites
line from the tls
section, there is no errors, and the same cipher suit appears in the list of valid cipher suits.
Any advise? Thanks
Upvotes: 0
Views: 1329
Reputation: 8830
As far as I checked in envoy documentation And BoringSSL documentation
TLS 1.3 ciphers do not participate in this mechanism and instead have a built-in preference order. Functions to set cipher lists do not affect TLS 1.3, and functions to query the cipher list do not include TLS 1.3 ciphers.
If specified, the TLS listener will only support the specified cipher list when negotiating TLS 1.0-1.2 (this setting has no effect when negotiating TLS 1.3). If not specified, the default list will be used.
In non-FIPS builds, the default cipher list is:
[ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256|ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305]
[ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256|ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305]
ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA
AES128-GCM-SHA256
AES128-SHA
ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA
AES256-GCM-SHA384
AES256-SHA
In builds using BoringSSL FIPS, the default cipher list is:
ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256
ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA
AES128-GCM-SHA256
AES128-SHA
ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA
AES256-GCM-SHA384
AES256-SHA
Additionally take a look at this github issue.
Upvotes: 1