5

When I using SSLSCAN to check the cipher suites of my server, I found that there are three status: Accepted, Rejected and Failed. After that, I tried to disable the ciphers of RC2(40bits). I created a new key "Enabled"=dword:00000000 under [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Ciphers\RC2 40/128]. The SSLSCAN showed EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5 (40bits) was "failed" but the rest of RC2 （40bits） ciphers were "Rejected".

So this made me confused: what the difference between failed and rejected? I came across all the information on the google, including SSLSCAN main page, but haven't find a clear answer.

ronin
  • 121
  • 3
  • 9

1 Answers1

3

I wondered about the same thing, looked at the source code (“Use the source, Luke!” :), and it simply is the return value of SSL_connect() from the OpenSSL library. The documentation states that:

  • Accepted (1) means:

    The TLS/SSL handshake was successfully completed, a TLS/SSL connection has been established.

  • Rejected (0) means:

    The TLS/SSL handshake was not successful but was shut down controlled and by the specifications of the TLS/SSL protocol. Call SSL_get_error() with the return value ret to find out the reason.

  • Failed (<0) means:

    The TLS/SSL handshake was not successful, because a fatal error occurred either at the protocol level or a connection failure occurred. The shutdown was not clean. It can also occur [if] action is need to continue the operation for non-blocking BIOs. Call SSL_get_error() with the return value ret to find out the reason.

The latter two can be followed by a N/A, if https is not available.

So I think sslscan should contain a --verbose or -v option that calls SSL_get_error() and outputs the actual reason it failed (or was rejected).
That would be rather useful. Because right now, it isn’t.

For now, all I can recommend is to manually connect with a more real-world client, force the usage of a certain cipher on said client or on the server, and then have it show you the actual reason.
Unless you want to improve sslscan’s code, of course. :)

Evi1M4chine
  • 161
  • 6