This PR is in response to issue #352, where it was noted that Bash does not support binary data in strings.
I replaced all calls to `sockread()` with calls to `sockread_serverhello()`, and then, since is now used everywhere and not just to read ServerHello messages, I renamed `sockread_serverhello()` to `sockread()`.
I tested the revised code against several servers, including one that is vulnerable to CCS and Heartbleed, and got the same results as with the current code (although the hexdumps displayed in debug mode differ).
One concern I have is the code in `run_ccs_injection()`. The current code is:
```
byte6=$(echo "$SOCKREPLY" | "${HEXDUMPPLAIN[@]}" | sed 's/^..........//')
lines=$(echo "$SOCKREPLY" | "${HEXDUMP[@]}" | count_lines )
debugme echo "lines: $lines, byte6: $byte6"
if [[ "$byte6" == "0a" ]] || [[ "$lines" -gt 1 ]]; then
pr_done_best "not vulnerable (OK)"
...
```
I revised this to:
```
if [[ -s "$SOCK_REPLY_FILE" ]]; then
byte6=$(hexdump -ve '1/1 "%.2x"' "$SOCK_REPLY_FILE" | sed 's/^..........//')
lines=$(hexdump -ve '16/1 "%02x " " \n"' "$SOCK_REPLY_FILE" | count_lines )
debugme echo "lines: $lines, byte6: $byte6"
fi
rm "$SOCK_REPLY_FILE"
if [[ "$byte6" == "0a" ]] || [[ "$lines" -gt 1 ]]; then
...
```
In the revised code `byte6` is initialized to `0a` so that the response is `not vulnerable (OK)` if `$SOCK_REPLY_FILE` is empty. This has worked okay since for all of the servers that I tested that weren't vulnerable `$SOCK_REPLY_FILE` was empty. Since I haven't seen any other examples, I don't understand why check for vulnerability was written the way it was. So, I'm a bit concerned that the test in the revised code may produce incorrect results now that `hexdump -ve '1/1 "%.2x"' "$SOCK_REPLY_FILE"` is an accurate hexdump of the reply.
In the check for old versions of OpenSSL, the results of the call to `ignore_no_or_lame()` are ignored, and so the program continues even if the user enters `no`.
This PR makes three changes to `determine_optimal_proto()`:
* It no longer tries an empty string for `$OPTIMAL_PROTO` twice.
* It does not include `-servername` for `-ssl2` or `-ssl3`, since some versions of OpenSSL that support SSLv2 will fail if `s_client` is provided both the `-ssl2` and `-servername` options.
* It displays a warning if `$OPTIMAL_PROTO` is `-ssl2`, since some tests in testssl.sh will not work correctly for SSLv2-only servers.
This PR changes test_just_one() to correctly handle SSLv2 ciphers.
As with PR #424, this PR addresses the problem in which servers that do not implement SSLv2, but that implement RC4-MD5, EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5, EXP-RC4-MD5, or NULL-MD5 are shown as implementing both the SSLv2 and SSLv3 versions of the ciphers, and that any SSLv2 ciphers that a server does implement are not shown as being implemented.
This PR changes run_rc4() to correctly handle SSLv2 ciphers.
It addresses the problem in which servers that do not implement SSLv2, but that implement SSLv3 ciphers that share an OpenSSL name with an SSLv2 cipher (RC4-MD5 and EXP-RC4-MD5), are not incorrectly shown as having implemented the SSLv2 cipher.
It also addresses the problem that if a server does implement SSLv2 with an RC4 SSLv2-cipher suite, then that cipher suite it not shown as being implemented.
`certificate_info()` does not correctly display the Issuer name for CAs that use domain component attributes.
There is a server on the NIST intra-net that I test against that has a certificate issued by a NIST CA, and the issuer name in the certificate is of the form: `/DC=net/DC=example/DC=internal/CN=CAname`
Since there is no organizational name, testssl.sh displays the name as:
```
Issuer "CAname" ("")
```
In this PR, if the Issuer name has 'DC=' attributes, but does not have an 'O=' attribute, the "DC=" attributes are combined into a DNS name that is used as if it were the organizational name:
```
Issuer "CAname" ("internal.example.net")
```
I should note, however, that I have not been able to find any other examples of TLS server certificates that have been issued by CAs that have domain components ("DC=") in their names. So, it may not be worthwhile to change the code to try to accommodate such CAs.
`certificate_info()` currently outputs `$issuer` to the JSON file, where is should be outputting `$issuer_CN` in order for the information in the JSON file to match the information that is displayed.
This PR also fixes the problem that if an Issuer name contains a domain component attribute (DC=) then it will be mistakenly treated as a country attribute (C=).
