Re: The TCP and UDP checksum algorithm may soon need updating

Craig Partridge <craig@tereschau.net> Thu, 04 June 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <craig@tereschau.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF9F3A0F70 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 14:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tereschau.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QLP48IjUiyzR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 14:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCF4A3A0F6B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id e2so3699361qvw.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tereschau.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NGAzYmB+HIr7BneqryP2XBIZrAuDO+Hh7+ukvynqJEw=; b=Yit13a5OwJFj5i5gAZ7oq+1aKB5uI2XG1kSUjsi8yF0LqZeMNMK+SVDX9GI/ZNmWb8 gdH2+46XXPlhAyCz4eMD7BWC2ML3IY+hw3jYFCnFOC1Ojj8BqLkZ+7mcuN3iKtBGmy+K bx+Ekp7rVbOld2YrUnZkenPqPh0/a1YxpJ/X42Qm5Ds8iEKWsMQImWNYODjtvMxv3Y/x G4xIHQ0BiV1ox8mOj+hUIXE38aDcwrhiRqS8Z8gkBuBymka9EdKLLhv83vnurihMqEo2 O4SeqU7n0MdQ4gjQkRgHTmew5rXdbgmEIK3SyaZhJBbInw3kJxmGpjpC6NkBSYY2Hhu8 WV6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NGAzYmB+HIr7BneqryP2XBIZrAuDO+Hh7+ukvynqJEw=; b=Dfp7Vr9FyNLoBP16eL8AUm5mdc/XCgusgnUUkkU8jm1PDyuQ/8nHzEv0qHHpf3lARr KXAlTC6xpJStJIGDOT5SprCngVfvr1ypf3M6ErNHPl65ADlqmkFlmMTLYESUZd+DE63x bCGtoOO5Xcs1rLSLr+T2R2/71FYh7yDSm7K3dlkooQXHI0MUnZLe3iakZRrBV4aJVCe0 iZ+d9AMESUwHy37Ct8+BAKPF+xfEWwaK3n1ju/c2R2TNTLOay2ob6UjDOJHeNn5HHelM HZfaR4nK2rp+RG1sczuN/0iBYI5+EfJoQiEAkmmbBs578CT+1i45ILTdOkNpTBIqgwWi +w+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533lJSPbnAsP8oaEnLhOLcAh6s++y1axVeUGGTBUAJOyYLcTpYqo 0OpMElkDp2qbOQ1++QtWj1L9bvr2JGgZNB3OcSYUKsMs
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUDSD6IJtnQlBVGchZ7pg5Y2ZglKnYT9V3v/BkpcNm+H0YkfTBrkkhAAey1E/vOobn9FD82JCuzNdoIgLgqCQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5987:: with SMTP id ek7mr6699776qvb.206.1591305991811; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHQj4Cf_vgXYEL=x4DCEnpwNxZpJQSD-h6MWmhMWpYwPF9XFow@mail.gmail.com> <E23EC459-213F-4D19-BC1B-6050EC2CB653@strayalpha.com> <CAHQj4CcOpciujCP9ugegjEjzyT7Oqzv_WtjWyTAGacUxkG9YYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRjMQtcYDF04-3FsN1WOg_7H1fpR2_qPUwa-BegkQqp8A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRjMQtcYDF04-3FsN1WOg_7H1fpR2_qPUwa-BegkQqp8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Craig Partridge <craig@tereschau.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:26:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHQj4Cem6YdTXKFPW6Mk6gK9Yt_2qD=M7PAE6nxFEdJrD==ZVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The TCP and UDP checksum algorithm may soon need updating
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005f0eac05a748ccfd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Zb3k6fkBVkleRcIPDC51GahAni4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 21:26:34 -0000

The SSH spec says terminate on failure and that it requires a reliable
underpinning.

Termination on error is no good.  One of the studies shows huge failure
rates (over 50%) for large file transfers.  One guess is that's due to
security protocols terminating when TCP hands up something with an error.

Craig

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:19 PM Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> Yeah, secure transports already consider the data from the network
> untrusted, including TLS and DTLS, but also IPsec/ESP, SSH, SRTP and QUIC.
> As long as those protocols are using reasonably modern, AEAD ciphers, the
> worst impact of corruption in the transport is DoS.
>
> That said, there might be some pretty hard crashes in cases where the
> security protocol relies on the transport for something.  For example, TLS
> doesn't have a mechanism for requesting that data be re-sent in the event
> of loss/corruption, because it's assumed that TCP provides that.  If
> corruption is only detected at the TLS layer, there's not a way to
> recover.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if many TLS stacks close the
> connection on bad data anyway.
>
> On the UDP side, there should be no issue.  Anything above UDP has to
> tolerate loss anyway, so there should be mechanisms that will require from
> corruption-treated-as-loss.
>
> So there may be some feedback loops to close, but that's a more limited,
> host-internal problem.
>
> In any case -- one more reason to encrypt everything!
>
> --Richard
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:17 PM Craig Partridge <craig@tereschau.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I somehow had missed that.
>>
>> Looks like it does the trick if we need it. Not sure if we'd have to
>> update the optional checksum to use a new checksum too.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:33 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com
>> <touch@strayalpha..com>> wrote:
>>
>>> See draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options
>>>
>>> > On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Craig Partridge <craig@tereschau.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Then there's UDP.  UDP has no options.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>> mailing lists.
>>
>

-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.