IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Let server abort on post-Retry packet number reset (#3990)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 28 August 2020 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE09F3A0928 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 noWBs35tFyG7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-10.smtp.github.com (out-10.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC9F63A0924 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2e54e43.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E29580D9F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598642423; bh=N76sCRnUBqG6K6/RkjNA8zSD/hX6pLjx8J6JWt7kluA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=C3QX9xbDkFYuBN4dArmh8FIOxeNc3UkNQ0IPPhMmZbQC9vDer6sGSIBkPJzzRF4wL JO40drydfOIjLPd1XiaY4nRCz/v16GL0KwKHEpAJOzb+yp7fVbzqSeYrU1QeeAqxlg QkiNLFOMEpTBw2C43W6845qpqDGBrLwzb64K+Hsc=
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:20:23 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYGOWPJ5625FSGWESV5KU47PEVBNHHCQTEK7Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3990/review/477971069@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3990@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3990@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Let server abort on post-Retry packet number reset (#3990)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4958f78e582_56bc19641563fe"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/1x1tGMvutduWCX65fu6zLEQfz3E>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 19:20:26 -0000

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -4807,6 +4807,8 @@ responding to a Retry packet. However, the data sent in these packets could be
 different than what was sent earlier. Sending these new packets with the same
 packet number is likely to compromise the packet protection for those packets
 because the same key and nonce could be used to protect different content.
+A server MAY abort the connection if it detects that the client reset the

Yes, that is generally true, and this makes it more explicit without adding any requirement on the server.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3990#discussion_r479491780

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email