[quicwg/base-drafts] Justification for Key Separation doesn't make sense (#2447)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Sat, 09 February 2019 02:16 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 2C359130F1B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:16:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 toKEbrzNkOL0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4957128B14 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 18:16:37 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1549678597; bh=+eS5Ly16AYcgIM7LZSOEtxFtsacoZCEcsCAdmfO9vRk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=tGMHrWW0RztKf/jXTCx2tu+dmvNzt3yFAIR26cBjvy1lnx2cfCXM/GDEofgPJ3mrL gmv95viDbtVB/1vhzyoTu130V4oQZCxzJc1L3CJKLh85ZU2YIct62EDkm1217xtSJV BrkgozYUQKEh//HTmNs71X+q024jWcy6lgL9Ky8s=
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abb88f80ca2643ba533635ae1f5f412eb8552e268592cf000000011875fa0592a169ce18577f31@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2447@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Justification for Key Separation doesn't make sense (#2447)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5e3805bbd1a_513f3fc3738d45c059920"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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/4PrwKi06PYL7ezO1uwcuSO9oRcc>
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: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 02:16:40 -0000

In section 9.4 of the TLS draft:

> In using TLS, the central key schedule of TLS is used. As a result of the TLS handshake messages being integrated into the calculation of secrets, the inclusion of the QUIC transport parameters extension ensures that handshake and 1-RTT keys are not the same as those that might be produced by a server running TLS over TCP. However, 0-RTT keys only include the ClientHello message and might therefore use the same secrets. To avoid the possibility of cross-protocol key synchronization, additional measures are provided to improve key separation.

To a naive reader like me,  this doesn't make any sense.  Handshake and 1RTT keys are fine because they hash the transport parameters. If 0-RTT keys include the ClientHello, they also contain transport parameters. So what's the problem?


-- 
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/issues/2447