Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Amplification attack using retry tokens and spoofed addresses (#2064)

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 04 December 2018 02:03 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 E3041130E58 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 18:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 nMZFqd58v5mT for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 18:03:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7FE0130E02 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 18:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 18:03:23 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1543889003; bh=EEMcqrYg7f9LrWYTeHvGTKyt8/Ysg8QawTvAWIgOYVs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=iZDUgssPrBybkkRaGWClkVh3YDgmT+XnsTA6BcIDyuFc5zUwvC7tL5OtXLWj6C6ab JQ8hciRd0y6+f2f39TmC2GwQSZKgdnTTrINWQQit21IzHXKa6kNou8G+3AM4Ew5M0u P/2xnv+oqyECGQWbcn3tS3ahN5sAbFCl7eCkrUkQ=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abd14f8fa42b66365b38b94039e6e18b7a830aa18e92cf00000001181da26b92a169ce16f92d74@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2064/c443941922@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2064@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2064@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Amplification attack using retry tokens and spoofed addresses (#2064)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c05e06b206df_27c23f879eed45bc21248a"; 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/8QhdTGPBVIG7_TD6BM2WWaCwkhg>
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 02:03:37 -0000

@huitema: I like the rephrase you suggest ([here](https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2064#issuecomment-443282924)). I might make a minor change:
```
Attackers could replay tokens to use servers as amplifiers in DDoS attacks. To protect against such attacks, servers SHOULD ensure that tokens have a short life time.  Servers that are able to should ensure that tokens are used by clients only once.
```

-- 
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/2064#issuecomment-443941922