Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Stateless reset fixes (#1346)

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 19:40 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 D42BD1277BB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 IS0rKQD8hiMG for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B9E127010 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:40:27 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1527104427; bh=hjyexzbo/ViF6Tat/SacdE7/QcUrNv3X8SQR1/T9QUk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=poZaiFRznmITO2iP577WlZkOsMR84qxVMkB+J3UkQyBm/tVKztAS351nHBtyeiLRL tnVhl9tfTno9biq70duJb38r3lTQ1HpobZYMsfnp+jnbxyZcpXLgReilS0d/tFyAFW 2Bam3FfJP0z5djClEVTYyGFw6zzW7WU0VLdz/RTw=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab98e6b205e54f090edcbb1578edee2bcb7c5b14c892cf00000001171d85ab92a169ce132e6b76@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1346/review/122737195@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1346@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1346@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Stateless reset fixes (#1346)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b05c3abc2686_45482acace018f6059696"; 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/G-mmcbxr5OhBIuGMkFfS7CTjQC0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:40:32 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



>  
 A single static key can be used across all connections to the same endpoint by
 generating the proof using a second iteration of a preimage-resistant function
-that takes three inputs: the static key, the server's connection ID (see
-{{connection-id}}), and an identifier for the server instance.  A server could
-use HMAC {{?RFC2104}} (for example, HMAC(static_key, server_id ||
+that takes three inputs: the static key, the connection ID chosen by the
+endpoint (see {{connection-id}}), and an instance identifier.  An endpoint could
+use HMAC {{?RFC2104}} (for example, HMAC(static_key, instance_id ||

@martinthomson : Ah, right, I see it's addressed below. Given this is an example construction, I would suggest making that explicitly clear up at the beginning of this paragraph.
@MikeBishop : Yes, that is true, but defending the routing infrastructure against attacks seems out of scope for us, since similar attacks can be launched against TCP as well, where you'd receive an RST or ICMP unreachable.

-- 
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/1346#discussion_r190374682