IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Tue, 01 September 2020 22:08 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 CBC053A112B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 KFrdIotuf0-L for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 425F43A1137 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-cd7bc13.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-cd7bc13.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.102]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504CC560E18 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598998123; bh=q0Hna3MYwi6FZajQeU/zxNBt/zZPcOD930weODNu7OM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZE3R+Jdy2xydonSIKZztS1mA2urNGtKiboJ9VtQs9e/RfLG23mzX+UiWeDuOUv06Q N+yhidPpKnrmW79Yqk2GYzoecVY00ipoeIxkhMhruP2F1Q5FgZQpjesHypamy3/HwH GkOMdGTzn7K3YZwg5Q2I9Jzw0V6QQZD3osECHIsU=
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:08:43 -0700
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYEV6KSH6BZE72IH2F5LKTWXEVBNHHCQTEK7Y@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/480151153@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_5f4ec66b40795_29841964284393"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/H_1gqrcpA1NUUetXasIRjCJfunc>
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, 01 Sep 2020 22:08:46 -0000

@LPardue 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

> Given that we don't have such a rule at the moment, I would be happy to take this text in and evaluate this with other MAYs in the general sense if there's enough interest to do it. Would you mind filing a separate issue for this?

I like Jana's suggestion. Can we take this PR and create another issue?
 

-- 
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_r481459379

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status