Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] No reading of 1-RTT before the handshake is complete (#3224)

Marten Seemann <> Tue, 12 November 2019 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D1F12002F for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3XL4GiNvInc for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 859021200A4 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB28660924 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:40:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573530035; bh=+tVKTPRf0eMGHIQDTnjXUB0QpJfwu2d+If9R52x4Lzc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=2B5aLgWoO0Mgj8TmD76uR2yRWwLTL+Bjnzd8aHV8p1sk1PMnqAuF7y5Gqp49lAtiW WI93Upi9Jz92/Z3CdeSnTm9yPJgCxf7mguBcoLTs7/574OYKLf6b+edUTr6QZN4WDD 9PdOZ/sdUq4tflZPnvdUTb5LOepRd1zx3/kr14rY=
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:40:35 -0800
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3224/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] No reading of 1-RTT before the handshake is complete (#3224)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dca29b3ae8a2_24493fc7fb2cd96065921a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 03:40:39 -0000

marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

I agree that this solves the issue **IF** implementations adhere to the spec.

A change of the key schedule that would make it impossible to use 1-RTT keys before the completion of the handshake would still be my preferred solution of this issue. I'm not sure if this isn't out of scope though.

>  - Any received 0-RTT data that the server responds to might be due to a replay
-Therefore, the server's use of 1-RTT keys is limited before the handshake is
-complete.  A server MUST NOT process data from incoming 1-RTT
-protected packets before the TLS handshake is complete.  Because
-sending acknowledgments indicates that all frames in a packet have been
-processed, a server cannot send acknowledgments for 1-RTT packets until the
-TLS handshake is complete.  Received packets protected with 1-RTT keys MAY be
-stored and later decrypted and used once the handshake is complete.
+  attack.
+Therefore, the server's use of 1-RTT keys MUST be limited to sending data before
+the handshake is complete.  A server MUST NOT process data from incoming 1-RTT

Why not: "A server MUST NOT process incoming 1-RTT protected packets"?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: