IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST (#3095)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 16 October 2019 15:10 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 3C85212013A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_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 T1M4bvAdsVMD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 856BF120074 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:10:33 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1571238633; bh=k68K4MauIZwxiZHYwaKGLWLtBS59Lo1rMdN+bVojvHI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Gsbok4NLhEgZxu+7PGeH3yreCGHARS3+EWDNZ6pUffigcDJ3tHDCWqjtxHkX/4RVj SwMG4IHdEWAMhHQRjZQdq/ncGnO1LH4/BKUd4cKVRx7TXjfte4HTUcyn4c6nKtzQEF xjG2/T/niJN37dxOyaSHOyGp2iJaKr/zamSrke5w=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7IRYAWCAKR6ZBRBXF3WRZXTEVBNHHB4QEEV4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095/542749202@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3095@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Backoff of CONNECTION_CLOSE needs to be a MUST (#3095)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5da732e99ef9a_480d3fac5d6cd95c1110b7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/NLv6LaNAGRmGtuwVuV6kSmpY120>
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:10:36 -0000

> Servers don't need to pad Initial packets and servers drop Initials less than 1200 bytes, so I believe the other 'Server' would drop the Initial CONNECTION_CLOSE and this would stop quickly.

Oh I missed that point. Thank you for pointing it out.

Though it is still possible to mount this attack by sending an invalid 0-RTT packet

Consider the case where an attacker obtains a session ticket from both servers beforehand, and sends datagrams to the servers, each consisting of Initial and 0-RTT packets (of which 0-RTT packet contains an invalid frame). Then, assuming that both servers accept 0-RTT, they would send to each other a series of Initial, Handshake, and 1-RTT packets, of which the 1-RTT packet would contain an CONNECTION_CLOSE frame.

So that would cause a ping-pong.

-- 
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/3095#issuecomment-542749202

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email