Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Stateless reset oracle defense (#1554)

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

ianswett commented on this pull request.

Looks good, some small suggestions.

> @@ -4722,6 +4719,37 @@ receiver, an off-path attacker will need to race the duplicate packet against
 the original to be successful in this attack.  Therefore, QUIC receivers ignore
 ECN codepoints set in duplicate packets (see {{using-ecn}}).
 
+## Stateless Reset Oracle {#reset-oracle}
+
+An attacker that can cause a server to emit a stateless reset token can cause
+any connection that uses the same connection ID and method of producing the
+token to be destroyed.  This creates a possible denial of service attack on

nit: destroyed?  Closed? Reset?

> +An attacker that can cause a server to emit a stateless reset token can cause
+any connection that uses the same connection ID and method of producing the
+token to be destroyed.  This creates a possible denial of service attack on
+existing connections if the attacker is able to cause a stateless reset token to
+be generated for a connection with a selected connection ID.  That is, an attack
+is possible if an attacker can alter packet routing so that a packet is received
+by an instance that uses the same stateless reset key, but no connection state
+for the connection ID.
+
+The only viable defense against this style of denial of service is to ensure
+that routing configuration for a cluster guarantees consistent routing of
+packets for a given connection ID.  That is, the routing needs to ensure that a
+stateless reset is not generated unless the associated connection (as identified
+by the connection ID) cannot proceed.
+
+For endpoints that operate in clusters, instances that share a static key for

This paragraph is largely an easier to read version of the paragraph that precedes it.  Can you combine them?  Maybe:

"To defend against this style of denial of service attack, endpoints in clusters that share a static stateless reset key (see {{reset-token}}) MUST be arranged..."

-- 
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/1554#pullrequestreview-136771824