Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add initial threat model to security considerations (#2925)

Eric Kinnear <> Sat, 16 November 2019 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47111200FF for <>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 05:40:59 -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 A2pG-dPA-vFF for <>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 05:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1935B1200B4 for <>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 05:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7413E52043B for <>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 05:40:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573911657; bh=yIRruDkM/f2JyRcp/GS3rjyh00NNW+8wmwpVYV6PE28=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=138u7WzVJ9JgaPN3Eog+lVfMUreCF76U9TDPTOc5YiZSlZFhmgfCIwCXAZBGMVkoX ajHpC00lbwCJ9arTCcSW2MizPVishBLMUDfMPckHut3CMqM2m1W8JI0IoO1LWg5CSZ /FUcItTrE58eySAQFkmnAVufEC+QSiW08vV8sURM=
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 05:40:57 -0800
From: Eric Kinnear <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2925/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add initial threat model to security considerations (#2925)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dcffc696541d_76d03fee054cd96061238a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 13:41:00 -0000

erickinnear commented on this pull request.

> +the original packets it observes from reaching their intended destination.  If
+so, they are considered to be an on-path attacker.
+An active attacker may also choose to rewrite the source or destination IP
+addresses of packets that it forwards or injects. Such spoofing attacks are only
+effective against a QUIC connection if the attacker can still forward the
+contents of the packets to the original endpoint, since QUIC connections are
+both authenticated and encrypted.
+A blind attacker, one who injects packets without being able to observe valid
+packets for a QUIC connection, is unlikely to be successful, since QUIC packet
+protection ensures that valid packets are only generated by endpoints which
+possess the key material established during the handshake.  Similarly, any
+active attacker that observes QUIC packets and attempts to insert new data or
+modify existing data in those packets should not be able to generate packets
+deemed valid by the receiving endpoint.

Moved a bunch of this up into packet protection section

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