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

Eric Kinnear <> Sat, 16 November 2019 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E61120127 for <>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 04:37:16 -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 OUTl-HJvL0nR for <>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 04:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B1DA1200B4 for <>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 04:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 04:37:14 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573907835; bh=k5ABSWatlfoDh/6xY8eCaNPBzdhXcOnPV+qEubK9mds=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LdbEN4LsEGF9Y8PqLbRRgx4vbsqqFcR94aSLVCUgWZrcx5tX8Um3FaIpqqEWsYf0N 2ilMJpOcUzBJ/4xh4ITVTzkok67wialUsf2ia69wb/fmwBvHw0xmX8RM3dauzCUjOC 5abkCv7lXZNC8S8Q3z751N1GmOVnmzazbrX2muHo=
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_5dcfed7aa336a_5bd23fc6c3acd96416982fa"; 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 12:37:17 -0000

erickinnear commented on this pull request.

> +save observed QUIC packets for an offline attack against QUIC packet protection
+at a future time; this is true for any observer of any packet on any network.
+#### Active Attacks
+An active attack ({{?RFC3552}}) involves writing data to the network.  An
+attacker with such a capability might be in a position to additionally prevent
+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.

Ah, good call. This is intended to say that even if you mess with the routing of the packets by changing the addresses, the packet payloads ("contents of the packets" in the wording above) are only useful to the actual endpoints that completed the handshake.
This is likely already covered by other text, so we can probably just remove it.

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