Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Authenticate connection IDs (#3499)

Marten Seemann <> Tue, 12 May 2020 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6683A0824 for <>; Mon, 11 May 2020 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.272
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.173, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 u6hNqWdKp8x4 for <>; Mon, 11 May 2020 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CB6D3A0803 for <>; Mon, 11 May 2020 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775C72C148C for <>; Mon, 11 May 2020 19:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1589252052; bh=QuLbZ8Lqd/igbFMAKpjpoWGcjBzdsOsVz54SRoBiaPM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DTgH5T0jehzkrZc6seBQNaGUp4si4rFIE798BQHHqKe495/3tak72HRK5szyoO06c Et/RA5ZWAhoE8c5l7Hvmd9GBf/H31dhsXIAciJDrhKb5jmljoo2LP2If8GYvsnAVlS R3P/z5L0G1rZRkRHUPQayocSMhdGgq5KPSpe7AkU=
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 19:54:12 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3499/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Authenticate connection IDs (#3499)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eba0fd4685d5_443f3f926aacd9601062ec"; 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 May 2020 02:54:16 -0000

@marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

> +first Initial packet it sent in the initial_source_connection_id transport
+parameter; see {{transport-parameter-definitions}}. A server includes the
+Destination Connection ID field from the first Initial packet it received from
+the client in the original_destination_connection_id transport parameter; if
+the server sent a Retry packet this refers to the first Initial packet received
+before sending the Retry packet. If it sends a Retry packet, a server also
+includes the Source Connection ID field from the Retry packet in the
+retry_source_connection_id transport parameter.
+The values provided by a peer for these transport parameters MUST match the
+values that an endpoint used in the Destination and Source Connection ID fields
+of Initial packets that it sent. Including connection ID values in transport
+parameters and verifying them ensures that that an attacker cannot influence
+the choice of connection ID for a successful connection by injecting packets
+carrying attacker-chosen connection IDs during the handshake. An endpoint MUST
+treat any of the following as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION:

Our rule for FRAME_ENCODING_ERROR is that we use that error code when the error is detectable while parsing the frame, without accessing connection state. I'd argue that we should apply a similar logic here. The absence of `initial_source_connection_id` and `original_destination_connection_id` definitely falls in that category, and I'd put the absence / presence of `retry_source_connection_id` in the same category, although I could see why someone could make an argument against this.

The mismatch seems to be a clear case for PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.

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