Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document request forgery (#3996)

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 21 August 2020 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EA93A1811 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, 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 5afGjX2uovek for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD3B93A1810 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098E25C005F for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1597981510; bh=ZYWSp+U9sztdECyes9BwHrF0rXUrC2CtLwIybAwYMgA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hMxOEj4fTF2Qx78njfuHnHdBFCL1E+93tzXJn99JUkpKgvbLa0JVvyrmSOMeIf7DZ fTBQfG92zysJV+8uJsgaAQGKDaRrM4mNukN4GV6evoQMxpt0dMcgWEsf01XgFiLI0Z BnSUg92mFJb+cNH/9Rt82Sc2H6DgTkXYxTeiDxdc=
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:45:09 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3996/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document request forgery (#3996)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3f4345ed9f6_6ed19641207be"; 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
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 03:45:13 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.

@martinthomson Thank you for all the efforts that have gone into this PR.

Rereading it, I wonder if we should be talking about 0-RTT too, I think that 0-RTT can be also used as an attack vector. The attacker has the knowledge regarding the packet protection keys that will be used for 0-RTT, and it is easy to guess what packet number will be used.

Based on that, much like NEW_TOKEN tokens, I think it might be the case that we have to recommend to _not_ use 0-RTT when the client resumes a connection to a different server address.

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