Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery interacts poorly with amplification attack defense (#1764)
ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sun, 23 September 2018 11:46 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EDB130EBF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJDbwR34S25B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22346130DE9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:46:36 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1537703196; bh=3GLOskb2UyFgpqQTeBxfir/FTeZz3UFp3VOLUnAfNm4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=N2Cww2dhLY9Tet0USERhXmDVcdw2wMBNcHP1/6F9+38TsaTO1DMlaWyZGpvlgYoNi AcBu3d6x97uafeW+hTthRFjxuv2gD3B1PQ7UPx+v11NdZ7EyacsAgFaoQMHEcTKakP 07Kdx/kfKAfIRu2PcSJyF9arcfQZI6QcfJqV/cqs=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab01d37567fe60d86d9adffad36da80c6296424a8c92cf0000000117bf3f1c92a169ce1589cd31@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1764/423810608@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1764@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1764@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery interacts poorly with amplification attack defense (#1764)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ba77d1c15ab6_21ef3fdb868d45b87345ee"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/_S6zBYQK5m1yq7NUJjmfpYrLC-s>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 11:46:39 -0000
Yes, this text is wrong: "Servers MUST NOT send more than three datagrams including Initial and Handshake packets without receiving a packet from a verified source address" I believe it should be "Server MUST NOT sent more than 3 times as many bytes as the number of bytes received before receiving a packet from a verified source address."? If a server decides to implement in packets instead of bytes, then it's opening itself up to an attack which isn't in it's own best interest, so I think the above MUST NOT is likely fine? -- 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/issues/1764#issuecomment-423810608
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake Flow Control can r… martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake Flow Control c… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery … janaiyengar