Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handshake loss recovery interacts poorly with amplification attack defense (#1764)

ianswett <> Sun, 23 September 2018 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EDB130EBF for <>; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJDbwR34S25B for <>; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22346130DE9 for <>; 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;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1764/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
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: 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

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: