IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Path Challenge Padding and Amplification Protection (#4257)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 06:17 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 3483E3A15BC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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, 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 Bak3Riu_ImwU for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF9893A15BB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-7027a25.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.111.63]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2CE075C05FE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1603779470; bh=nQ6y7DTRk05FOirn408Bj63eNIjJrelGlj0g0bmVkkE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=NWVtWSNSWXhf6V4NjVVSo6Ngvg/HxpwdvSdKJq8BHOlS1M3BoGT4k3NZs/zbm7ltc G0dEapI+5Fe78op5SnXJ80Afu2jEfecx/Lq4/Z8loRHn1GMRa3+eD7LFXjwKapr2aF 7sLVrOto9XW6VzgjQbubd2ghLT1eLnXia2o3V7DA=
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:17:50 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4ZMQQ6GOZ5WPC55HN5UOOI5EVBNHHCWUAGFQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257/717011871@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Path Challenge Padding and Amplification Protection (#4257)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f97bb8e29bec_5519b415018"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/_ar1twDis_AZVuA_8gIdRg2DdTg>
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:17:52 -0000

Thank you for the calculations. Something around ~20x is what I have expected too.

I tend to agree that having some cautionary text is sufficient.

I'd also point out that we have a sentence that states: _In response to an apparent migration, endpoints MUST validate the previously active path using a PATH_CHALLENGE frame._ ([section 9.3.3](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#section-9.3.3-4)). Therefore, in addition to sending bytes to the victim, servers used for the reflection attack will be sending about 1/2 of that to the initiator of the attack. I'm not sure how critical that is to the attacker, though.

-- 
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/4257#issuecomment-717011871

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email