Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] handling of coalesced packets with decryption errors creates DoS opportunity (#2308)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 07 January 2019 04:41 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 5FD3112D4E9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 20:41:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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] 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 7czqwyt-MGKL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 20:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2C56128D09 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 20:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 20:41:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1546836095; bh=XY55R3rF922LR3oVzo3vSi9lkRaKLHiU073gTjPRIP4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gl/57f5ZrUZDLNTx6o0/wZw38JuhmM/0gMn77gF3GDFiw+5K27miWn9lS2y/hmhbe 2JSGnoC6sbu8FcSb4fiHhvbZUldyO2uF7YvFlHogJTNGyNAfd2Mr3+q6xSmd7ong3u zFSd03Y0SAtKtWbA2DKyJNDPEXuXyKah+w6k5OHY=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab5ecd9784f5351a5d451529f93bba9425455a431b92cf00000001184a9a7f92a169ce179fbcfb@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2308/451820314@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2308@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2308@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] handling of coalesced packets with decryption errors creates DoS opportunity (#2308)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c32d87fc141d_5f933fa9d7ad45c4271980"; 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/aCrQQ8WFWHXQvN1JiHQZ3zoGP0Q>
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 04:41:38 -0000

> However, if the keys are available, and decryption fails, this means that the peer sent an invalid packet (or that we're dealing with an on-path attacker, which we can't do anything against anyway).

Doesn't decryption failure happen also when the packet gets corrupt while being transmitted? 

Consider a coalesced packet sent by client that contains Initial (for ACKing ServerHello) and a Handshake packet. I'd assume that we'd prefer processing Handshake packet even if Initial was corrupt.

> Since it's possible to coalesce about 70 QUIC packets into a single 1200 byte datagram, an attacker could cause a peer to attempt 70 AEAD operations with a single datagram.

Does that matter, considering the fact that an attacker can force AEAD operation for every 21 bytes by using a short header packet (1 type + 4 byte space + 16 byte AEAD tag)?

-- 
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/2308#issuecomment-451820314