Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)

Igor Lubashev <> Mon, 04 November 2019 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA785120236 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:57:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 f_tx_VBB5bnH for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 599C1120130 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA847261646 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:57:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572879447; bh=4wikNNYlZuu2eA4SpBV1re4yiT4Lzcj1jcpzGxZr5rg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IlNDSal3FwJBe2E2cEsqa03AuIeSkBH8MAXwFKxPOgNGBW50x/f3pX/XaoacvcDAs CEpmv/lwvRl2DtmIUfQCAfRYcCqmrsdoKKEN8tD1OQ8lIaiqOnfGCoBMJ1xulukRwV hSNt1F3S7KK1WWDj8VMBVqmrvSbaPlk7aTigNaHw=
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 06:57:27 -0800
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc03c5786155_338f3f8dfaecd96c124150"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 14:57:32 -0000

> But it could also be the case that the client first connects to "c", disconnects, then connect to "b" using the token obtained from "c" from a different address. In that case, the attack becomes concerning even when the client is not behind a NAT.

This is an address validation token. It is coded for a particular client address. The client will not use the token if it has migrated to a different address.

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