Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Receiver's behavior on key update (#2791)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 17 June 2019 06:50 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 9E61412012E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:50:55 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 ap6c2Gseo7SZ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45956120133 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:50:52 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1560754252; bh=bJUGtHzsUNCqUMhpkA/7t+3xZqTXcKDjyoeCEtYCzDo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0VWQnay3iNaYcNVROHgsYcQjBxNfP8FwqQ74yyaAl6XRmlmM3frdlYrT1YD95tq3w b8t5EhQfLmXlOWSk0VO9wbtqbWA6JTCQW709kIb8Jg/Mv2ahbAFR8j0vlizGNsaPr1 5O2gQ6RaOD2E91qUv8if1lGCRqoCqBklEH1ICztg=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK33LENBOZGZSGO2H4F3CRVMZEVBNHHBWLWXFE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2791/review/250316256@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2791@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2791@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Receiver's behavior on key update (#2791)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d07384c309aa_4b3d3fb1a06cd964517395"; 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/eXLKl703UsQVIIBidBPQx-WTqPU>
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, 17 Jun 2019 06:51:01 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.



> -discarding older keys.
-
-A receiving endpoint detects an update when the KEY_PHASE bit does not match
-what it is expecting.  It creates a new secret (see Section 7.2 of {{!TLS13}})
-and the corresponding read key and IV using the KDF function provided by TLS.
-The header protection key is not updated.
+While only one send key is used at a time, an endpoint SHOULD retain at least
+two receive keys during key update so that it can unprotect packets arriving
+out-of-order.
+
+An endpoint can detect which receive key to use by tracking the lowest packet
+number among the packets received with the currently active key phase.  If a
+packet is received that has a different KEY_PHASE bit and a lower packet number
+than this value, the endpoint uses the old receive keys for unprotecting the
+packet, if these keys are still available.  If the packet has a higher packet
+number, the endpoint installs the new receive keys by calculating the next

I am hesitant to make such a change because that creates a DoS vector against endpoint that retain only two receive keys (which we explicitly state as being allowed).

Rather, I think we should keep this PR editorial, and open a subsequent PR that addresses the issue at a later moment, after we conclude how to fix #2792.

-- 
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/pull/2791#discussion_r294155016