IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix for off-path migration attack (#2033)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Thu, 22 November 2018 06:02 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 330761277C8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:02:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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 MKS0YKw3-30b for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-9.smtp.github.com (out-9.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBA40124BAA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:02:28 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542866548; bh=vrXMz+Skkt9bRfsBD3t4UID1xPbazZCkSJTOto2o1hQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Y9zAP4KeGP5Pr+GTme6vX7aCosqcBJxahKCYULlGyF/RYrb84c5CMIfnum59RHzNv vXQryATfMhsdGKagZciceoXYlVdFG5ke7PpMxqbLOkzRbOu/hAC1NyapuJACO/h3vJ ZQ8mWH4EIXW3zQD/sBrGKFVMAa0f99HYxuOgK2vg=
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abf4ff3f5365b8fbb82d6331a39ceac9a18551055e92cf00000001180e087492a169ce16d3ac5a@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2033/review/177513379@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2033@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2033@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix for off-path migration attack (#2033)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf6467434aaa_37643fd8780d45b862492"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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/fr747Z_raF7O0lLS_E3noARTfT0>
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: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 06:02:30 -0000

huitema commented on this pull request.



> +path.
+
+An endpoint that receives a PATH_CHALLENGE on an active path SHOULD send a
+non-probing packet in response.  If the non-probing packet arrives before any
+copy made by an attacker, this results in the connection being migrated back to
+the original path.  Any subsequent migration to another path resets this entire
+process.
+
+Abandoning this validation attempt before it either succeeds or times out
+increases exposure to the packet copying attack.
+
+This defense is imperfect, but this is not considered a serious problem. If the
+path via the attack is reliably faster than the original path despite multiple
+attempts to use that original path, it is not possible to distinguish between
+attack and an improvement in routing.
+

Well, yeah, except if the improvement in routing only last for a short while, and after that the connection is dropped.

-- 
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/2033#pullrequestreview-177513379

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email