Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How to reject a connection attempt (#3690)

Marten Seemann <> Sun, 24 May 2020 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739D83A0898 for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 04:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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] 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 Ri7beDK1Nrvt for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22F163A0893 for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E226C6025A for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 04:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1590318720; bh=I0P2bTSiZz8/ngHp8yvoWBOBWmGudBXT5+y6zCAcRbI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MSO26XB/5Ox0kS2qLvldHHddLyp7C7bi/6SWnVPUTwjEtsw+QLe3v664CTNkfwxfI r8bq/iwUQoGqXDD9uHKLYNnicnKbry5c12yXmp63SaM7a9PPAOm705ybliDTGN2Hzd 3FWJcdQjAYBX+cWMWvRoLvOiYQfNEHgHva+ti/E4=
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 04:12:00 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3690/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How to reject a connection attempt (#3690)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eca56803d9dc_3143fcfd70cd9601969535"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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: Sun, 24 May 2020 11:12:03 -0000

> In case of this example, CONNECTION_REFUSED would become an attractive tool for MITM attackers, because it can be used for preventing the client for reconnecting for as long as a day or a week.

We accept this risk in QUIC v1. Removing error codes to mitigate the MITM vulnerability seems like a piecemeal "solution" to a problem that can only be solved by decent cryptography.

For the MITM the easiest way is probably injection a Version Negotiation packet that indicates that there are no compatible versions between the client and the server. I'd expect most client implementations to give up a dial attempt in this case, which in effect would be very similar to the actions taken in response to a CONNECTION_REFUSED.

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