Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 27 March 2020 00:25 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 7D6953A0D6E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.481
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.481 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 jVjUBJ6DZVex for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21B613A0D6D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C680521E62 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585268725; bh=gc3vuRzb6GTdP2w8veviihy1XDSh4Ei8dNlFbuOgBKk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AoHeGWy1QowA1k/hSdavgbk1eWPO06XPUfiAh+VnJoEVomWz1E2kK2kLPfgXHBGM5 0qpV76mKQiK6kz+LjOhZ/3Axm7xzGQFrH7lXfOUnIf4FptRl1ZW6qEFYUHFovLqHNY KTL0G2ErY3z+Z7HveNNSgmGzCyZVZBzYHZmNFPTw=
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:25:25 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK454I4OHKOXSIEVBQ54REUPLEVBNHHCFAMG5E@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509/604753447@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3509@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Required state for retaining unacked RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames is unbound (#3509)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7d47f5e144_45853ffcd68cd9682366d"; 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/gbNxtut5nyI_sYkne9mCWXk7CDY>
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 00:25:28 -0000

@martinduke 
> in this case isn't the client limited by active_connection_id_limit?

The attack here is that when a malicious client retires a CID to which the server has responded, that server would retire the CID that it has used on that path, and also provide a new CID to the client. But the client never ACKs the RCID frames that the server sends.

As an example, consider the case where a client uses sCID1 on a new path, the server responds on that path using cCID1, the client abandons that path and sends RCID (seq=sCID1). When receiving this RCID frame, the server would send RCID (seq=cCID1), and also send NCID(sCID2). The client intentionally does not ack the packet carrying these frames, but uses sCID2 on a new path, that carries NCID(cCID2), repeating this procedure.

-- 
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/3509#issuecomment-604753447