Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset probes from IPs you wouldn't talk to (#3832)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 00:40 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 C1FFA3A0CC1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 EPMJO3m1mgpz for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:40:45 -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 0B0B73A0CBC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b2150d3.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b2150d3.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.113.12]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4B48C0DF0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594168843; bh=w47vPAlIYOYml/nJX4xpJB7BsiRG0HPBQ+oWyXgBBPc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZNn5BMU/q21rJ2kz7PTOB/3a3pW5im/weZHDfOe4HSlwfTzUaQGYoYpNSXsrWX53k AMrYlM4cIU/UhXnojdx8KLLBsLB+oUjgXe7juI2Ihgz5fz6+TeuxrcoZ+jjNNhX1q7 DDKEdrFmGfaR+suGwZs61YFxh3vZ4BxEoeCCRP6s=
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 17:40:43 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6QIJP73YSSCVQWJ4F5CD3QXEVBNHHCNZ6DOA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3832/655212549@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3832@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3832@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset probes from IPs you wouldn't talk to (#3832)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f05160bdb90c_20133fe958ecd96c877ec"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/iPUxTBiSJkHoS9L-xGQ1o_PF8UM>
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: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:40:47 -0000

I think that we do have this text.  A [whole section](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#name-stateless-reset-oracle) in fact:

> If a packet can be routed to different instances that share a static key, for example by changing an IP address or port, then an attacker can cause the server to send a stateless reset.

The subtle distinction here is not that you are unable to respond, but instead unwilling.  Why would you send a stateless reset when you are pretending that the route doesn't work?  (Sorry, this just seems like self-inflicted harm.)

-- 
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/3832#issuecomment-655212549