Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reference "Nonces are Noticed" in the header protection analysis section (#3031)

Christopher Wood <notifications@github.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 13:39 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 392291200E6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 1p6JS8S2u14T for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5384B120090 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:39:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1568641169; bh=9Y543TjYqKuKVbnpyjQF7Utp8G6PKO5N15udzK+Yc4g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UZ8xm6prCi7adJZpdYnxCTXUCuLLaZ6kk31tfZi4WpvXWF1fqEUF+MguUE33L1P7x 0nbFkWGxuoZVxGOS9H5DeADNI8Wb8LX88fUussUbfS2fJ/XNdddiqUPsl9lkUuplQp n8MY5uPErWicrGqi5VAg52f5MlEqA1UQJTEegSJ8=
From: Christopher Wood <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3QAUY7XAACB3CQO553RTISDEVBNHHB22UPUM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3031/review/288634651@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3031@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3031@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reference "Nonces are Noticed" in the header protection analysis section (#3031)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d7f909139647_196b3ff112ecd96423585e"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: chris-wood
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/jCNZk1S1XuRfRlu93lCgvDX7F_w>
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, 16 Sep 2019 13:39:32 -0000

chris-wood commented on this pull request.



>  
 ~~~
 protected_field = field XOR PRF(hp_key, sample)
 ~~~
 
-This construction is secure against chosen plaintext attacks (IND-CPA) {{IMC}}.
+Assuming hp_key is distinct from the packet protection key, this construction
+(HN1) achieves AE2 security and therefore guarantees privacy of `field`, the
+protected packet header. One important distinction between HN1 and the header
+protection construction in this document is that the latter uses an AEAD
+algorithm as the PRF. However, since the encrypted output of an AEAD is

I think the distinction is important because AEADs are (depending on one's definition) not PRFs. 

> We should probably say something about what it takes to define a new header protection scheme somewhere though.

Hmm, I'm not sure. That's probably best done elsewhere, e.g., a CFRG document, that we then cite. 

-- 
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/3031#discussion_r324680042