Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify Actions on nonzero Reserved Bits (#2280)

[martinduke <[e-mail]>]

martinduke commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3402,9 +3402,10 @@ Reserved Bits (R):
 
 : The next two bits (those with a mask of 0x0c) of byte 0 are reserved.  These
   bits are protected using header protection (see Section 5.4 of {{QUIC-TLS}}).
-  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An endpoint MUST
-  treat receipt of a packet that has a non-zero value for these bits after
-  removing protection as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
+  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An endpoint MUST treat
+  receipt of a packet that has a non-zero value for these bits after removing
+  packet (not just header) protection as a connection error of type

Oof. I didn't recall that section of the TLS draft. Thanks for pointing that out.

There are a couple of dangers here:
1) The implementer will not check "security considerations" in the tls draft when implementing first byte validation in the transport draft.
2) Naively, the implementation will choose to discard the packet and abort the connection after removing header protection, which opens up a DoS vector, even if goes through the motions of decrypting the packet anyway.

This is coming down to an editorial matter, and I agree my sentence is somewhat clunky. I'm open to other wording, but I don't think the current draft is satisfactory.

-- 
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/2280#discussion_r244558351