Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix for off-path migration attack (#2033)

Christian Huitema <> Thu, 22 November 2018 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045B0124BAA for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:00:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 NgSfJiL1Bg0H for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9C781277C8 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:00:43 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1542866443; bh=akB89PgAd0VOv1A+Y6d0kw6ndwMhdTbynIEwTUgOjW4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ynsiJY3fz4t7Cc1w8loL16tFdGVvS4i52SclDS6DUX81RBHoU3SoquDl3mmEJrcNY FVpoO1ey2emoxhqNCFWtfZV28rY07dbehXS4it/oxwc2NStnG49mbw6nAbToLJTcyQ ef+a0pmuytYWSjIpY7xUmXqPgsX6+D49upW7ScqI=
From: Christian Huitema <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2033/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix for off-path migration attack (#2033)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf6460b91f60_e173f7e9dad45c059554a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 06:00:47 -0000

huitema commented on this pull request.

> +relatively few packets are sent or if packet loss coincides with the attempted
+A non-probing packet received on the original path that increases the maximum
+received packet number will cause the endpoint to move back to that path.
+Eliciting packets on this path increases the likelihood that the attack is
+unsuccessful.  Therefore, mitigation of this attack relies on triggering the
+exchange of packets.
+In response to an apparent migration, endpoints MUST validate the previously
+active path using a PATH_CHALLENGE frame.  This induces the sending of new
+packets on that path.  If the path is no longer viable, the validation attempt
+will time out and fail; if the path is viable, but no longer desired, the
+validation will succeed, but only result in a probing packet being sent on the

Since this is all heuristics, we may want to be a bit more explicit. If the destination CID in the packet is new, then the migration is more likely to be voluntary. If the address family is IPv6, NAT rebinding is not expected quite as much, even with NAT66, since NAT66 is very unlikely to run out of address space. If the last rebinding happened fewer than X seconds ago, this is probably very suspicious. Etc.

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