Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Import HTTP/2 Security Considerations (#3531)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Fri, 20 March 2020 17:41 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 077FD3A0D60 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.089 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 cRAavkWYEORG for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00B503A0D6F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:40:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1584726046; bh=l5nmX0y4ffFDhfjJO8EnG5hNw049h0CzN9qRKSAs6Ec=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=bHJii2q+HtQyuyGcqAFL9oJkYaETqAVQbV9DVGiqF82CNlr9YJuJs1ZMG+Ny1c6tp iSHqYVfKwohDpDak1wKmKyYRQhHcOULDFBzf8z211FaZNmd+6Bj0cAzZtnQoQEGYE+ OkCnkvLG86g4XehrpB5q+WSKhX0g9HYNkYP9XcM8=
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2KBWA4NMAZ3FRR2HV4QDQR5EVBNHHCFTHBIQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3531/review/378680616@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3531@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3531@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Import HTTP/2 Security Considerations (#3531)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e75001eb49c4_1d113fe6a44cd96473696"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/lHnUCltrh6srmxSIuxyyv9AQ2Bk>
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, 20 Mar 2020 17:41:15 -0000

LPardue commented on this pull request.

@MikeBishop these comments/suggestion address my earlier one about use of headers. I might be applying things wrong.

> +- the inclusion of uppercase header field names, or
+- the inclusion of invalid characters in header field names or values

```suggestion
- the inclusion of uppercase field names, or
- the inclusion of invalid characters in field names or values
```

> +features are strictly bounded.
+
+The number of PUSH_PROMISE frames is constrained in a similar fashion.  A client
+that accepts server push SHOULD limit the number of Push IDs it issues at a
+time.
+
+Processing capacity cannot be guarded as effectively as state capacity.
+
+The ability to send undefined protocol elements which the peer is required to
+ignore can be abused to cause a peer to expend additional processing time.  This
+might be done by setting multiple undefined SETTINGS parameters, unknown frame
+types, or unknown stream types.  Note, however, that some uses are entirely
+legitimate, such as optional-to-understand extensions and padding to increase
+resistance to traffic analysis.
+
+Header compression also offers some opportunities to waste processing resources;

Is it still called "header compression" in a post-header world?

> +A server that receives a larger header block than it is willing to handle can
+send an HTTP 431 (Request Header Fields Too Large) status code {{?RFC6585}}.  A
+client can discard responses that it cannot process.

Is this behaviour restricted to encoded blocks of Header field sections? Could a large trailer section trigger it?

-- 
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/3531#pullrequestreview-378680616