From nobody Fri Mar 20 10:41:18 2020 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:41:15 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5e75001eb49c4_1d113fe6a44cd96473696 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 ----==_mimepart_5e75001eb49c4_1d113fe6a44cd96473696 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0D

@LPardue commented on this pull request.

=0D =0D

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

=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-http.md:

=0D 
> +- the inclusion of uppercase header field=
 names, or=0D
+- the inclusion of invalid characters in header field names or values=0D=
=0D =E2=AC=87=EF=B8=8F Suggested change=0D 
-- the inclusion of uppercase header field nam=
es, or=0D
-- the inclusion of invalid characters in header field names or values=0D=

+- the inclusion of uppercase field names, or=0D
+- the inclusion of invalid characters in field names or values=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-http.md:

=0D 
> +features are strictly bounded.=0D
+=0D
+The number of PUSH_PROMISE frames is constrained in a similar fashion.  =
A client=0D
+that accepts server push SHOULD limit the number of Push IDs it issues a=
t a=0D
+time.=0D
+=0D
+Processing capacity cannot be guarded as effectively as state capacity.=0D=

+=0D
+The ability to send undefined protocol elements which the peer is requir=
ed to=0D
+ignore can be abused to cause a peer to expend additional processing tim=
e.  This=0D
+might be done by setting multiple undefined SETTINGS parameters, unknown=
 frame=0D
+types, or unknown stream types.  Note, however, that some uses are entir=
ely=0D
+legitimate, such as optional-to-understand extensions and padding to inc=
rease=0D
+resistance to traffic analysis.=0D
+=0D
+Header compression also offers some opportunities to waste processing re=
sources;=0D
=0D

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

=0D= =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-http.md:

=0D 
> +A server that receives a larger header bl=
ock than it is willing to handle can=0D
+send an HTTP 431 (Request Header Fields Too Large) status code {{?RFC658=
5}}.  A=0D
+client can discard responses that it cannot process.=0D
=0D

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

=0D =0D

&m= dash;
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre= ad.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.3D""

=0D = ----==_mimepart_5e75001eb49c4_1d113fe6a44cd96473696--