IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] amplification attack using Retry and VN triggered by coalesced Initial packets (#2259)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 03 January 2019 23:05 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 C7302130F11 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:05:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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: 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 irv1YUpaVc0w for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26A4D130DE3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:05:12 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1546556712; bh=XF+Hw7hbIwUpswEy5iQhKy0kspb7Rzq9/jQD8rm05+E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=w+O6EPQhz+BwKe3SPbt3J1q/9o2aRKuCle+iLdORL4cByqyuLstmBh6zfgSn6nOcy l/alRfB7azyCQ6V6O25Xdkc8AAr/e/0EnCb+aQKe7yGHedjm534ADwp9cAQYGfs0kP d03slWgRWzxe2j72QclSjnDJrTyCkaHodyNZIydQ=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba01f694fb942f51010bfa516734dcc2830689c1e92cf000000011846572892a169ce177f0208@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2259/451306262@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2259@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2259@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] amplification attack using Retry and VN triggered by coalesced Initial packets (#2259)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c2e95282658c_517e3f8dc08d45b81689e7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/muqrPXLxjU0otHQ4eDCEPduKfLc>
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: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:05:15 -0000

Currently coalescing only makes sense in early packets, but as a general concept I don't like forcing ordering on processing independent packets because it affects concurrency design.

Since the problem relates to stateless transmission there is only the datagram to latch onto as a substitute for state and this sort of requires ordering as @DavidSchinazi suggests.

If instead we require that a VN or Retry can only be sent if it is triggered by the very first QUIC packet in a datagram then we avoid most of the ordering. A recommendation could be to silently drop further packets, but not require it. What could go wrong if subsequent packets were to be processed (keeping in mind that it will cause a stateful transition of successful)?


-- 
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/issues/2259#issuecomment-451306262

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email