Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:05:12 -0800
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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/muqrPXLxjU0otHQ4eDCEPduKfLc>


----==_mimepart_5c2e95282658c_517e3f8dc08d45b81689e7
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
----==_mimepart_5c2e95282658c_517e3f8dc08d45b81689e7
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>Currently coalescing only makes sense in early packets, but as a gener=
al concept I don't like forcing ordering on processing independent packet=
s because it affects concurrency design.</p>
<p>Since the problem relates to stateless transmission there is only the =
datagram to latch onto as a substitute for state and this sort of require=
s ordering as <a class=3D"user-mention" data-hovercard-type=3D"user" data=
-hovercard-url=3D"/hovercards?user_id=3D5599133" data-octo-click=3D"hover=
card-link-click" data-octo-dimensions=3D"link_type:self" href=3D"https://=
github.com/DavidSchinazi">@DavidSchinazi</a> suggests.</p>
<p>If instead we require that a VN or Retry can only be sent if it is tri=
ggered 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 s=
uccessful)?</p>

<p style=3D"font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&m=
dash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre=
ad.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href=3D"https://github.com/quic=
wg/base-drafts/issues/2259#issuecomment-451306262">view it on GitHub</a>,=
 or <a href=3D"https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkq9XE=
HkXpD7jBb8VFeSc67W63WywHks5u_oyogaJpZM4Zh5Ox">mute the thread</a>.<img sr=
c=3D"https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkq8WRuBfitvco0f1nRqt0z9-E=
ajUZks5u_oyogaJpZM4Zh5Ox.gif" height=3D"1" width=3D"1" alt=3D"" /></p>
<script type=3D"application/json" data-scope=3D"inboxmarkup">{"api_versio=
n":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name"=
:"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"=
quicwg/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"http=
s://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avata=
r_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/=
avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/q=
uicwg/base-drafts"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@=
mikkelfj in #2259: Currently coalescing only makes sense in early packets=
, but as a general concept I don't like forcing ordering on processing in=
dependent packets because it affects concurrency design.\r\n\r\nSince 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 a=
s @DavidSchinazi suggests.\r\n\r\nIf instead we require that a VN or Retr=
y 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 i=
f subsequent packets were to be processed (keeping in mind that it will c=
ause a stateful transition of successful)?\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View =
Issue","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2259#issuecomm=
ent-451306262"}}}</script>
<script type=3D"application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2259#issuecomment=
-451306262",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2259#issuecomment-45=
1306262",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>=

----==_mimepart_5c2e95282658c_517e3f8dc08d45b81689e7--