Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a Retry really need to change the CID? (#2837)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 16:34 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 C88A9120614 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 PoIvYS4XWt7J for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
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 DE9A412060E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:34:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1561394081; bh=5PGJBx/H1JBHjLaFdwZlJnd74p5aXI54pDFmLyfTKp8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=F6GQdWtLJ2yr+oI0KxBkj/Ve+Gt40d+PbuxJJB5DuM/7bClxxDGte1jQEPXRePHer YsYNIXD7A1ABK1kd86P6zEajDkvtEqueBfV22/ZP0pNX52mNysqhFs5/iMuFPEumj7 FeuWricR0TnaTsnAjEkr1pjICnADxNBCvtIsNM6E=
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZWZAMF3JPHPDB3GGV3DYXCBEVBNHHBW2NK2Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2837/505085436@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2837@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2837@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a Retry really need to change the CID? (#2837)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d10fba0f1dea_5e273fa3222cd9682495de"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/n4e-SO6BIO3zRFz-kPgcbvZrk2M>
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: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:34:44 -0000

@nibanks the retry token is part of the initial encryption associated data, so if you remove it you'll need to recompute the crypto anyway.

@marten-seemann can you elaborate on what the consequences of this attack are? It sounds like the attacker can close the connection by sending a bad retry. How is that different from having the attacker send a bad retry that changes the CID and contains a bogus retry token?

-- 
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/2837#issuecomment-505085436