Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why does stateless reset have to be checked after MAC failure (#2152)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 27 August 2019 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4EB120908 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w1qvexRII8Bw for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03658120901 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:13:12 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1566925992; bh=Hs9eZdyTuZ7OPDuqGF9HY3rtDCVWc/CFq7wlvHLDYVc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Q32BvEmPCZl+kgh7IZDnwPN1EaCoN0SaOg5iHpv7o8eLymDlgyDtVGywb+EtB9TC5 FsE40j/1iz326IPmmYsSFPDUsty5rfKcAYP4FXoqeacEdKYTJ9Ba1Du17Yaa5P3Sxl Zjtjoia2VdW5HtHV8jG1DFDnDpcJcYCC3DgUD8E0=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2152/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why does stateless reset have to be checked after MAC failure (#2152)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d6564a830b8a_26c23fb2d18cd96c170944"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:13:15 -0000

@martinthomson That's a fair point.

Let me adjust my approach: use `PRP(stateless_reset_token)` internally comparing the stateless reset tokens. For example, we could use `AES(master_secret, stateless_reset_token)`. Then, we would not leak anything even if both the hash lookup or the comparison of the token values (now done by comparing the values permuted by AES) are not constant-time.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: