IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are random packet number skips still relevant for opportunistic ACK protection? (#1030)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Thu, 04 January 2018 10:47 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 A2D5C1205F0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 02:47:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 7AA9gcGyJ9Ul for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 02:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o7.sgmail.github.com (o7.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC5A81200C5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 02:47:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=wepgwhp9ZKPJYcifgcffouXLWik=; b=PYcXFvRdATXYox+v BQIWNauR6NOI50dMucoGfgP9Uorb1LPPt3dPEeQ3YaXTieg293UVjT68FwNrJyp3 QUUgaJSl/OJYV2y9mbY775iCT0N/ukYicWsImoQKThHmNnRNXpWSiW6ouVxT1CZZ 99nu2IizcxRRw34oqRdU7oTFar0=
Received: by filter0278p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0278p1las1-4699-5A4E0647-23 2018-01-04 10:47:36.052616119 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.16]) by ismtpd0009p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 1BzcXSJrSMmB5F6FoJX6qw for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 10:47:35.838 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 10:47:36 +0000
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab5c2fe0e2ae7606631ad5ed2bc763e8b45294421d92cf000000011665c84792a169ce10eae4f0@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1030/355252383@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1030@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1030@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are random packet number skips still relevant for opportunistic ACK protection? (#1030)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5a4e0647ae95b_75903fa66b0b8f286808a5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3Y3YPV56+jQAbggstZJS7zu5NEm8Fq6EHPiX VBj9+r9VoNXA9TuT83bU68npwXNE6SntNrVu3W7a/qQzKbqfRdsL0xxyQCw1ru+wQ+AFveSkAy3vyd Ckkvm8QfJ6fKCD3ucFWWnx8RGjwbL3JMhLmMoeGgAZoX0UmAObyKcP9iKNyhuP2VwP0AOaaBVspuwp s=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/t1jVQ1RsYQJd06DhJWbi5NOeAJ0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 04 Jan 2018 10:47:40 -0000

I realized that my comment 2 weeks ago is wrong.

The optimistic ACK attack in QUIC comes in two variants. The first is a traffic redirection attack against a third party, which can be solved by explicit path verification. The second is a resource exhaustion attack against the server.

-- 
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/1030#issuecomment-355252383

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status