Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset probes from IPs you wouldn't talk to (#3832)
ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 19:59 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 5B0493A07A1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 SJNGio1FqqtG for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1DEC3A02C1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BF46E1E19 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594238346; bh=5gOY5jWWvFLJQjxvFiskveem8RWEyEYRqdxGsYhw/bk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GQmAcC3dKMgJTGX9Pxby+v6QBdxSRAc0jA9OaZgPZy4uQycv7hzm7Tl5iBHd6BFIT h6xd0Hb3oLVkdOFWYb8TH04MAgLdDB4Omz3XLj3s+27qYQHQSbg90bRR0ebwYVHP3K 6r3+KhQqUxpzz9hStbP+VF5GpknTAOYcYCTREod4=
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 12:59:06 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZWASEJWGYDZD3VPHF5CIDIVEVBNHHCNZ6DOA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3832/655725193@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3832@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3832@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset probes from IPs you wouldn't talk to (#3832)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f06258a257d_b123fdc054cd968162979"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/thLeNm0k-eAzbpL-pUA-9DOoO70>
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: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 19:59:08 -0000
> I think that we do have this text. A [whole section](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#name-stateless-reset-oracle) in fact: > > > If a packet can be routed to different instances that share a static key, for example by changing an IP address or port, then an attacker can cause the server to send a stateless reset. > > The subtle distinction here is not that you are unable to respond, but instead unwilling. Why would you send a stateless reset when you are pretending that the route doesn't work? (Sorry, this just seems like self-inflicted harm.) In the case of unsupported migration, the thinking is that a stateless reset would cause the path validation to fail in one round trip(opposed to a timeout), which is very useful if it's the only path the client can use. I think it's worth saying something about this case, but I'd I'm not sure we need normative language. If a server thinks the best course of action is to terminate the connection in this case, then sending a stateless reset is still the right thing to do. -- 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/3832#issuecomment-655725193
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset probes… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't Stateless Reset pr… Martin Thomson