Re: [EXTERNAL] Going STEK-less with QUIC?
Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Tue, 27 July 2021 22:31 UTC
Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F303A0C3B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 dYRxprEcroWy for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com (mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com [209.126.121.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BC5C3A0C37 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xse196.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.196] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx133.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1m8VbC-000xLr-6M for quic@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 00:30:57 +0200
Received: from xsmtp21.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.60]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GZBMQ747RzBCv for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.2.16] (helo=xmail06.myhosting.com) by xsmtp21.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1m8Vb0-0007Jr-S8 for quic@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:30:42 -0700
Received: (qmail 14901 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2021 22:30:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.104]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.253]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail06.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <quic@ietf.org>; 27 Jul 2021 22:30:42 -0000
To: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
References: <7265bac0-f54b-0e5b-d5b6-572550809f0f@huitema.net> <BY5PR00MB070737A84BC38992F2BFF1DA8CE99@BY5PR00MB0707.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Going STEK-less with QUIC?
Message-ID: <8f87ecf8-1d47-02eb-fef3-1f33c7547b11@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:30:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR00MB070737A84BC38992F2BFF1DA8CE99@BY5PR00MB0707.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.196
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9WLQux0N3HQm8ltz8rnu+BPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5x6h2yQpzTslcOqazQkKtAFKj/EwzSHE5FGYwwjsNRPCLfo aTHbxLRRZmk8Af0MzL/mD6wdmZPcItWbGe10hXJtXL4FsauCVkDjmcYJdU3yWp7KuHNaaKdg7iBE ZefdsNUFWKwa/wzJUjmazeC7Imcapebr0kNyYC289u5HlaNj1BQ6V51u76v35b1wNe/MvdKAGdwU TZKlze5ERymXAD3v2+J9PgaoF8SQHto3le4zsHTaeQtlKubP6iUTjj6yPARK6buALVaA782LKxg6 vRmng8N1aLhXqdc+jC1RcnVud53D5caUhbVtvqItBqoizkEt9O20UjkwI0v+LOlw05G4BS+iyyNq bT8dUMXMJ4tUCMj6G37ZfAMLceP5aNHPt26RBupu5v1nytoNnc138GfEJRQ2qC7jjynPIHPNqSn4 QTXUjLjYWQt1/5xnQymMoPsgr/U0flMcy2Vi/IcBgY4arPaiJ1W6hAyiRC61jekdwIcXNugoOEbH RyFULpSjm7jZ1h/HfDRQ5Ig8VhPsPE8NaP2gA77cO7WeI9Ftai6fusDXp7t2nLqCQxvxn0YNWXu4 x/q6zbFY0pEepy0je+yKDRojSVizNl0ce/s7u0P9b9Tml6eOMCV9kYYwkPx6ZsXvIUzTXkDAiiJi mGhLUFuS2lhaIetXfCg1JdAVrOwKfHjmlSFLrNbUj0HLYKlQsl1UoFIvD3sIcP1fhJPM6B/83SEE LO+g93vJk2il0dSyIMXt+uXnjmRg1dcRTK3/KCyJ+dym1L8cD17Js0v4cp1MUnMppqJji2tyR27S RKExCzcKVNeVJ9BXyu9+ceCqThTYg2px1fSoqxQCCHnLMo/m9VKh99btUAanjnMCAH2co+fBoeG+ Hs0afhsY/5zhNYWRVYKU9W9tbmVXJBqdHHDmZEKhyNAv1N35kYWaEdgLurFV5oTvAcwA4rM3FkfW 8/1kE/e7sUnsVpINvARNxpFO
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/PSxETbtl9o_kgA4I6z-GYHtOhYU>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:31:06 -0000
Negotiating psk_dhe_ke does mitigate some of the issues, but not all. For example, using DHE does not mitigate the secrecy issues with 0RTT. Another related issue is ensuring that tickets are used exactly once for 0RTT. That's a lot easier if the resumption server is the same as the initial server. Then for QUIC there is also the issue of clients remembering negotiated transport parameters from the initial session and reusing them in 0RTT, which breaks if the resumption server does not use the same parameters as the initial server. -- Christian Huitema On 7/27/2021 2:22 PM, Andrei Popov wrote: >> if the STEK leaks, the attackers can decrypt all the sessions that were encrypted with that STEK, and might also be able to decrypt the initial sessions. In short, STEKs are convenient but risky. > This is only a problem if the client and server negotiate psk_ke mode, rather than psk_dhe_ke, correct? > > Cheers, > > Andrei > > -----Original Message----- > From: QUIC <quic-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Huitema > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 2:02 PM > To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Going STEK-less with QUIC? > > In theory, TLS 1.3 provides strong future secrecy guarantees, but the handling of session tickets can compromise that. In theory, the session Ticket could be a simple identifier, used by the server to retrieve the context of a past session. In practice, many servers encode the relevant session context data in the session ticket itself, using a Session Ticket Encryption Key (STEK). For server farms, there is no guarantee that the resumed session will hit the same server as the initial session, so in practice all servers in the farm share the STEK. And then, we have a serious future secrecy issue: if the STEK leaks, the attackers can decrypt all the sessions that were encrypted with that STEK, and might also be able to decrypt the initial sessions. In short, STEKs are convenient but risky. > > The load balancing draft defines Connection ID formats that assure that packets get routed to the right server in a pool. I think that we could use these connection IDs to ensure that a resumed connection goes back to the same server as the initial server. The simplest implementation would be for the client to remember one of the "New connection IDs" > received in the initial session, and use that as Initial Connection ID in the resumed session. Once we do that, we get options. The server could for example have a server specific STEK, which reduces the impact of leaking STEk to just the sessions handled by that server, instead of all the sessions by servers sharing the STEK. Or, the server could just remember contexts of past sessions locally, and just place an identifier of that context in the session ticket, effectively going STEK-less. > > Would there be any interest in pursuing that idea? > > -- Christian Huitema > >
- Going STEK-less with QUIC? Christian Huitema
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Going STEK-less with QUIC? Andrei Popov
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Going STEK-less with QUIC? Christian Huitema
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Going STEK-less with QUIC? Andrei Popov
- Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC? Kazuho Oku
- Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC? Martin Thomson
- Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC? Christian Huitema
- Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC? Martin Thomson
- Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC? Christian Huitema
- Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC? Martin Duke