IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Transport Draft Comments, mostly about error handling

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 21 August 2017 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 BA18F1321F0 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 iC3ygYqTjUjP for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (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 0B54113226B for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id o196so3129193ioe.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=faYQmuflyUCK8MQeBMf9D9zBFV4+KR8GiQqUErvldMg=; b=EGlw/dsfhhllD2wJfPAVnQMmm09zab0V9jzWqb7fFLNzAcI+XDp71MIl9hj6QLlBTK c+bD31XRDtaOM/1Sneva4OO2WnlrIBLH/B1JpGKeC1QypugjIMaj23U+ASXIM/v+eyEk udfdY9U77eteRGtT6Yt1wzTAxqkDMU7KB87cyLahJK3kJETMnbzVUIhxWxp/CFvpso+c 5FmnWLuIw6lBy6Uu+sMZ8e+/6IFF0QdUJhwbgtprPx7Wlm6KwNgiDqAu4BW7DrjOpU3l /P3LXO//1+1/TPNDlGVJQ3Dl/xz7FjnWA1gSO1v9fobA6up605jDEObG+j4n8FF76xpG K7Ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=faYQmuflyUCK8MQeBMf9D9zBFV4+KR8GiQqUErvldMg=; b=AYKIe84wSsRrInbu84Ai9GWeaOEOaXSGKU1P7PzZX1rrWsjwMIcTNJgniSRnaZdGFW lNec1NpZvHgKgVEMH4Z2NGwj0gPkBMPnHGDL2yswbhDc1/+y4/7tL/Nt5V0NCqHW0ZmQ KeY3ixlAXx+3bUq9pPYbSzoEvR65h/m8hLE85AS3aj7s5+1CTawDjePZu7X/FhXgSB1i N9NDfyOZFVQxId2beVT0y10hi/m9VgMmSd5u/G67HJbcTPepO84Szwx6eT+/FU5kpQaN mNTw7qB0JzYPk7tMkadD0RYZPUNdk9vRC0F3CpaeRDv/lp1nU5ILWxVtga/Ep7gIsuU1 kYtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5i+fMezvVxGUkSf6MxsNRveWF0aomjlJz7ixKdaIyUZdO/2aRXI pUez8GSIW9N1TAClHWSZImzkbLbupg==
X-Received: by 10.107.46.155 with SMTP id u27mr14313614iou.107.1503296660302; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.133.37 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ_4DfSp++cPnzF-M9vZZk1TNH5WGSsQ0yDH3GwTLfJYWmrQ0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM4esxSRoeXRcKwS5CCWpUC-MrrSWrDM6VXJ0584Meon_ZfDrg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ_4DfSp++cPnzF-M9vZZk1TNH5WGSsQ0yDH3GwTLfJYWmrQ0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:24:19 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUPhq8919rGUYv46PZrwvgN_kRPBaYDQnCudwKY=rJdZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Transport Draft Comments, mostly about error handling
To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/YAgdqWcxD2m-QgVVx0KCacvDIU4>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:24:23 -0000

On 19 August 2017 at 08:22, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm deep into implementing the handler for a stream frame straight from
>> the -05 spec, and there seem to be a lot of ambiguities in the errors, as
>> well as things that should probably be prohibited:
>>
>> (1) Section 8.14. Stream Frames for Stream 1 and above MUST NOT be in
>> Cleartext packets of any kind.
>>
>> (2) Section 12.2 Stream Errors: We need to have some sort of special
>> considerations for handshake, especially cleartext packets. In particular,
>> any sort of cleartext packet that triggers an error should be dropped rather
>> than causing RST_STREAM or CONNECTION_CLOSE. Otherwise it is trivially easy
>> for a man-on-the-side to abort connections.
>
>
> While I'm with you in spirit, I'm not sure about this. One downside of such
> an approach is it means that if the peer is actually broken, the local
> endpoint must keep the connection alive until it finally decides to abort
> the handshake. I'm not sure how desirable this as. As for attackers, I
> suspect it's just as easy to close the connection will a well-formed packet
> than it is with a malformed packet.

The minutes from the Prague meeting should show that we agreed that we
would rely on protection against off-path attackers only when it came
to disrupting the handshake.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email