Re: Security of coalesced packets

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <kazuhooku@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 EA211131084 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 6LpF-HUGPAzb for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 8161C130E0E for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id b22-v6so10971711lfa.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:30:02 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qXdfSuVRWa8NebhDSsrrWVvpMzMp770DplHbMZgR6QM=; b=Ts23EwxprpNywAXiqgbcmx4LBzeVHFlxiBgwyXgzDTK9v91CFHVYiEWNwXI7nU4MAM t5Ov3mYUZdhL7DjPeo2+QuT7iCCJ2ack77Nkqa1x1phk6VvI1ypvIUsSsZVXqGsRL/3j pLGsppaQ1itRPEy9fn5eHm1G5XmvdVDlHEuv+GWvzwqC47nBuHsRDZWkZV9zivIdxnat CJtWM9SbG3Zglz6ivNGl9dm317tjQnLE8qbCanBUjmsz1XRwDhXkgGcwlhRm3TtIDOkL CMjwuQCLWYGAH0getiMvVhTX5AxHXNmFEBNp5++LP++MFEBbzNsXayvLkyuEfzQ+I0df NCjg==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qXdfSuVRWa8NebhDSsrrWVvpMzMp770DplHbMZgR6QM=; b=L+DF3GfTLVxtZMHC/AQyOSdbQL2/uOHqLvcuRoZvxnOu7N/iDhSQ+C4mKL2mQBBZ4L P7KlA1aIOmCGsr8XaXMZsZ511aepGI8vkr4ZhiPUvBJEPDL5N+qR3cn/xXNEu5xZh/f/ Oeh/7d+zBS9BB4aqqpoHk3Qg+OgyqgyEXOQjEO12m6apM9hMC3xHcefSeiJsAy7nqvy1 a4kvisMt+2nE8gOfoSiut0XZ4QbK0sQMKoGG3U9ckbegurlRoTfB5GC9X/eUz/uQiMPc 39rUd649Prdi2FCSKHBfBGU/o5BcwGwF8y7q64JiXkdL2GE5gPg8BAth0BsBAxV1b0vZ 1URw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHlnzFYtsRGxA42gRNIQ21vbSzYSxJTlO++R1q6n3WvexqDwCit 544VBZYVXn95gm7yNxrBBVFFNhe83QZdfCiMC0U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcsEJGtl3DsQOb3a6Rriof9fWldIqALcQsE0HizaC584RvWjPsBBYZq7tzQOYZit2dNsCiY/Dd9NYAlqDugnGc=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:6b03:: with SMTP id d3-v6mr838043lfa.81.1531380600598; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a2e:8996:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAN1APdfrjbZvvJj33taJpYCc2utTuHwZx8O6_um-nB7OLpFx5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1APdfrjbZvvJj33taJpYCc2utTuHwZx8O6_um-nB7OLpFx5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:30:00 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzyrfvjnZ3Y4FKiW0fRVahmArXyaJk9gt2NrZPgaOX-WaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Security of coalesced packets
To: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/eJxFrXKen0IoC-XUJgYjYDoCzI8>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:30:05 -0000

2018-07-12 15:44 GMT+09:00 Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>:
> An issues was recently closed regarding what to do when UDP datagrams
> contain coalesced QUIC packets where some are not understood. The
> requirement is that the connection ID must match in all QUIC packets but
> otherwise packets that do not verify should be buffered or ignored
> independently of other packets.
>
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1319#issuecomment-404403569
>
> There are good reasons to coalesce because it makes the early handshake much
> more efficient and there are good reasons to allow packets that do not
> verify because they may relate to key material not yet available.
>
> However, considering the effort spend in trying to avoid linkability, it
> appears to me that third-parties can easily inject tracking information in
> ordinary QUIC packets using the coalescing mechanism.

Would you mind elaborating what the additional attack vector by
allowing on-path devices to embed octets introduces?

Current design just throws away the junk. It does not affect the state
of the connection. So while it is possible for an on-path device to
alter the packet, the device cannot see if it reached the peer.

To me the situation seems indifferent to on-path devices sending
additional packet using the 5-tuple when it sees a packet belonging to
the QUIC connection.

>
> Even if the connection ID must match, it is easy to just copy the connection
> ID from the primary packet and insert a global tracking cookie near the
> source of the packet, such as in a compromised home NAT router.
>
> Tracking can also be done with ordinary tunnelling but that is sometimes
> desirable inside infrastructure, and far more difficult to manipulate
> outside such boundaries - e.g. a compromised NAT router would not be able to
> do it.
>
> These issues could be avoided by only permitting certain early packets to
> coalesce.
>
> I do not have the overview of other possible valid uses of coalescing such
> as during migration or rekeying.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
>



-- 
Kazuho Oku